Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 2.djvu/488



liable to be seized on her return, although that act gives a penalty of double her value, in case she should not be seized. United States v. The brig Eliza, 7 Cranch, 113; 2 Cond. Rep. 437.A merchant vessel captured as prize, condemned and sold, and afterwards purchased by her former master, a citizen of the United States, who obtained a Danish burgher’s brief, and who cleared out of a port of the United States as a Dane, is a foreign ship within the fifth section of the, supplementary to the embargo act, although the purchaser was yet a citizen of the United States. The schooner Good Catherine v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 349; 2 Cond. Rep. 525.By the 11th section of the, the collector had no right to detain a vessel and her cargo, after her arrival at her port of destination, under a suspicion that she intended to violate the embargo, and such suspicions could not be justified by instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury nor the confirmation of the President. Otis v. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 589; 2 Cond. Rep. 618.Under the 11th section of the, the collector was justified in detaining a vessel by his honest opinion that there was an intention to violate or evade the provisions of the embargo laws. It was not necessary for him to show that his suspicions were reasonable. Crowell et al. v. M’Faddon, 8 Cranch, 94; 3 Cond. Rep. 48.A bond taken under the first section of the embargo, is not void, although taken by consent of the parties, after the vessel had sailed. Speake et al. v. The United States, 9 Cranch, 28; 3 Cond. Rep. 244.The obligors are estopped to deny that the penalty of the bond is double the true value of the cargo. Ibid.Under the third section of the, a vessel is not subject to forfeiture, for departing without a clearance, unless she has departed out of port. The Active v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 100; 2 Cond. Rep. 431.It seems to be a good defence to an action on an embargo bond, that the same was given for more than twice the value of the cargo, and that the obligors were constrained to execute it by the refusal of a clearance. United States v. Gordon et al., 7 Cranch, 287; 2 Cond. Rep. 494.If the collector justify a detention under the, sec. 11, he need not show that his opinion was correct, nor that he used reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts on which his opinion was founded. Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch, 339; 3 Cond. Rep. 424. See Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1; Otis v. Walter, 2 Wheat. 18; 4 Cond. Rep. 10.Under the embargo act of December 22, 1807, the words, “an embargo shall be laid,” not only imposed upon the public officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sea-lettered vessels on a foreign voyage, but consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the In such a case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable. The William King, 2 Wheat. 148; 4 Cond. Rep. 71.Under the, a vessel not arriving at her port of original destination, excites an honest suspicion in the collector, that a demand of a permit to land a cargo, was merely colourable; this is not a termination of the voyage, so as to preclude the right of detention. Otis v. Walter, 11 Wheat. 192; 6 Cond. Rep. 270.Under the 5th section of the, “a foreign vessel,” means a vessel navigating under the flag of a foreign power; and not a vessel owned in whole or in part by foreigners, domicilled in the United States. The Sally, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 58.A departure from any place within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, although such place be not within any port, is within the embargo act of December 22, 1807. The Ann, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 62.A vessel, which during the existence of the embargo laws, departed from one port of the United States to another, but was obliged from irrestistible necessity, to put into a foreign port, and sell her cargo, was not guilty of a violation of the embargo laws. The Brig William Gray, Paine’s C. C. R. 16.The embargo law was passed December 22, 1807. A vessel cleared for St. Mary’s, Georgia, on the 15th of January; the collector received information of the passage of the law, and gave notice of it. It did not appear that this was known to the master or owners previous to the sailing. Being seized for a violation of the law, the court ordered her restitution. The Cotton Planter, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 23.To excuse a vessel which has sailed under an embargo bond, from re-landing her cargo in the United States, under this clause, “the perils of the sea only excepted,” the accident must happen without any fault or negligence of the master, and must occur at sea: or if at land, it must be the immediate consequence of the peril happening at sea. United States v. Hall et al., 2 Wash. C. C. R. 366. See the United States v. The Nancy, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 281. The United States v. Morgan et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 10. The United States v. Mitchell et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 95.The third section of the embargo act of December 22, 1807, was not repealed by the. The Argo, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 314.A libel against a vessel violating the embargo laws, must contain a substantial statement of the offence, with reasonable precision. 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 347. hereby is laid on all ships and vessels in the ports and places within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, cleared or not cleared, bound to any foreign port or place; and that no clearance be furnished to any ship or vessel bound to such foreign port or place, except vessels under the immediate direction of the President of the United States: and that the President be authorized to give such instructions to the officers of the revenue, and of the navy and revenue cutters of the United States, as shall appear best adapted for carrying the same into full effect: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the departure of any foreign ship or vessel, either in ballast, or with the goods, wares and merchandise on board of such foreign ship or vessel, when notified of this act.