Otis v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 10 March 1815
• Citation: 13 U.S. 339,3 L.Ed. 752,9 Cranch 339
• Parties: OTIS v. WATKINS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

13 U.S. 339

9 Cranch 339

3 L.Ed. 752

OTIS v. WATKINS.

March 10, 1815

Absent. TODD, J.

ERROR to the Supreme Judicial Court of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the 25th section of the judiciary law of the United States, vol. 1, p. 63, in an action of trespass by Watkins against Otis, a deputy collector for the district of Barnstable, for taking, carrying away and destroying the Plaintiff's schooner Friendship and her cargo of cod-fish.

The Defendant pleaded that he was a deputy collector for the distriet of Barnstable; that by the 11th section of the act of congress of the 25th of April, 1808, (vol. 9, p. 150) it is enacted, 'that the collectors of the customs be, and they are hereby respectively authorized to detain any vessel ostensibly bound with a cargo to some other port of the United States whenever, in their opinions, the intention is to violate or evade any of the provisions of the acts laying an embargo, until the decision of the president of the United States be had thereupon.' That the schooner Friendship with her cargo, was lying in the harbor of Provincetown, in the district of Barnstable, ostensibly bound to some other port in the United States, in the opinion of the collector, with an intent to violate or evade the provisions of the acts aforesaid; whereupon the collector, by the Defendant, his deputy, caused the said vessel and her cargo to be detained and removed from the port and harbor of Provincetown to the port and harbor of Barnstable, that she might be securely kept; and there also caused her to be detained, as it was lawful for him to do, so that the decision of the president of the United States might be had thereupon; and that the president, afterwards, on the 3d of January, 1809, upon the report and representation of the said collector, approved and confirmed the detention; all which is the same taking, &c. To this plea there was a general replication and issue, upon the trial of which a bill of exceptions was taken, which stated that the Defendant, in order to shew that the collector had reasonable ground to believe that this vessel intended to violate or evade the embargo laws offered in evidence the deposition of an inspector of the customs who testified that he went on board the schooner, at Provincetown, which was wholly laden with fish in bulk, and a barrel of beef and a number of packages of small stores and three or four barrels of water. That he supposed she was bound to sea and gave information thereof, and of his suspicions, to the collector. That she had also a number of kegs of pickled oysters on board; and that he judged that the groceries were sufficient for the crew of such a vessel for thirty days, and that he had no doubt of her being bound to sea; which was the reason of his giving the information. Upon cross-examination he said he had never lived in the county of Barnstable, and did not know the course and manner of their trade and navigation. It further appeared in evidence, that on the 19th of December, 1808, written orders were given, by the collector, to one Andrew Garrett to detain the schooner, then lying in Provincetown harbor, and bring her to the port of Barnstable, and there secure her in the best manner possible. That the distance from Provincetown to Barnstable is about 30 miles by water. That on the voyage she accidentally ran on a point of land, and could not be got off until she was frozen up in the ice, and there remained until March following, when she was got off, and brought up to the wharf and her cargo unladen and safely stored. That about 70 quintals of cod-fish were damaged, but the residue was in good order. That when she was so detained she had nine barrels of water on board, but no bread. That her sails were on shore. That on the 24th of December, 1808, the collector wrote to the secretary of the treasury that he had detained the schooner Friendship, loaded with dry cod-fish and evidently intended for a foreign port, as she had an unusual quantity of small stores on board sufficient for such a voyage and fully watered, that their plea was that she was intended for a store ship, and a neighboring market, both of which it was sufficiently evident were without foundation. That on the 3d of January the secretary answered, that the detention of the schooner was approved and confirmed by the president. That the collector had used due care and diligence in the preservation of the vessel and cargo. That on the 30th of January, 1809, the secretary of the treasury wrote to the collector, authorizing him to release all vessels detained by him under the said 11th section of the act aforesaid, on bond being given, in the manner and to the amount provided by the 2d section of the act of January 9th, 1809. That on the 15th of February, 1809, the collector sent the following written notice to the Plaintiff, Watkins, dated at the custom house. 'Sir, I hereby request of you as the owner of the schooner Friendship, of Provincetown, detained by order under the 11th section of the embargo law of the 25th of April, 1808, at Barnstable, to give bond here, within three days after giving this notification, agreeable to the second section of the act to enforce the embargo passed on the 9th ultimo.

I am, sir, your humble servant,

JOSEPH OTIS, Collector.'

But that Watkins wholly refused to give such bond. That on the 21st of March, 1808, the collector wrote to the comptroller of the treasury, stating that on the 24th of December, he had detained the schooner Friendship under the embargo law for loading with cod-fish without a permit, which detention was approved and confirmed by the president. That on the passage of the act of the 9th of January, 1809, he notified the owner that if he would give bond agreeably to the second section of the same, he would give her up to him, which he utterly refused to do, or to unload his vessel, for more than a fortnight. That he wished to know whether she ought not to be libelled.

To this letter the comptroller replied, referring the collector to the attorney for the district. That the vessel was afterwards libelled in the district Court, for having taking her cargo on board in the night, without a license, and without the inspection of the proper inspecting officers of the port. Upon trial she was acquitted.

The Plaintiff also produced a laborer who stowed the fish on board the schooner who testified that the vessel 'was destined to Boston for a market,' and that the vessel and cargo were much injured in consequence of the detention. He also produced testimony that it was usual for vessels going from Provincetown to take water enough on board to last them to Boston and for two or three weeks, because the people did not like the Boston water. That it was usual to take eight or ten barrels on such a voyage. Whereupon the judge who tried the cause (chief justice Parsons) charged the jury 'that the several matters and things so given in evidence by the Defendant, Otis, did not in law maintain the issue on his part; and also that it was the duty of the collector, as collector, to have used reasonable care in ascertaining the facts on which to form an opinion; and to transmit to the president a statement of those facts for his decision.'

The verdict and judgment being against the Defendant he brought his writ of error.

The case was submitted to this Court, by J. Law, for the Plaintiff in error, and by J. READ, of Massachusetts, for the Defendant, upon written notes of argument.

J. LAW, for the Plaintiff in error.

The question for consideration, by this Court on this appeal, arises on the bill of exceptions taken to the opinion and instruction of the judge before whom the trial was held in the state Court. It divides itself into two branches.

1. Whether the several matters, given in evidence by Otis and spread on the record, maintain the issue on his part.

2. Whether it was his duty to have used reasonable care in ascertaining the facts on which to form an opinion; and to transmit a statement of those facts to the president for his decision.

1. Ga the first point it will be observed that the issue joined is, that at the time of the detention the vessel was ostensibly bound to some other port of the United States, in the opinion of the collector, with an intent to violate or evade the provisions of the act of April 25, 1808; that the vessel was removed from Provincetown to Barnstable, that she might be securely kept until the decision of the president thereon; and that the president approved and confirmed the said detention.

Is there any evidence to show that the collector did not entertain an opinion that the said vessel was ostensibly bound to some other port in violation of the embargo? The information he received came from an agent of the government, Isaac Cooper, who was inspector of customs. He stated to the collector, not merely his suspicions, but his belief. He also stated, as the grounds of his belief, that the vessel was fully watered, and contained a sufficient quantity of groceries, stores and provisions for a foreign voyage: information which is satisfactorily proved to have been correct, and which was sufficient to excite a just suspicion of the intention of the owners of the vessel. At any rate these circumstances of suspicion were sufficiently strong to repel any implication of mala fides in the collector in forming his opinion.

It is, however, contended on the part of Watkins that information, coming from such a source, is not to be respected, because Cooper was unacquainted with the course of trade from Provincetown to Boston; and the quantity of water on board the schooner was only such as is generally taken in such voyages. The fact whether Cooper was acquainted or not with the course of trade is immaterial. The only question is, did Otis believe that he was competent to give correct information on the point. He certainly did think so; at any rate there is no evidence to the contrary;...