Robert Harrison, United States Consul, Plaintiff v. George Vose
Citation | 9 How. 372,50 U.S. 372,13 L.Ed. 179 |
Parties | ROBERT M. HARRISON, UNITED STATES CONSUL, PLAINTIFF, v. GEORGE C. VOSE |
Decision Date | 01 January 1850 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
'By the second section of the act of 28th February, 1803, it is made the duty of every master of a vessel, belonging to citizens of the United States, who shall sail from any part of the United States, on his arrival at a foreign port, to deposit his register, sea-letter, or Mediterranean passport with the consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, if any there be at such port. In case of refusal or neglect, he is subjected to a penalty of five hundred dollars. And the same section makes it the duty of such consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, 'on such master or commander producing to him a clearance, from the proper officer of the port where his ship or vessel may be, to deliver to the said master or commander all of his said papers.'
'I have the honor to be, respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant,
.'
'Attorney-General's Office, September, 26, 1849.
'HON. JOHN M. CLAYTON, Secretary of State.
'Sir,—The question you have submitted to this office, upon the letter of F. H. Whitmore, Esq., of New Haven, Connecticut, of the 10th September, 1849, 'respecting the demand made by the United States commercial agent at St. Thomas, in all cases of the arrival at that port of an American vessel, whether business is or is not done by her, that the register, &c., be deposited with him,' I have considered.
'The legality of the demand depends upon the proper construction of the second section of the act of Congress of the 28th February, 1803, supplementary to the 2 Statutes at Large, 203.
'By the words of the first part of the section, the master of an American vessel, sailing from a port in the United States, is required to deposit his register, sea-letter, and Mediterranean...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wooden v. United States
...is well settled ... that all reasonable doubts concerning its meaning ought to operate in favor of [the defendant]." Harrison v. Vose , 9 How. 372, 378, 13 L.Ed. 179 (1850) (emphasis added).2 Nineteenth century treatises seeking to record the rule put the point this way: "[I]f there is such......
-
Cargill v. Garland
..."all reasonable doubts concerning [the] meaning [of a penal statute] ... operate in favor of [the defendant]." Harrison v. Vose , 50 U.S. (9 How.) 372, 378, 13 L.Ed. 179 (1850). We apply the rule of lenity where "reasonable doubt persists about a [criminal] statute's intended scope." Moskal......
-
Cargill v. Garland
... Michael Cargill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merrick Garland, in his l capacity as U.S. Attorney General; United States Department of Justice; Steven Dettelbach, ... operate in favor of [the defendant]." Harrison v. Vose , 50 U.S. 372, 378 (1850). We apply ......
-
Shell Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123, 19 L.Ed. 382 (1869); Arnold v. United States, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 104, 3 L.Ed. 671 (1815); Harrison v. Vose, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 372, 381, 13 L.Ed. 179 (1850); Mata v. United States, 1 Cir., 19 F.2d 484, 486 (1927); American Sugar Refining Co. v. Bidwell, C.C., 124 F. 683......