Robert Harrison, United States Consul, Plaintiff v. George Vose

Citation9 How. 372,50 U.S. 372,13 L.Ed. 179
PartiesROBERT M. HARRISON, UNITED STATES CONSUL, PLAINTIFF, v. GEORGE C. VOSE
Decision Date01 January 1850
CourtUnited 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.'

'Taking the whole section together, it is very obvious that Congress required the papers of an American vessel in a foreign port to be delivered to the consul only where it was necessary to make an entry at the custom-house. It is on the master's producing a clearance that the consul is to return him his papers, and there can be no clearance where there is no entry. If an American vessel arrive at her port of discharge, or if, for any reason other than the purpose of trading with the whole or portion of her cargo, she shall remain so long that by the law of the country an entry is required, she must enter at the custom-house of such port, and in all such cases the master must deposit his register. But the law does not extend the duty beyond this. A requisition of a deposit of papers, in all cases of arrival, where by the local laws an entry is not necessary, and where there is no trading or purpose to trade, might add to consular emlouments, but would prove extremely embarrassing to the navigating interest. The object of the law is to compel masters of vessels belonging to American owners, sailing from American ports, to respect our own laws, and those of the foreign countries to whose ports they may go for the purpose of trade; and this object is attained by requiring them to exhibit the evidence of their being lawful traders to our consuls, at the ports where they have to enter. Beyond this, neither the law nor good policy requires that their duty shall extend.

'I have the honor to be, respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant,

'JNO. Y. MASON.'

'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 'Act concerning consuls and vice-consuls, and for the further protection of American seamen.' 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
37 cases
  • Wooden v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 7, 2022
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 6, 2023
    ..."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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 6, 2023
    ... 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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1965
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT