Schooner Paulina Cargo v. the United States

• Citation: 7 Cranch 52,3 L.Ed. 266,11 U.S. 52
• Parties: SCHOONER PAULINA'S CARGO v. THE UNITED STATES
• Decision Date: 15 February 1812
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

11 U.S. 52

7 Cranch 52

3 L.Ed. 266

SCHOONER PAULINA'S CARGO v. THE UNITED STATES.

February 15, 1812

Absent. Washington, justice.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Rhode Island.

The schooner Paulina and cargo were seized and libelled by the collector of the port of Newport, alleging that the cargo was laden on board, within the district of Newport, between the 1st of June and the last of July in the year 1808, in the night season, without a permit from the collector, and without the inspection of the proper revenue officers, and contrary to the 2d section of the 'act of Congress, entitled 'An act in addition to the act entitled an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, and for other purposes,' passed the 25th of April, 1808; and contrary to the 50th section of the act to regulate the collection of duties, &c. passed the 2d of March, 1799. In the District Court the vessel and cargo were both ordered to be restored.

Upon the appeal in the Circuit Court, the Libellant had leave to amend his libel, by stating that on the waters of Warwick bay, in the district of Rhode Island, at a place called the Fulling Mill in Warwick, and about 120 fathoms from the landing, at sundry times, between the 1st of June and the last of July in the year 1808, the articles constituting the cargo of the Paulina, were trans-shiped from a small sloop called the May-flower into the schooner Paulina, without the intervention of any other water craft, or of any intermediate landing, with intent to be transported without the United States, contrary to the 3d section of the act of Congress, entitled 'An act supplementary to the act entitled an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States,' passed on the 9th of January, 1808, whereby the said cargo is forfeited, &c.

The words of the 2d section of the act of 25th of April, 1808, vol. 9, p. 146, are 'That during the continuance of the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and of the several acts supplementary thereto, no ship or vessel of any description whatever, other than those described in the next preceding section, and wherever bound, shall receive a clearance, unless the lading shall be made hereafter under the inspection of the proper revenue officers, subject to the same restrictions, regulations, penalties and forfeitures, as are provided by law for the inspection of goods, wares and merchandize imported into the United States, upon which duties are imposed, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.'

By the 50th section of the act of 2d of March, 1799, vol. 4, p. 360, to regulate the collection of duties, &c. it is enacted 'that no goods, wares or merchandize, brought in any ship or vessel from any foreign port or place, shall be unladen or delivered from such ship or vessel, within the United States, but in open day, that is to say, between the rising and setting of the sun, except by special license from the collector of the port, and naval officer of the same, (where there is one) for that purpose, nor at any time without a permit from the collector, and naval officer, (if any) for such unlading or delivery; and if any goods, wares or merchandize shall be unladen or delivered from any such ship or vessel, contrary to the directions aforesaid, or any of them, the master' &c shall forfeit and pay, each and severally, the sum of 400 dollars for each offence, and shall be disabled from holding any office of trust or profit for a term not exceeding seven years,' 'and all goods, wares or merchandize, so unladen or delivered, shall become forfeited, and may be seized by any of the officers of the customs;' and if the value shall exceed 400 dollars, the vessel, &c. shall be subject to like forfeiture and seizure.

By the 3d section of the act of the 9th of January, 1808, (vol. 9, p. 11) it is enacted, 'That if any ship or vessel shall, during the continuance of the act to which this is a supplement, depart from any port of the United States without a clearance or permit, or if any ship or vessel shall, contrary to the provisions of this act or of the act to which this is a supplement, proceed to a foreign port or place, or trade with or put on board of any other ship or vessel, any goods, wares or merchandize, of foreign or domestic growth or manufacture, such ships or vessels, goods, wares and merchandize, shall be wholly forfeited;' 'and the master or commander of such ship or vessel, as well as all other persons who shall knowingly be concerned in such prohibited foreign voyage, shall each respectively forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding 20,000 dollars,' &c.

The Circuit Court affirmed the sentence of the District Court so far as it decreed the restitution of the vessel, but reversed it so far as it decreed restitution of the cargo, which the Circuit Court condemned.

To reverse this sentence of condemnation the present writ of error was sued out by Simeon Jones, the owner and Claimant of the vessel and cargo.

On the 20th of February, 1810, a dedimus was issued from the Supreme Court to take depositions in Rhode Island, which was executed and returned on the 14th of March.

The material facts appearing upon these depositions were that the former owners of the Paulina, being prevented by the embargo from using their vessel, in order to save expence, took her into Warwick bay, which was near the residence of one of the owners. Shortly afterwards they sold her to the present Claimant, Jones, who caused her to be publicly, and in open day, laden by means of the sloop May-flower, which was a little vessel of 15 tons burthen, whose usual business it was to carry goods from Providence to Warwick and East Greenwich. That he thus caused her to be laden in the expectation that the embargo would be very shortly taken off. There was also some evidence tending to excite suspicion that the intention was to evade the embargo.

PITKIN, for the Plaintiff in Error.

Neither this vessel nor cargo were liable to forfeiture under either of the laws mentioned in the libel.

1. As to the 2d section of the act of the 25th of April, 1808, (vol. 9, p. 146.) It has been uniformly decided in all the Circuit Courts, that this section does not impose a forfeiture of either the vessel or cargo. In the present case Judge Cushing condemned the cargo, nor under this section, but under the 3d section of the act of the 9th of January, 1808, which prohibits the trans: shipment. The only penalty for lading the vessel without the inspection of a revenue officer, is the refusal of a clearance. The 2d section of the act of the 25th of April does not refer to the 50th section of the collection law, but to the 53d, 54th and 55th sections, which apply to the duties of inspectors, and provide for their due execution by penalties, but they contain no regulation whereby either the vessel or cargo can be forfeited. The construction contended for by the government is contrary to the spirit of the embargo system. Nothing had been before said respecting the lading of a vessel. She might lade as she pleased, and might go to sea upon giving bond, & c. This act is the first which regulates the lading.

The object of the embargo was to prevent foreign voyages. The provision that the lading should be under the inspection of a revenue officer, was intended to enable the collector to judge from the nature of the cargo whether it was intended for a foreign voyage; and if he should be of that opinion, he was, by the same law, authorised to detain the vessel until the pleasure of the President should be known. The object of the legislature was completely answered by denying a clearance, and thereby preventing the vessel from going to sea, in case she had taken in her lading without the inspection of a revenue officer. It was not intended to prevent the owner from using his vessel as a store-house without a permit, or from putting goods on board without the inspection of an officer.

That this was the understanding of the legislature upon the subject is evident from the act of the 9th of January, 1809, usually called the enforcing act, the 2d section of which (vol. 9, p. 186) requires a permit, and prohibits the lading of any vessel without one, and without the inspection of a revenue officer, all which would have been necessary if the law was the same before.

2. As to the 3d section of the act of the 9th of January, 1808, (vol. 9, p. 11) the supposed violation of which is, by the amendment of the libel, made a ground for the claim of condemnation of the cargo, it does not apply to a lading or trans-shipment in port.

The objects of this law were three:

1. To prevent a vessel from departing without a clearance.

2. To prevent her, after having obtained a clearance, from goint to a foreign port; and

3. To prevent her, after clearance, from taking in goods at sea.

It does not contemplate an act done in port. The expression 'such prohibited foreign voyage,' shews that the legislature were contemplating foreign voyages only, and not merely the lading of a vessel in port. There were many ports in which a vessel could not be laden but by the intervention of lighters. It cannot be supposed that the legislature meant to prohibit all lading at those ports. The act of 25th of April has an express exception in favor of all vessels then laden, without regard to the manner of their lading; so also has the act of the 9th of January, 1809.

DALLAS, Attorney of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, contra.

Penal laws are to be construed according to their plain intent. No construction ought to be given which would defeat the object of the law.

1. As to the claim of forfeiture under the 2d section of the act of the 25th of April, 1808, and the 50th section of the collection law.

Let us consider what was the previous...