« PreviousContinue »
on April 6, 1812, and this was followed on the 14th of April by an act prohibiting exportations by land. Mr. Grundy said that he understood that this embargo was 66 a war measure" and was meant to lead directly to war, and Mr. Calhoun afterwards declared "its manifest propriety as a prelude.'
By the act of December 17, 1813, passed while the war with Great Britain was in progress, the exportation of all produce or live stock was prohibited, and for this purpose an embargo was laid upon the coasting trade. On January 18, 1814, the President recommended the repeal of the act, which was found to be very onerous in its operation, and it was repealed by Congress on the 14th of April.
Message of President Jefferson, Dec. 18, 1807, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. III. 25; act of December 22, 1807, 2 Stat. 451, 452. This act was supplemented by the acts of January 9, 1808, 2 Stat. 453; March 12, 1808, 2 Stat. 473; April 25, 1808, 2 Stat. 499; Jan. 9, 1809, 2 Stat. 506. See, also, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4451-4455; Von Holst's Calhoun, 19; Quincy's Speeches, 31, 53. 247; 5 Jefferson's Works, 227, 252, 258, 271, 289, 336, 341, 352; Lossing's Encyc. of U. S. History, tit. "Embargo; " 1 Ingersoll's Second War, 1st series, 485. For report of the Senate committee of April 16, 1808, on the British and French aggressions on American shipping and sustaining the policy of the embargo, see Am. State Papers, For. Rel. III. 220.
In 1824 Mr. Jefferson stated that when he sent his message of Dec. 18, 1807, to Congress he had in his possession an English newspaper containing the orders in council of the 11th of November. (Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, July 14, 1824, 7 Jefferson's Works, 373.) Mr. Clay, Speaker of the House, in a private letter, dated March 15, 1812, addressed to Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, writes:
"Since I had the pleasure of conversing with you this morning I have concluded, in writing, to ask a consideration of the following propositions:
"That the President recommend an embargo to last, say, 30 days, by a
"That a termination of the embargo be followed by war; and
"The objection to an embargo is that it will impede sales. The advan-
It will, (Monroe
"When a war with England was seriously apprehended in 1794, I approved of an embargo, as a temporary measure to preserve our seamen and property, but not with any expectation that it would influence England. I thought the embargo, which was laid a year ago, a wise and prudent measure for the same reason, namely to preserve
our seamen and as much of our property as we could get in, but not with the faintest hope that it would influence the British councils. At the same time I confidently expected that it would be raised in a few months. I have not censured any of these measures, because I knew the fond attachment of the nation to them; but I think the nation must soon be convinced that they will not answer their expectations. The embargo and the nonintercourse laws, I think, ought not to last long. They will lay such a foundation of disaffection to the National Government as will give great uneasiness to Mr. Jefferson's successor, and produce such distractions and confusions as I shudder to think of."
Mr. J. Adams to Mr. Varnum, Dec. 26, 1808, 9 John Adams's Works, 606. For an exposition of the circumstances under which the embargo statutes were repealed, see Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Giles, Dec. 25, 1825, 7 Jefferson's Works, 424.
For William Pinkney's view of the embargo, see 3 Randall's Jefferson, 257.
For the views of Mr. Gallatin, see 1 Gallatin's Works, 478.
Under the embargo act of December 22, 1807, 2 Stat. 451, the words "an embargo be and hereby is laid " not only imposed upon the public. officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sealetter vessels on a foreign voyage, but prohibited their sailing, and consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the supplementary act of January 9, 1808, 2 Stat. 453.
In such case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable to forfeiture; but if the capture, under which it was alleged that the vessel was compelled to go to a foreign port, was fictitious and collusive, she was liable to condemnation.
The William King (1817), 2 Wheat. 148.
The embargo act of April 25, 1808, 2 Stat. 499, related only to vessels ostensibly bound to some port in the United States, and a seizure after the termination of the voyage is unjustifiable; and no further detention of the cargo is lawful than what is necessarily dependent on the detention of the vessel. It is not essential to the determination of a voyage that the vessel should arrive at her original destination; it may be produced by stranding, stress of weather, or any other cause inducing her to enter another port with a view to terminate her voyage bona fide.
Otis v. Walter (1817), 2 Wheaton, 18.
It was no offense against the embargo act of Jan. 9, 1808, to take goods f one vessels and put them into another in the port of Baltimore, unless it be done with an intent to export them.
Juliana v. United States (1810), 6 Cranch, 327.
A vessel which proceeded to a foreign port contrary to the act of January 9, 1808, was liable to seizure upon her return, though the act provided for a penalty in case she should not be seized.
United States v. Brig Eliza (1812), 7 Cranch, 113.
In a prosecution under section 3 of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, it was held that the evidence of necessity which would excuse a violation of the law must be very clear and positive.
Brig James Wells v. United States (1812), 7 Cranch, 22.
This section did not forbid the lading of a vessel by means of craft whose business was confined to rivers, bays, and sounds in the United States.
Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. United States (1812), 7 Cranch, 52.
Nor did its prohibition of any vessel to "depart from any port of the United States without a clearance or permit" cover the case of a vessel which had left the wharf and proceeded a mile and a half there from with intent to go to sea, but had not actually left the port. Sloop Active v. United States, (1812), 7 Cranch, 100,
It seems that a schooner, which was "originally an American vessel, but had been captured and condemned as prize, and purchased by Hurst, her former master, an American citizen," was forfeited as a foreign vessel, under section 5 of the act of January 9, 1808, on the strength of "the capture, condemnation, and sale, and the Danish burgher's brief, which the master had obtained."
Schooner Good Catharine v. United States (1813), 7 Cranch, 349. This case is very imperfectly reported, and no opinion appears to have been delivered.
Semble, that it was a good defense to an action on an embargo bond that it was given for more than double the value of the vessel and cargo, and that the master was constrained to execute it by the refusal of a clearance.
United States v. Gordon (1813), 7 Cranch, 287.
Quære: Whether a registered vessel, which had a clearance from one port to another of the United States, was forfeitable under the embargo acts of December 22, 1807, and January 9, 1808, for going to a foreign port. The court was "not convinced" that she was not, but did not decide the point.
Brig Short Staple v. United States (1815), 9 Cranch, 55.
A bond was given under the act of December 22, 1807, commonly called the embargo act, to reland certain goods in the United States,
"the dangers of the seas only excepted." Held, that the case of a vessel driven by stress of weather into a port of the West Indies, where the authorities compelled the cargo to be sent ashore and sold, came within the exception.
United States v. Hall (1810), 6 Cranch, 171.
A bond taken under section 1 of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, is not void because it was given by consent of parties after the vessel had sailed.
Speake v. United States (1815), 9 Cranch, 28.
By section 11 of the embargo act of April 25, 1808, the collectors of customs were “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." It was held that this section did not authorize the seizure of a vessel which had actually arrived at her port of discharge and had received from the collector of the port a permit to land her cargo, and that such a seizure could not be justified by instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury and the confirmation of the President.
Otis v. Bacon (1813), 7 Cranch, 589.
Though a voyage may be terminated by stranding, by stress of weather, or by any other cause inducing an honest entry into another port with a view to terminate the voyage, yet a mere colorable entry into such other port will not suffice.
Otis . Walter (1817), 2 Wheat., 18.
Under the eleventh section of the act of the 25th of April, 1808, 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 suspicion was reasonable.
Crowell v. McFadon (1814), 8 Cranch, 94.
Under the embargo act of April 25, 1808, it was not necessary to show probable cause for the vessel's detention, but only a bona fide effort to execute the law.
Otis v. Walter (1817), 2 Wheat., 18.
Section 11 of the act of April 25, 1808, gave no power to seize the cargo specifically, or to detain it if separated from the vessel.
Slocum . Mayberry (1817), 2 Wheat., 1.
Otis v. Walter (1817), 2 Wheat., 18.
June 13, 1798, the President approved an act of Congress to suspend commercial intercourse between the United States and France and her dependencies. This was followed by acts to increase the naval armament of the United States, and to authorize the raising of a provisional army and the defense of American merchant vessels against French depredations, as well as by various other acts which brought about the state of limited hostilities between the United States and France.
Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4426.
See, also, Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, to Mr. Latimer, Oct. 27, 1798, 10
In November, 1798, the owner of the American schooner Juno, which was then bound for the island of St. Croix, such owner being a resident of the United States, gave bond to the collector of customs at New York against the schooner's being used in violation of the act of Congress of June 13, 1798, establishing nonintercourse with France. At St. Croix the schooner was sold to a resident Danish subject, by whom she was afterwards sent to a French island. Her name was changed to the Jennett, under which she subsequently entered the port of New York, where she was seized and detained for an alleged violation of the bond. It was held that the law "did not intend to affect the sale of vessels of the United States, or to impose any disability on the vessel, after a bona fide sale and transfer to a foreigner;" that this point was settled in the case of the Charming Betsy, with which decision the court" was well satisfied."
Marshall, C. J. Sands v. Knox (1806), 3 Cranch, 499.
September 20, 1808, the ship Helen was seized for a violation of the act of Congress of February 28, 1806, 2 Stat. 351, suspending commercial intercourse with certain ports in Santo Domingo. The libel was dismissed on the ground that the act had expired April 25, 1808.
United States v. Ship Helen (1810), 6 Cranch, 203.
As to nonintercourse with Santo Domingo, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations,
Where a vessel was condemned and sold, and the money paid over to the United States, under the act prohibiting trade with certain ports of Santo Domingo, the Supreme Court made a general order for