網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]

his capture. As the second growed. I can. not think that the evidence was such as sanctioned the decree of the district court; for besides that the fact is but feebly established by the witnesses who swear to it, when their testimoney is compared with each other and with that of the officers--as the only witness who testifies to the national character of the four men said to have been enlist.

cans, and to have come on board the capturing ves sels to enter the case has never been included in any of the penal laws passed by congress on this subject, nor has foreign governments any ground for claiming from the United States, that such a case should have been included. The fact of illegal equipment therefore I consider as unsubstantiated. With regard to the first and principal ground on which the decree is founded, I am of opinion that it is one of more delicacy than real difficulty.

(Tucker's Black 366) nd he suprem cour of the state of New York, [in, I believe, Glen. vs. Andges, 9th Jodn 67] with approbation, and which has been recognized in many cases before the judges and courts of this country; no reason has been suggested to influence a deviation from this current of authority; and the case as regards this point is considered clear of doubt or difficulty. Before the passage of the act of congress, owned, proves them to have been foreigners, not Ameri. ers of slaves escaping into other states must have resort to the laws of these states, for the recovery of their property-they had no other means of re dress; but when, in conformity to the constitution provision, congress legislated and provided a remedy commensurate with the object in view, it superceded any state regulation then existing or that might thereafter be adopted. The idea of another concurrent in the federal and state governments appears to have been carried too far in the argu. ment and if admitted, would be pregnant with the greatest mischief-and the source of perpetual collisions between the states and the general go vernment. The cases of taxation, &c. are not ap. posite-A concurrent power may be exerted, on the same subject, for different purposes, but not for the attainment of the same end. If laws of the same tenor and effect are enacted, one must be useless but if they differ in the remedy, and in the mode of obtaining it, their relative authority must be determined from a recurrence to the source from whence they originated. In the formation of the constitution of the United States, the states parted with this authority, and devolved it upon the general government, and it is a privilege secured to the people of the states respectively, to to seek redress before the tribunals, and in the mode designated by congress.

To have dismissed the libel, it was not necessary to recognize the independence of Buenos Ayres as one of the family of nations. The indisputable. fact known to all the world, and recognized by our own executive, in many official communications, of the existence of open, solemn war between Spain and an extensive and powerful colony, is enough to impose on us, as a nation, the duties of neutrality. The colosy asserts, the social compact is violated by the parent state, and the state of dependence or allegiance no longer ex sting--on this question an appeal is made to the God of armies, and no inferior tribunal ought to interfere. The colony claims from us no acknowledgment of her independence-she only demands of us to leave her in possession of what she can win by arms. Spain, unable to rescue by force, solicits our aid to seize, in violation of the rights of hospitality, the proBy the law of congress, a judge, or magistrate, is perty that has been forced into our harbors-our competent to decide, finally, the service of the duty is to lend our aid to neither, but to leave owner, but by the law of the state, if satisfied of them as we find them, rigidly adhereing to the the validity of the claim, he is to certify the case duties of neutrality. This is not a piratical capture, to the circuit court, the former case is to be and therefore not a case within the provisions of determined in a summary way according to the our treaty with Spain-it is a seizure in the exerlatter, by a court aided by a jury-by the former cise of the rights of war, not by one who wages war there is a discretionary power as to the reception against the human race, but one who has singled of evidence in support of the claim, by the latter out Spain for the sole antagonist. All seizures of the cause must be conducted as is usual in suits at property within our limits, we are bound by that common law, and it is unnecessary to enquire whe-treaty to prevent, but the duty to restore, is con ther one or the other is best calculated to promote fined solely to the case of rescue from those whom the ends of justice. It is sufficient that congress have prescribed the mode, and the motion must therefore be overruled.

Indiana Guz.

Patriot Privateering.

we can recognize as pirates. In the case of Palmer and others, in the supreme court, the principles laid down by the chief justice, excluded all idea that this was a piratical capture. It was then a seizure jure belli, and the rights of war are necessarily commensurate with the power of maintaining it openly and solemnly, more especially upon the

U. States circuit court, at Charleston, March, 1819. high seas; the jurisdiction of which is not susceptible Antoniono Argote Villalobus,

CONSUL OF SPain,

VS.

>DECREE.

of that demarkation and appropriation which takes place on the land. This conflict has long been carried on between the colony and parent state. THE SCHR. CONCEPCION AND CARGO. The event is at least doub'fal-it is on both sides Opinion Johnson, judge.—This vessel and cargo an assertion of a supposed existing right, and neiare clearly Spanish property, and the Corvette La ther can claim of a nation to whom their disputes Union, by which she was captured, was a com- are inimaterial any act of interference which may missioned cruiser of the republican or revolted involve it in a contest with the victor. Much has province, (for names prove nothing) of Buenos been said, and some cases and opinions cited to Ayres. The prize put into this port in distress, shew that this court cannot recognize the indepenwas libelled by the Spanish consul in behalf of the dence of a revolted colony, until that recognition Spanish owners, and by the decree of the district shall have proceeded from our own government or court, ordered to be restored, on two grounds—1s. the parent state. There was a time when this counThat the courts of this government cannot re-try negociated and fought to maintain a different cognize the commission under Buenos Ayres-2d, doctrine-and it will be recollected that, in the That the capturing vessel had recruited men while opinion before expressed, I have not thought it ne lying in the mouth of the Mississippi in the month (cessary, in this case, to assert a different doctrine. of April last, which men were on board at the time But as the doctrine in this point, is no where

laid down fully to my satisfaction, I will embrace | cargo. The same rule cannot be applied indifferthis opportunity, to state briefly my views of this ently to both parties claimants. If the residue subject. The recognition of our own government, ought to be restored to the Spanish claimant, then whatever be the state of fact, removes all question no salvage can be demanded; if the treaty applies or doubt, and our courts must consider the govern- to the case, or if it does not apply, then much highments thus recognized, as independent-and so theer salvage ought to be paid, than if it be adjudged recognization of the parent state actually produces to the captor. The principal question in the case, a state of independence. But courts exercising then, is forced upon me before I can dispose of that jurisdiction of international law, may often be salvage; and here I cannot hesitate on the decision called upon to deduce the fact of national inde- that must be made. The law of nations requires of pendence from history, evidence or public notoriety, the United States the observation of strict neutrawhere there has been no formal public recognition. [lity between the belligerents. Flagrante bello, no The actual possession and long exercise of all the neutral nation is bound to pursue a course of conattributes of a state of independence, may be duct that may, ultimately, embroil it with the viclegally resorted to, without giving just cause of tor. We found the property in possession of one umbrage to a nation that does not possess the of the belligerents, and we are bound to leave it power to subjugate a revolted colony. There exists there. It is enough for us that we see a state of many nations at this day, which may claim of courts open war existing between two powers who are of international law, all the rights of independent able to maintain it. The question of right is with nations and may be judicially recognized as such, the god of armies. This is no recognition of the notwithstanding no act of government has acknow. independence of Buenos Ayres; it is the recogniledged them in that capacity; and some which hold tion of a fact known to all the world, and admitted it altogether by the sword, which acquires it when by the claimant himself that of a state of open the parent state relinquishes the conflict, or plainly war between Spain and one of her colonies-this evinces an inability to pursue it with success. is the most solemn and notorious act by which nashould say her recognition in words is unnecessary, tions can exhibit their independence to the rest of and should our own government ever exercise, to-the world; and, whilst the struggle continues, other wards a revolted colony, those acts of comity or nations are not at liberty to distinguish between communication, which are known and practised in fact and right. Under these impressions, I award the intercourse of nations, I should consider all one-fifth of the nett proceeds to the libellant; conpositive explicit recognition as unnecessary to supvinced that, had the captors been consulted at the port the claims of such states, to a judicial recogni-time the vessel was taken charge of, they would tion. The establishment of many such facts would, have freely given that proportion to secure the rest in my estimation, supercede the necessity of ex-and that the libeliants ought to be satisfied with plicit official recognition. Our own courts have in eight thousand dollars for the service rendered. several instances been called on to express opinions on this subject, and although the opinions which they have expressed, may in their language appear very general, yet that language has always been used in reference to cases in which the conflict was actually kept up. In the case of Palmer, the chief justice has expressly limited his observations to such a case, flagrante bello; it is a question of policy; there is an actual absence of such evidence as a court of justice can act upon, and the question is altogether one on which the executive or legisla. tive power is called to act. Decree reversed, pro-cond section of the 14th article, it makes no property restored, and libel dismissed, with costs.

The decree of judge Jouxson, in the case of the Spanish schooner Conception, was appealed to the supreme court, at Washington.

Respecting Salvage.

FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PRESS.

Mr. Binns-1 enclose you an unpublished authentic copy of an opinion of Judge Johnson, delivered at Charleston, S. C. in May last. The circumstances of the case, and the range taken by the judge, involve some very important legal principles which it is very desirable, at this time, should be more generally known.

W. B. Finch, et al.

28.

Claim
aim for salvage.

There is another point on which I feel myself called on to make a remark: that is, the effect of the treaty between Spain and the United States. The sixth article has no bearing on the case. The object of that article is the protection of the vessels or effects of Spanish subjects from seizure, at the time of their being within our jurisdiction. Nor does the case come under the 9th article, since, in whatever light Spain may think proper to consider the cruisers of her enemy, they are not pirates in the view of other nations; and as to the se

vision for the restitution of property captured by citizens who have accepted commissions to cruise against Spain. The provisions are, that no citizen shall accept such a commission, and that he who accepts such a commission shall be punished as a pirate. In a government of laws, every thing has been done which good faith required to be done. Laws have been passed and our courts are open for the punishment of such as accept of commissions under the enemy of Spain. But information must be lodged and evidence produced, before it can be required of the courts of justice to punish those offenders. For any thing farther Spain must depend upon the vigilance, activity and intelligence of her agents; and in no case is it, or can it be made, an addition to the punishment of such offenders, that the property shall be restored, unless the United States may be made liable for indemnity; for when the capture is made, the property is vested in the government that grants the commission. It is the seizure of the state and not of the individuals.

The Maria Josepha and cargo. Questions of salvage are always questions of the most disagreeabte kind: In vain the mind looks for relief, in its anxiety to do justice, by seeking the aid of fixed rules and principles. Such questions are addressed exclusively to discretion, and that In the case before us, there is no evidence that discretion must move in a range to which there are the San Martin privateer was fitted out in the U. no defined limits. This is at ended with another States. She has, indeed very improperly, recruited embarrassing circumstance. It is impossible to seher crew within our limits; and every individual parate the question of salvage from that which concerned in that transaction will be punished, if aust finally dispose of the residue of this vessel and prosecuted. But all the world knows that the

arbitrary exertion of power is unknown to the ge- and apparently disregarding his solemn vow, the nius of our constitution, and all that any state can unhappy girl was advised to swear the child to expect of the United States, is that adequate laws him, as well to obtain its maintainance, as to exshould be passed to punish and prevent the com- pose the circumstances, which had led to her calamission of such acts. When acts are done in eva-mity. She was required to appear in court, to sion of those laws, unless the government can be depose to the fact that he was the father. She charged with winking at those evasions, it is not was young and beautiful, her appearance, sorrowful liable to indemnify Spain for such captures-and and interesting, her deportment perfectly modest our courts of justice cannot, on that ground, vio- and correct-free from any affected sensibility and late the obligation of neutrality by seizing and re-devoid of all forwardness. After being sworn, storing prizes that have been made by either party. she stated that "she had only to say that Mr. [Signed] WM. JOHNSON.

A Whale is a Fish?

FROM THE NEW YORK EVENING POST.

[ocr errors]

was the father of her child; if other testimony was required, it could be obtained from witnesses who were now present." The attorney for the commonwealth remarked "you are positive, ma dam, that Mr.is the father of your child?”. At a late Mayor's court came on for trial the case "Yes, sir, it is impossible that any other person of Maurice, inspector of oil, vs. Judd, a vender, could have been." Never did a woman excite a which, strange as it may seem, turned on the ques- more general sympathy, than Miss did at this tion whether a whale is a fish? To support the ne- moment. You might see, through her eyes, the gative, the learned Dr. Mitchell was sworn, and a inward agonies of those finer feelings, which were number of persons not so learned; while, on the repressed with so much dignity, but which excited other side, a number of witnesses, equally respect- such universal respect and commisseration. A soable, testified that they had always been accustom- lemn pause of some moments ensued. Those who ed, during their whole lives, to consider every in- had gathered around to leer and to laugh, invohabitant of the great deep, and which could not luntarily sacrificed their intentions to the more live upon land, as fishes, and the whale among the generous feelings of our nature. At length, one rest. It consumed nearly three days in settling the of the counsel for the defendant, ventured to ask question-all the sellers of oil being one way of her a question; one which, on similar occasions, swearing, and all the buyers another-and, perhaps, would have hardly been deemed improper. the jury might have been puzzled until this time, But "the age of chivalry was not gone;"-the had not the learned Dr. Mitchell, unfortunately, the whole bar were ready to resent "even a look quoted the first chapter of Genesis in support of his that should threaten her with insult.”—A gallant opinion. The doctor remarked, that it is there said, young gentleman instantly rose to protest against that "God created whales, and every living crea. the question; he was not engaged in the case; but ture that moveth, which the waters brought forth it was impossible for "his heart to be cold, or his. abundan ly:" from which he inferred that the whale tongue to be wordless" on such an occasion; every was a separate creation from fishes. This put the feeling of his soul was aroused, and impelled him other side upon the same track; who found a text to denource the course which was about to be in the old testament, which states that "Jonah was pursued.-The attorney for the commonwealth, in in the belly of the fish three days and three nights,,' his accustomed eloquence, gave vent to his love and in the new, that "Jonah was three days in the and tenderness for the sex.-A third gentleman, whale's belly." Putting the two together, they of a good old age and retiring from the labors of proved that a whale was a fish, according to scrip- the law, next arose-and with all his well earned ture authority: besides, they said that the doctor's influence, declared in the generous enthusiasm of text, if it proved any thing in the case, would his nature, his reprbation of the man, who could prove too much; as it would equally prove that a first betray an amiable and beautiful woman, and whale was not a "living creature.' Finally, the then cause her sorrows and sufferings to be sportjury, by their verdic‹, decided that a whale is a ed with in a court of justice. The worthy counsel, Ash. Sir Joseph Banks, we are told by the facetious whose ill-fated question had brought forth these Peter Pindar, once made an experiment, to satisfy bursts of indignant eloquence, seemed not to know himself whether fleas were not lobsters, by boiling them, to see if they would not turn red, but the result disappointing his expectations, he is made by the poet to exclaim peevishly,

"Fleas are not lobsters, d—n their souls." A report of this funny trial is preparing by Mr. Sampson, one of the counsel for the plaintiff.

Case of Seduction.

what he had done, or what he should say; his coadjutor, however, made an apologetic explanation for him, complimented, in a handsome strain, the ardor and eloquence of the volunteers, who had enlisted under the banners of the unfortunate fair; i feeling terms commisserated her affliction, and declared he was one of the last men in the world who would give it the sienderest additional pang. In this state of things, a friend of the defendant stated to him, that he "was bound by every feeling and principle that could bind a men of honor, to marry that girl." The man immediately declared, he was perfectly willing and always intended it.

Petersburg, Va. Sept. 8.-The following singular incident, we are assured by a respectable friend, occurred a short time since, between a young gen tleman and young lady, in an adjacent county. This declaration was instantly communicated to The parties both possessed a small property, were another counsel, who, (altho', from the mere want of respectable connections, and had been for some of an opportunity, he had not spoken,) had been time engaged to be married. But some unfortu- manifesting no ordinary solicitude on the subject. nate circumstances having opposed and retarded He requested a pause in the proceedings-the girl their union, they were, in an unlucky moment, in and her mother were called out and consultedduced by their warm and confiding affections, to the former, declared that she had loved Mr. anticipate the event; and in the ordinary course more than she could ever love any man again, of such manners, a fine child was born unto them. and that if his former feelings towards her were The lover now becoming indifferent and neglectful, unchanged, she would still marry him. He was

Judge Abbot, for the prisoner.-How do you know, Webb, that you lost just 89 lb. of tallow? I am sure of it, my lord.

I want to be sure of it too; do you keep an account of what you receive, or what you use? No, my lord

then consulted, and declared his unabated attach-f deal of tallow, from which the quantity me ioned ment; and his entire confidence in her virtues and in the indictment had been taken. It being declar. affections. The gentlemen who had thus intered that the prisoner had no counsel, the judge very ceded, insisted then, that as the affair had been cheerfully became his advocate. thus public, its ermination should be public and instantaneous. In a few moments, but with some opposition by the father of the young lady, this course was agreed upon. They then all returned into the court; the recent reconciliation and adjusment were announced and explained; their kind mediator addressing each of them, earnestly charg ed them not to marry, unless they knew and felt that their confidence and affections were unabated and unchanged. This being declared, and a respectable clergyman being present, a license was issed, and the young couple were legally and solemnly united, in the holy estate of matrimony, before Almighty God, “and in the presence of this worshipful court."*

[blocks in formation]

Do you believe in the holy scriptures? I believe in sin.

I ask you, sir, do you believe in the scriptures upon which you have just sworn to speak the truth? I do not believe in every part of them.

Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?-Witness to the learned judge: My lord, am I obliged to answer that question?

Mr. Serjeant Vaughn. My lord, I apprehend the witness is not obliged to answer such interro gatories.

Mr. Baron Garrow. As you have taken the objection, it is my duty to say he is not. I should not, however, have prevented him from giving an answer if he had chosen, because the answer might have vindicated him from the imputation which the question conveyed. But, whatever might have been his answer, whether be declared himself to be a believer in every part of the holy scriptures or not, I should, in my address to the jury, have said, that his belief or disbelief in these matters should not impeach his testimony. He might be equally disposed to tell the truth, whatever were his religious opi nions. If, however, Mr. Davenport had the misfortune not to entertain the same opinion as he did, he would advise him to be more sparing of his declarations on that subject; as such opinions delivered from a person whom it must be sup. posed had passed through a regular education, might have a very mischievous effect upon the minds of ignorant persons.

Fat not Tallow.

FROM AN ENGLISH MAGAZINE OF 1817. Wiltshire Assizes.-At the assizes, H. Maidment, aged 24, was indicted for stealing 89 lbs of tallow, the property of Francis Webb, of Mere. It was stated that Webb had recently received a great

*An appropriate interpolation in the marriage ceremony.

What, no book, in which you minute down your goods?

Yes, my lord, I keep a day-book.

Well, that is what I wanted; and did you in this book make any entry of the tallow received, or taken from it, for the purpose of making candlest No, my lord, for it was not fit to make candles of. No! not fit to make candles of! why then, man, it was not tallow?

Yes, it was my lord.

Then why not fit to make candles?
Because, my lord, it was not run into tallow.
Not run into tallow?

No, my lord.

Why, then, it must be fat, and not tallow.
Yes, my lord.

Ah! that's very well. Gentlemen of the jury,
(said the learned judge) you find by the pro-
secutors own evidence, that you must acquit the
prisoner. This man charges the prisoner with
stealing tallow. The prosecutor is a tallow-chand-
ler; and yet, gentlemen, you hear from this tallow-
chandler's mouth, that he does not know the dif-
ference between tallow and fut!
Acquitted.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

FISHER, district judge:-The case now before this court arises on two libels filed on the part of the United States against the sloop Pitt, (a British bottom) ber tackle, apparel and furniture; and also against her cargo, consisting of 46,000lbs. of cocos, a small number of raw hides, and seventy sticks or pieces of fustick. These libels are instituted upon an act of congress of the 18th of April last, entitled an act concerning navigation.' The act was passed with a view to exclude from the country, after the 30th of September last, all vessels owned by British subjects, arriving from a colony which, by the British navigation laws, is closed against vessels

owned by citizens of the United States. In case late war, to deliver vessels and cargoes on stipulaof its violation, the act inflicts a forfeiture of vestion bonds, or on the claimant giving what is called sel and cargo. in the books upon admiralty practice, a file jussory In these cases claims have been put in by Messrs. caution. The Delaware district led the way to this Lewis, Haven and Co. merchants of Philadelphia, practice, by the introductory decree in the case of the consignees of the sloop and cargo against which the Good-Friends, Stephen Girard claimant. The the prosecutions are instituted. A preliminar decree in that case became the law of the country question, of great importance, is submitted to the (in prosecutions under the restrictive laws) by its decision of this court, on a motion made by the adoption in every district of the union. There was claimants' counsel, praying an order for the delivery nothing to be found in our restrictive laws, either of the vessel and cargo, on bonds for their appraised favoring or disallowing such a course, but it was value. To me it is a subject of regret, that this viewed as being in accordance with the admiralty question has not arisen in some other district, and practice of England, on the instance, and very fre. been decided by a judge, to whose opinion the quently on the prize side of that court. This prac utmost deference would have been paid. As, how-tice was there adopted, as far back as the 11th of ever, this has not occurred, I must tread the April, 1780, as appears from Marriott's forms, p. 5; unbeaten path, and dispose of the question to the best of my ability and judgment.

see a decree for delivery on bond, in same authority, p. 221, 2, 3. How much longer the delivery of It is contended on the part of the United States, vessels and cargoes on bond had been adopted by that if the property in the present instance be de the English admiralty, I have not now the means of livered, the spirit of the law, which goes to exclude ascertaining, since the first order of the kind, withBritish bottoms arriving from prohibited ports, will in my research, is the one first above cited. But be effectually defeated; that the defective appraise-I was of opinion, in the case of the Good-Friends, ments of the property will be an encouragment to and I still retain the same opinion, that that part of vessels of this description to enter our ports, and the 89th section of the collection law, relating to that thus the navigation act will be set at definance, delivery on bond, was framed with a view to what and become a dead letter; that if the property be had been understood to be the usual course of ad. perishable, which is admitted in the present case, miralty practice. I could discover nothing in the a sale of it ought to be ordered by this court, and cases commonly called the Amelia Island cases, or the proceeds of such sale should be retained in in any prosecution arising under the restrictive court in usum jus habentis; that the cases of delivery laws, which ought to distinguish them from those heretofore allowed by the practice of this court, of ordinary seizure and prosecution under the were between the United States and their revenue revenue laws of this country. It was under this officers, and our own citizens, and are distinguish conviction, that this court formed its decree for able from the prosecutions which may arise under delivery on bond, in the case of the Good-Friends. the navigation act, framed as it is, to shut our ports The court was strengthened in its decision of that effectually against those British colonies which our case, by the authority of the case of Jennings vs. vessels are not permitted to enter, by the laws of Carson, 4 Cranch, 23. In that case C. J. Marshall, trade of the British government. in speaking of the constitution and character of a The argument on the part of the claimants, is court of admiralty, remarks as follows-"The prothat it would be against equity to enforce a sale of ceedings of that court are in rem, and their sentences property, which may have arrived innocently in our act on the thing itself. They decide who has the ports, that such a course would be presuming an right and they order its delivery to the party hav intention to violate our law, when in fact, no such ing the right. The libellant and claimant are both intention had actually existed; that the practice of actors. They both demand from the court the this court has heretofore been in accordance with thing in contest. It would be repugnant to the the claimants' motion for a delivery of the property, principles of justice and to the practice of courts, and in cases too, of goods prohibited by our restric-to leave the thing in possession of either of the tive laws, and not dutiable under any statute of con- parties, without security, while the contest is depend gress; that the goods in the present case are ing. If the practice of a court of admiralty should dutiable, provided they do not arrive from ports not place the thing in the custody of its officers, prohibited to our citizens by the ordinary laws of it would be essential to justice that security should -navigation of the British government; and that the be demanded of the libellant to have it forthcoming fourth section of the act, on which the present to answer the order of the court." From the libels are founded, recognizes the provisions and proceedings of the revenue laws of the United States, from the inception to the close of the prosecutions, which may be instituted under it.

In the case under consideration we are exercising the powers of a court of admiralty on the instance side of it, which generally, and perhaps always, proceeds in in rem. We are now in a course of proceeding against a thing, that is prohibited from entering our ports, by our navigation act. The confiscation or restoration of this rem or thing, will eventually be the subject of our consideration and decree, when the case shall be heard upon its merits. The question at present, therefore is, shall we receive in court a substitute for this thing, or shall we retain and order it for sale, for the use of the party, in whom the right may ultimately be decided?

foregoing authority, it is conceded, that the power of the court may be exercised, in ordering a delivery of property, on security, while the contest is depending.

Does the navigation act contain any provision by which the practice of the courts should be remodelled, or in any wise altered, in relation to delivery of vessels and their cargoes on stipulated bonds? The spirit of the act is, no doubt, as has been contended, to exclude British bottoms from our ports, in case such bottoms came from colonies interdicted to the citizens of this country. But how will the spirit of this act be infringed by this court pursuing a practice, which has received the sanction of every district in the union, and which practice congress has not modified or abolished, by any provision of the navigation act? Hd a new course been prescribed, this court would consider It was the practice of this court and of all the itself bound to conform to legislative direction. district courts of the United States, during theland to refuse the application now made, though

Sue. TO VOL. XVI,

B

« 上一頁繼續 »