cable. The want of the certificates was open to explanation, and was satisfactorily accounted for. In the case of the cargo of the Favorite, (4 Cranch, 363), the court say, "it is unquestionably a correct legal principle, that a forfeiture can only be applied to those cases in which the means that are prescribed for the prevention of a forfeiture may be employed." To apply this principle to the present case. claimants were ignorant of the fact that these teas had been illegally taken from the stores in Philadel phia. Nor is it pretended that this was done by any one for whom they are responsible. What means then were in their power to guard against the forfeiture now claimed?

The

The reverse of which, however, is found by the special verdict, which establishes the fact, that each chest when found, bore all the marks which the law requires. The proof therefore did not support the allegation, (and as I think a necessary allegation), in the information.

The form of this special certificate is given in the law and not to cases where, from the nature of things, act, and contains substantially no more than the law a compliance with the letter of the law is impractirequires to be expresesd by the marks on each cask, chest, vessel or case, and it is to accompany each cask, chest, &c. as evidence that the same has been lawfully imported. It is by no means however to be inferred, that this is the only document or evidence to be received and looked to, shewing a lawful im portation. It is one of the checks which the law has provided, to guard against illegal importations. The marks are for the same purpose, and of at least equal if not of more importance. They are required to be made in durable characters on each cask or chest, &c. and must of course accompany it wherever it goes. The certificate, from the very nature of the document, cannot always accompany the cask or chest. It is not required to be nailed to it. And the These considerations show the propriety of react only requires that upon the sale or delivery of the quiring, that, in order to make out a prima facie case teas, &c. the certificate shall be delivered to the pur- of seizure and forfeiture, the teas should have been chaser. And when it speaks of the cask or chest being unaccompanied with both marks and certificates. found in possession of any person, unaccompanied by But this will appear in a still more obvious point of this evidence, it must be intended to refer to the per-light by an inquiry, as to the necessary allegations son who has possession as purchaser. And to autho-in the informations. Would it have been suflicient rize the seizure, the cask or chest must be unaccompa- to have alleged that the teas were found in the posnied with such marks and certificates. The absence session of Smith and Nicoll unaccompanied with the of both are necessary. This is not only made so by certificates only? I think it would not. And such must the letter of the act, but is what may reasonably and have been the understanding of the district attor fairly be presumed to have been the intention of the ney in framing this information, otherwise he would legislature. And when the law has declared that two not have alleged the want of both marks and certificoncurring circumstances, shall authorize an act, cates, in the language of the act, as it must have been and produce a certain effect, it is going great length known that the proof would not sustain such an ailein the construction of a statute so highly penal as this, gation. The want of marks is certainly not an imto say, that one or the other circumstance shall pro-material allegation, and having been made, it was ne. duce the same effect, and that both need not concur. cessary to be proved. It was the want of the certificates only upon which the seizure was made, and if the condemnation is to be sustained it must be upon this alone, for the chests were all duly marked as by law required. The reasonableness and necessity of requiring the want of both marks and certificates to warrant a seizure and condemnation, may be illustrated and enforced by a hypothetical case. Suppose a chest of tea sold in the usual course of business, and the certificate delivered as the law requires to the purchaser, and the tea sent by a carman to the place where it was to be used or retailed, unaccompanied by the certificate, would a custom house oflicer be authorized to seize this chest of tea, and would condemnation follow thereupon? I presume no one would contend for such a construction of the act; and yet would it be more extravagant than a construction must be which sustains the forfeiture in the present case. The claimants, as owners of the teas, were entitled tofthe possession of the certificates, and in fact bound to have them, as one of the vouchers of their title, and not having sold the teas there was no purchaser to whom the certificates could be delivered as the law requires. It is upon the sale or delivery of the tea, that the law requires the certificates to be delivered over to the purchaser. And if the owner is wrongfully or fraudulently deprived of the possession of his teas, it would involve a great absurdity to say he is bound, under the penalty of forfeiting his property to hand over the certificates to the wrong doer. Have the claimants incurred the penalty of fifty dollars for each chest which the law imposes upon the proprietor for not delivering the certificates to the purchaser upon the sale of the teas? Certainly not. It would seem to me that the claimants might with equal justice, be subjected to a forfeiture of their property, if it had been stolen and afterwards found But let us look a little more particularly into the in the possession of some person unaccompanied with provisions of this 434 section, and see whether the the certificates. But these and the like extraordi- want of marks and certificates is not the substantive nary cases, do not come within the sense and mean- ground of forfeiture. And one of the surest tests by ning of the law, which is adapted to a regular and which to ascertain this, is to see what allegations the usual course of business, and where it is in the pow-information must contain. And I think it is very er of a party to comply, with the requirements of the clear, that it is not necessary to allege any thing

But it is said the want of marks and certificates, is not the ground of forfeiture, but only authorizes the seizure, but that the condemnation is for illegal importation, and non-payment of duties. This I apprehend is not a correct view of this 43d section of the act. Nor is it the construction assumed in the information. The want of marks and certificates, is alleged as the substantive ground of forfeiture. The marks and certificates have no connection whatever with the payment of duties. They relate altogether to the importation. With respect to the certificate, the 41st section of the act expressly declares, that it is to accompany each chest, as evidence that the same has been lawfully imported, and the marking is by the of ficers of inspection, who are under the superintendence of the surveyor, under whose direction the teas are to be landed, the duties, however, or the security for the same, are received by the collector. The existence of marks and certificates being no evidence of the payment of duties, the want of them can afford no presumption of the non payment. And it the want of the certificates in the present case, was presumptive evidence of illegal importation. That presumption is rebutted, by the special verdict which finds expressly, that the teas were legally imported. The condemnation, therefore, cannot be sustained on any presumption of illegal importation. And if the certificate has no connection with the payment of duties, the want of it, as has been already observed, affords no presumption of non-payment.

more, than that the teas were found in the possession of some person unaccompanied with marks and certificates. This the act declares shall be presumptive evidence that the teas are liable to forfeiture, and may be seized as forfeited.

unaccompanied with the marks and certificates re quired by law. And 2dly. That they were removed without the consent of the collector, before the quantity and quality of the wines and spirits had been ascertained according to law. The facts alleged in the libel as the grounds of forfeiture were not controverted. There was therefore, clearly a forfeiture according to the letter of the law. And it was urged upon the event, that the remission or mitigation of the forfeiture could only be exercised by the secre tary of the treasury. One count in the libel in that case was under the 45d section of the act, like the present, and the want of marks and certificates alleged as the ground of forfeiture. And the court said the legislature, by the provisions referred to, did not intend to comprehend wrecked goods, or goods found under like circumstances. And this opinion of the intention of the legislature, was formed not exclu sively upon the extreme severity of such a regulation, but also on what is deemed, a fair construction of the language of the several sections of the act, which seems not adapted to such cases.

be invaded while in the custody of the officers of the revenue, the law cannot be understood to punish him with forfeiture of that property. The acts being dona with no view to defraud the revenue, the court would not be induced to put a strained construction on the act of congress in order to create a forfeiture.

The act does not declare that want of marks and certificates shall be presumptive evidence of illegal importation, or the non-payment of duties, which it would undoubtly have done, if this was made the substantive ground of forfeiture under this section. The ultimate object of the provision undoubtedly is to guard against illegal importations, and compel the introduction of goods through the regular channel provided by law. But the act makes the want of marks and certificates prima facie, sufficient to sustain the forfeiture. The information need not allege an illegal importation or the non-payment of duties. The act makes it matter of defence to show the teas were legally imported, and the duties paid or secured, and it is never necessary to state in a libel any fact which constitutes the defence of the claimants, or a ground of exception to the operation of the law on which It is founded. This has been expressly so laid down And with respect to the other ground alleged, as by the supreme court of the U. S. (7 Cranch, 382). sustaining the forfeiture. The court said the remorIf the information then need only allege hat the teas al for which the act punishes the owner with a forwere found unaccompanied with marks and certifi-feiture of his goods, must be made with his consent cates, no more need be proved, prima facie, to or connivance, or with that of some person employwarrant a condemnation; and unless the claimant ed or trusted by him. If by private theft or open rooshould set up as matter of defence, evidence in rela-bery, without any fault on his part, his property shouki tion to the importation or payment of duties, the only ground of condemnation would of course be the want of marks and certificates, and for this the act declares the teas shall be adjudged to be forfeited, unles the claimant upon the trial, shall prove the same to have been imported according to law, and the duties paid or secured. So with respect to all the other May it not with equal force and propriety be said, provisions in the act, where the penalty of forfei- that the legislature never intended to apply the penture is inflicted they may be considered as having for alty of forfeiture to goods found under circumstances their object, to guard against illegal importations and like the present? And indeed this is a stronger case? to secure the payment of duties, yet it cannot, with for it does not come within the letter of the act. The propriety, be said that the illegal importation, or non-marks did accompany the teas. The certificates onpayment of duties is the ground of forfeiture. This ly were wanting; and they wanting, under circumis incurred by a violation of the special regulations stances satisfactorily showing that no fault or neg which the law has provided, as guards and checks.ligence was imputable to the owners, any more than Thus to unlade goods before the vessel comes to the if the teas had been stolen from the stores in Philaproper place for the discharge of the cargo, or with-delphia. And the principles laid down by the court, out authority from the proper officer, subjects them in the case referred, apply with peculiar force-"that to forfeiture, but it is enough to allege and prove the simple fact of the unlading at an improper place, or without a permit, without alleging or proving that the importation was illegal or the duties not paid (27th). So under the 37th and 38th sections of the act, spirits, wines, and teas required to be landed, under a spocial permit endorsed, as therein prescribed, and under the inspection of the surveyor or other officer acting as inspector of the revenue, on pain of forfeiture. In these and many other cases that might be referred to, it is the violation of the special regulation, that is made the ground of forfeiture. In the same manner as the want of marks and certificates is the ground of forfeiture under the 43d section.

I am persuaded that, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the single fact, that the teas were unaccompanied by the certificates, when found in New-York, is not sufficient to sustain the condemnation. It is neither within the letter or spirit of the act. And cannot be supported under any rule of construction applicable to penal statutes.

a forfeiture can only be applied to those cases in which the means prescribed for the prevention of s forfeiture may be employed; and that law is not un derstood to forfeit the property of owners, on account of this misconduct of mere strangers over whom such owners could have no control."

I abstain from any remarks in relation to the conduct of the officers of inspection, who had charge of the store-house in Philadelphia in which the teas were deposited, except barely to observe, that the feas could not have been removed without fraud or gross negligence in them; and it would be dangerous, and a violalation of all sound principles, to admit a construction of the law, which, in its consequences, might reward such misconduct with a portion of the forfeiture. For if these teas are forfeited, they would have been equally liable to forfeiture, if they had been seized by a custom house officer in Philadelphia, whilst on their way from the store to the vessel in which they were transported to this city.

So far as the forfeiture may be claimed on the allegation of concealment, it is sufficient to say, the fact is expressly disproved by the special verdict.

The case of the United States vs. the cargo of the ship Favorite, already referred to, contains principles and rules of construction which have a very There was not, therefore, made out, on the part of strong bearing upon the present case. The goods li- the United States, the presumptive evidence which belled in that case consisted of wines, spirits, and the 43d section of the act declares shall render the other articles, saved from a wreck, and landed not property liable to forfeiture. And the claimants were in conformity to the regulations of the law with res-under no necessity of proving that the teas were-impect to such articles. The libel alleged as ground ported into the United States according to law, and of forfeiture: 1st. That the wines and spirits were the duties paid or secured.

This would supersede the necessity of examining the second point that has been made in this cause. But as the question has been fully argued, it may not be amiss for me briefly to state the view I have taken of it. The special verdict puts at rest all questions that could arise respecting the legality of importation. And under this branch of the case, the only enquiry is, whether by the general bond, (as it is called), of the importer, and the deposite of the teas as required by law, in such cases, the duties were secured within the meaning, and true interpretation of the 62d sec-enforce the lien. But how long such lien continues,

tion of the act.

livered out of store, under the permit of the collector, according to the provisions of the act. And what security could be more ample and satisfactory to the government? It is much more safe than the personal responsibility of individuals, especially upon so long a credit as two years. This security cannot be lost, without the misconduct of the agents of the govern ment. I do not mean to be understood that the lien is discharged by any such misconduct, if possession is regained so as to enable the government to after the teas have got into circulation in the market, If we look at this question upon general principles, is a question I leave untouched. If the teas remain and judge of it according to the common or legal in store for the two years, under the general bond, understanding of such a transaction, independent of can it with any propriety be said that the government any statutary provision, no doubt could arise. To say has no security for the duties? The law does not that a bond, fixing the amount of a debt, and limiting authorize the landing until the duties are paid or sethe time of payment, accompanied with a deposite cured. And if the general bond of the importer, and of goods to double the amount in value, to be held as the posssession of the teas, landed and held under the a pledge, with authority to sell the same at the expi-inspection and control of the officers of the customs ration of the time limited for payment, and out of (according to the 38th section of that act), and the -the proceeds to pay the debt, is not a security for such election of the importer, to have them deposited in a debt, would be considered an extraordinary pro- stores, do not constitute the security; by what autho position, and could not be sanctioned. If so, is there rity were they landed? The security required to be any thing either in the letter or in the spirit and po- given, upon granting the permit, to deliver the teas Jicy of the collection law, calling for the application out of store in parcels, cannot be the security requir of other and different principles? This 62d sectioned upon landing. That is an after transaction, and toof the act declares that, with respect to teas import- tally distinct in its provisions. The one is the geneed from China or Europe, it shall be at the option of ral bond of the importer, on a credit of two years, the imposter to be determined at the time of making and a deposite of the teas in store. The other the the entry, either to secure the duties thereon, on the personal security of individuals for the duties upon same terms and stipulations as on other goods, &c. the particular parcels delivered out of store, and or to give his own bond in double the amount of the payable at much shorter periods, according to the duties, with a condition for the payment of the du amount of duties. The latter is protanto a substituties in two years from the date of the bond, which tion for the former. If at the expiration of two years, the collector is directed to accept without surety, (that the duties shall not have been paid, or secured by is to say personal surety), upon the terms particular- bond, with sureties, so as to discharge the lien, the Jy specified in the act: which are substantially, that teas are dealt with in the same manner as property the teas shall be deposited at the expense of the im- pledged in ordinary cases as security for a debt.porter, in a store-house, to be agreed upon between They are to be sold and the debt and expenses paid, the importer and inspector of the revenue, upon and the surplus returned to the owner, not forfeited. which store-house the inspector is required to affix The acceptance of goods, as a deposite for the setwo locks, the key of one to be kept by the impor-curity of duties in lieu of personal security, is a proter and the key of the other by the inspector, who vision, incorporated in all our collection laws, from shall attend, at all reasonable times, for the purpose the first organization of the government, to the preof delivering the teas out of the store-house. But sent time. (See acts 89 and 90, 2d vol. L. U. S. 23 no delivery is to be made without a permit in writing and 161-act 99 3d vol. Id. 195). The collector in from the collector and naval officer. And to obtain lieu of sureties, is authorized to accept of a deposite such permit, the duties upon the teas so to be deliv- of so much of the goods as shall in his judgment, be ered, must be first paid to the collector, or a bond with sufficient security for the amount of the duties for sureties to the satisfaction of the collector, given in which the bond shall have been given; which goods double the amount of the duties, payable as specified are to be kept at the expense and risk of the party on in the act. And if the duties, on any parcel of the whose account they have been deposited, until the teas, shall not have been paid or secured to be paid bond becomes due; and if the bond shall not then be in the manner last speciaed, (that is by bond with paid, so much of the deposited goods, as shall be sureties), within the term of two years, the collec- necessary to pay the same with the costs and charges tor is authorized and required to sell so much of the are to be sold. teas, as may be necessary to pay the duties and exThese are essentially the same provisions as those penses on the teas remaining in store, and to return in relation to teas. There is a bond in both cases the overplus, if any, to the owner or owners thereof. given by the importer. The goods are substituted in There is nothing in this provision essentially to vary place of surettes and are called a deposite. If the bond it from the ordinary deposite of goods between indi in each case shall not be paid according to its condividuals, as a pledge to secure the payment of a debt. tion, the goods are to be said, and the duties, and exIt is unimportant that the importer was liable for the penses paid, and surplus returned to the owner. duties without his bond or that the government had There can be no reason why the same meaning should possession of the teas, and a lien for the duties be- not be attached to the term deposite in both cases. fore the deposite. Of this there can be no doubt. If in the one case it has a technical meaning, and But the government, by the provisions of this act, signifies a pledge, I am unable to discover why it has agreed to hold this security unier a different mo should not have the same meaning in the other. The dification, and with different powers, than it possess only difference between the cases is that with respect ed before. And whether this arrangement is exclu- to teas there is a deposite of the whole, and the lien sively for the accommodation and benefit of the im- continues, until discharged by a substitution of perporter or not, cannot alter the question. The posses-sonal security as they are delivered out of store in sion of the property and the liability of the importer parcels as may be required. And with respect to constituted the security which the government had other goods, a part of the importation on which the for the duties. And that continues until discharged, duties were payable, are received as a substitute for Aom time to time, upon different pa cels of teas de-I sureties, and the lien on the residue is at once die

more, than that the teas were found in the possession of some person unaccompanied with marks and certificates. This the act declares shall be presumptive evidence that the teas are liable to forfeiture, and may be seized as forfeited.

unaccompanied with the marks and certificates re quired by law. And 2dly. That they were removed without the consent of the collector, before the quan tity and quality of the wines and spirits had been ascertained according to law. The facts alleged in the libel as the grounds of forfeiture were not controverted. There was therefore, clearly a forfeiture ac cording to the letter of the law. And it was urged upon the event, that the remission or mitigation of the forfeiture could only be exercised by the secre tary of the treasury. One count in the libel in that case was under the 45d section of the act, like the present, and the want of marks and certificates alleged as the ground of forfeiture. And the court said the legislature, by the provisions referred to, did not intend to comprehend wrecked goods, or goods found under like circumstances. And this opinion of the intention of the legislature, was formed not exclo sively upon the extreme severity of such a regulation, but also on what is deemed, a fair construction of the language of the several sections of the act, which seems not adapted to such cases.

revenue, the law cannot be understood to punish him with forfeiture of that property. The acts being done with no view to defraud the revenue, the court would not be induced to put a strained construction on the act of congress in order to create a forfeiture.

The act does not declare that want of marks and certificates shall be presumptive evidence of illegal importation, or the non-payment of duties, which it would undoubtly have done, if this was made the substantive ground of forfeiture under this section. The ultimate object of the provision undoubtedly is to guard against illegal importations, and compel the introduction of goods through the regular channel provided by law. But the act makes the want of marks and certificates prima facie, sufficient to sustain the forfeiture. The information need not allege an illegal Importation or the not-payment of duties. The act makes it matter of defence to show the teas were legally imported, and the duties paid or secured, and it is never necessary to state in a libel any fact which constitutes the defence of the claimants, or a ground of exception to the operation of the law on which It is founded. This has been expressly so laid down And with respect to the other ground alleged, as by the supreme court of the U. S. (7 Cranch, 382). sustaining the forfeiture. The court said the remorIf the information then need only allege hat the teas al for which the act punishes the owner with a forwere found unaccompanied with marks and certifi-feiture of his goods, must be made with his consent cates, no more need be proved, prima facie, to or connivance, or with that of some person employwarrant a condemnation; and unless the claimant ed or trusted by him. If by private theft or open rob should set up as matter of defence, evidence in rela-bery, without any fault on his part, his property should tion to the importation or payment of duties, the on-be invaded while in the custody of the officers of the ly ground of condemnation would of course be the want of marks and certificates, and for this the act declares the teas shall be adjudged to be forfeited, unles the claimant upon the trial, shall prove the same to have been imported according to law, and the duties paid or secured. So with respect to all the other May it not with equal force and propriety be said, provisions in the act, where the penalty of forfei- that the legislature never intended to apply the penture is inflicted they may be considered as having for alty of forfeiture to goods found under circumstances their object, to guard against illegal importations and like the present? And indeed this is a stronger case? to secure the payment of duties, yet it cannot, with for it does not come within the letter of the act. The propriety, be said that the illegal importation, or non-marks did accompany the teas. The certificates onpayment of duties is the ground of forfeiture. This ly were wanting; and they wanting, under circumis incurred by a violation of the special regulations stances satisfactorily showing that no fault or neg which the law has provided, as guards and checks.ligence was imputable to the owners, any more than Thus to unlade goods before the vessel comes to the if the teas had been stolen from the stores in Philaproper place for the discharge of the cargo, or without authority from the proper officer, subjects them to forfeiture, but it is enough to allege and prove the simple fact of the unlading at an improper place, or without a permit, without alleging or proving that the importation was illegal or the duties not paid (27th). So under the 37th and 38th sections of the act, spirits, wines, and teas required to be landed, under a spocial permit endorsed, as therein prescribed, and un- I abstain from any remarks in relation to the conder the inspection of the surveyor or other officer duct of the officers of inspection, who had charge of acting as inspector of the revenue, on pain of forfei-the store-house in Philadelphia in which the teas ture. In these and many other cases that might be referred to, it is the violation of the special regulation, that is made the ground of forfeiture. In the same manner as the want of marks and certificates is the ground of forfeiture under the 43d section.

I am persuaded that, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the single fact, that the teas were unaccompanied by the certificates, when found in New-York, is not sufficient to sustain the condemnation. It is neither within the letter or spirit of the act. And cannot be supported under any rule of construction applicable to penál statutes.

The case of the United States vs. the cargo of the ship Favorite, already referred to, contains principles and rules of construction which have a very strong bearing upon the present case. The goods libelled in that case consisted of wines, spirits, and other articles, saved from a wreck, and landed not in conformity to the regulations of the law with respect to such articles. The libel alleged as ground of forfeiture: 1st. That the wiges and spirits were

delphia. And the principles laid down by the court, in the case referred, apply with peculiar force-"that a forfeiture can only be applied to those cases ia which the means prescribed for the prevention of a forfeiture may be employed; and that law is not understood to forfeit the property of owners, on account of this misconduct of mere strangers over whom such owners could have no control."

were deposited, except barely to observe, that the feas could not have been removed without fraud er gross negligence in them; and it would be dangerous, and a violalation of all sound principles, to admit a construction of the law, which, in its consequences, might reward such misconduct with a portion of the forfeiture. For if these teas are forfeited, they would have been equally liable to forfeiture, if they had been seized by a custom house officer in Philadelphia, whilst on their way from the store to the vessel in which they were transported to this city.

So far as the forfeiture may be claimed on the allegation of concealment, it is suficient to say, the fact is expressly disproved by the special verdict.

There was not, therefore, made out, on the part of the United States, the presumptive evidence which the 43d section of the act declares shall render the property liable to forfeiture. And the claimants were under no necessity of proving that the teas were inported into the United States according to law, and the duties paid or secured.

it.

This would supersede the necessity of examining livered out of store, under the permit of the collector, the second point that has been made in this cause. But according to the provisions of the act. And what seas the question has been fully argued, it may not be curity could be more ample and satisfactory to the goamiss for me briefly to state the view I have taken of vernment? It is much more safe than the personal The special verdict puts at rest all questions that responsibility of individuals, especially upon so long could arise respecting the legality of importation. a credit as two years. This security cannot be lost, And under this branch of the case, the only enquiry without the misconduct of the agents of the govern is, whether by the general bond, (as it is called), of ment. I do not mean to be understood that the lien the importer, and the deposite of the teas as required is discharged by any such misconduct, if possesby law, in such cases, the duties were secured within sion is regained so as to enable the government to the meaning, and true interpretation of the 62d sec-enforce the lien. But how long such lien continues, tion of the act. after the teas have got into circulation in the market, If we look at this question upon general principles, is a question I leave untouched. If the teas remain and judge of it according to the common or legal in store for the two years, under the general bond, understanding of such a transaction, independent of can it with any propriety be said that the government any statutary provision, no doubt could arise. To say has no security for the duties? The law does not that a bond, fixing the amount of a debt, and limiting authorize the landing until the duties are paid or sethe time of payment, accompanied with a deposite cured. And if the general bond of the importer, and of goods to double the amount in value, to be held as the posssession of the teas, landed and held under the a pledge, with authority to sell the same at the expi- inspection and control of the officers of the customs ration of the time limited for payment, and out of (according to the 38th section of that act), and the -the proceeds to pay the debt, is not a security for such election of the importer, to have them deposited in a de it, would be considered an extraordinary pro- stores, do not constitute the security; by what autho position, and could not be sanctioned. If so, is there rity were they landed? The security required to be any thing either in the letter or in the spirit and po- given, upon granting the permit, to deliver the teas Jicy of the collection law, calling for the application out of store in parcels, cannot be the security requir of other and different principles? This 62d sectioned upon landing. That is an after transaction, and toof the act declares that, with respect to teas import- tally distinct in its provisions. The one is the geneed from China or Europe, it shall be at the option of ral bond of the importer, on a credit of two years, the importer to be determined at the time of making and a deposite of the teas in store. The other the the entry, either to secure the duties thereon, on the personal security of individuals for the duties upon same terms and stipulations as on other goods, &c. the particular parcels delivered out of store, and or to give his own bond in double the amount of the payable at much shorter periods, according to the duties, with a condition for the payment of the du amount of duties. The latter is protanto a substitu ties in two years from the date of the bond, which tion for the former. If at the expiration of two years, the collector is directed to accept without surety, (that the duties shall not have been paid, or secured by is to say personal surety), upon the terms particular- bond, with sureties, so as to discharge the lien, the ly specified in the act: which are substantially, that teas are dealt with in the same manner as property the teas shall be deposited at the expense of the im- pledged in ordinary cases as security for a debt.— porter, in a store-house, to be agreed upon between They are to be sold and the debt and expenses paid, the importer and inspector of the revenue, upon and the surplus returned to the owner, not forfeited. which store house the inspector is required to affix The acceptance of goods, as a deposite for the setwo locks, the key of one to be kept by the impor-curity of duties in lieu of personal security, is a proter and the key of the other by the inspector, who, vision, incorporated in all our collection laws, from shall attend, at all reasonable times, for the purpose the first organization of the government, to the preof delivering the teas out of the store-house. But no delivery is to be made without a permit in writing from the collector and naval officer. And to obtain such permit, the duties upon the teas so to be delivered, must be first paid to the collector, or a bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the collector, given in double the amount of the duties, payable as specified in the act. And if the duties, on any parcel of the teas, shall not have been paid or secured to be paid in the manner last speciaed, (that is by bond with sureties), within the term of two years, the collector is authorized and required to sell so much of the teas, as may be necessary to pay the duties and exThese are essentially the same provisions as those penses on the teas remaining in store, and to return in relation to teas. There is a bond in both cases the overplus, if any, to the owner or owners thereof. given by the importer. The goods are substituted in There is nothing in this provision essentially to vary place of surettes and are called a deposite. If the bond it from the ordinary deposite of goods between indi in each case shall not be paid according to its condi viduals, as a pledge to secure the payment of a debt. tion, the goods are to be said, and the duties, and exIt is unimportant that the importer was liable for the penses paid, and surplus returned to the owner. duties without his bond or that the government had There can be no reason why the same meaning should possession of the teas, and a lien for the duties be- not be attached to the term deposite in both cases. fore the deposite. Of this there can be no doubt. If in the one case it has a technical meaning, and But the government, by the provisions of this act, signifies a pledge, I am unable to discover why it has agreed to hold this security unier a different mo should not have the same meaning in the other. The dification, and with different powers, than it possess- only difference between the cases is that with respect ed before. And whether this arrangement is exclu- to teas there is a deposite of the whole, and the lien sively for the accommodation and benefit of the im- continues, until discharged by a substitution of perporter or not, cannot alter the question. The posses-sonal security as they are delivered cut of store in sion of the property and the liability of the importer parcels as may be required. And with respect to constituted the security which the government had other goods, a part of the importation on which the for the duties. And that continues until discharged, duties were payable, are received as a substitute for Arom time to time, upon different parcels of teas de-Isureties, and the lien on the residue is at once du

sent time. (See acts 89 and 90, 2d vol. L. U. S. 23 and 161-act 99 3d vol. Id. 195). The collector in lieu of sureties, is authorized to accept of a deposite of so much of the goods as shall in his judgment, be sufficient security for the amount of the duties for which the bond shall have been given; which goods are to be kept at the expense and risk of the party on whose account they have been deposited, until the bond becomes due; and if the bond shall not then be paid, so much of the deposited goods, as shall be necessary to pay the same with the costs and charges are to be sold.