1787.
caufe originates, no form of entry is prefcribed ; we muft therefore apply for the inftruction to the preceding impoft law, which directs ‘‘ the mafter of any fhip or other veffel to exhibit to the collector a true manifeft, figned by him, of all the goods, wares, and merchandize, imported in fuch fhip or veffel, ” and, after fundry other regulations, calls upon him to make oath, “ that the manifeft faithfully ftates the refpective goods, wares, and merchandize therein mentioned, and that no other is laden or imported in his veffel to the beft of his knowledge or belief.” Has any of the requifites to conftitute a formal entry been neglected by the mafter of the Anna? It appears that he has, in due feafon, exhibited an official manifeft, and that he has fworn to the truth of its contents. This is furely all the law exacts, at leaft for the difcharge of the fhip ; and though the omiffion of any article may be a caufe for forfeiting that article (as it has already happened with the porter upon this occafion) and may likewife be a proper foundation for a charge of perjury, it cannot be extended to diveft the property of an owner who has not practifed any deceit himfelf, and who could not derive any advantage from the deceit practifed by another.
The Counfel for the informants, in reply to the preceding arguments, ftated : that the determination of this caufe would certainly produce confequences of an important nature, and either render the act of affembly upon which is founded, a dead letter, or a productive inftrument of public revenue. In governments differently conftituted, where regal pageantry, or military force, can invite or compel refpect and obedience to the law, little danger is to be apprehended from the occafional indulgence of learned men in their ingenious and novel comments upon the fenfe and expreffions of the legiflature ; but under a democratical conftitution fuch as ours, fhould the people acquire a habit of yielding to logical fubtleties and fpecious declamation, there is no power to controul the evil that muft enfue ; the principles of jurifprudence would become weak and fluctuating, and the virtue and dignity of the commonwealth would be contaminated and eventually deftroyed. Inftead therefore of confidering how to efcape from the ftrong expreffion of the act before us, it is our duty to give it the fulleft operation that is neceffary for fuppreffing the mifchief to which the legiflative attention was originally directed : and here we cordially embrace the pofition of our antagonifts, that the meaning of thofe who framed the law is the beft guide to direct us in carrying it into execution. What then was the evil complained of at the time that this act was made? The atrocious frauds committed upon the revenue What was the remedy provided ? It could not be merely the forfeiture of the fmuggled goods, as the claimants infinuate, for that was impofed by an antecedent law ; but the truth is , that every other pernalty having proved ineffectual, this ftatute was enacted ecprefsly to fup(illegible text)radd the forfeiture of the veffel or boat from which the goods fhould be clandeftinely unladed. But here it is remarked, the the
legifla-
