TO READERS AND CORRESPOND ENTS.

WE invite the particular attention of our readers to the discussion which is commenced in the present number, respecting the claim to the Batture at New Orleans which has lately been advanced by the United States, or rather by Mr. Jefferson. At present it would not become us to animadvert upon the flagrant violation of the independence of the Judiciary and the most obvious principles of jurisprudence which the conduct of the Executive has exhibited. The matter will be presented to the next Congress, where, we hope the dignity of the laws will be asserted, and the individual who has been exposed to this oppression will be protected. We have never seen the opinion of the Attorney-General, and other documents, upon which Mr. Jefferson's orders to the Marshal, to dispossess Mr. Livingston were founded, nor have his pressing entreaties enabled him to obtain a sight of them. He, therefore, contends under great disadvantages. His reply to Mr. Derbigny is a complete detection of some of the misrepresentations which have been employed in the case, and fully refutes the sophistry of that opinion. But if the judgment of any one still be in doubt, if scepticism yet withhold her assent to the justness of Mr. Livingstons pretensions, let the opinions which shall be published in the ensuing number be perused, with an impartial eye. We think no man who can comprehend the force of argument, will fail to be convinced by the lucid and methodical reasoning of Mr. Du Ponceau. The powerful mind of this profound civilian is there exercised in familiar scenes. His logic is "as a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces," and none can withstand its blows.

We return our thanks to a member of the Virginian bar for a copy of the celebrated decision of JUDGE ROANE on the doctrine of post nati. We shall give it an early insertion.

Several other articles must also be deferred for want of room. Some decisions in the New-York district, under the Embargo laws; and directions as to the manner of proving deeds in that State and in Virginia are received and shall shortly appear.

THE

AMERICAN

Law Journal and Miscellany.

NO. VII.

On the Constitutionality of the Embargo Laws.

UNITED STATES.

MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT.

DISTRICT COURT AT SALEM, SEPTEMBER TERM, A. D. 1808.

United States, by Joseph Wilson, Collector of Marblehead,

VS.

The brigantine William-Benjamin Ireson & al. Claimants.

DAVIS, Dist. 7. This libel is founded on the act of congress, passed 22d December, 1807, intitled, "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and on the first supplementary act, passed January 9th, 1808.

The libel alleges, that sundry enumerated goods, wares and merchandize, on the 17th day of March last, on the high seas, were put, from said brigantine, on board another vessel, called the Nancy; and also, that other goods, wares and merchandize, on the 11th day of May last, at Lynn, in said district, were put, from said brigantine, on board another vessel, called the Mary, with intent, that said goods, wares and merchandize should be transported to some foreign port

A

or place, contrary to the acts aforesaid, by which, it is alleg ed, that said brigantine is forfeited.

It has been contended, by the counsel for the claimants,

1st. That the facts, appearing in evidence, do not present a case, within the true intent and meaning of the acts aforesaid.

2d. That the acts, on which a forfeiture is claimed, are unconstitutional.

After argument, on these heads, it is suggested, by the counsel for the claimants, that the case may receive material elucidations from the facts that will appear, on the trial of the brigantine Nancy; and they pray for a postponement of a decision on this libel, until a hearing shall be had, relative to that vessel., As that case is necessarily continued, and as that of the Sukey, also pending at this term, appears to have connexion with the transactions in the case of the William, I shall not make up a judgment relative to the facts on this libel, until those of the Nancy and Sukey shall have been tried, or until the further evidence suggested, shall have been heard. But it appears to be necessary to declare an opinion on the constitutional question, which has been so fully discussed, especially as the objection, if available, equally applies to many other cases before the court. Under these circumstances, I have considered it expedient, and indeed an incumbent duty, to give an opinion on this great and interesting question; though an entire decision on the case, in which it was presented and argued, is, for the reasons suggested, postponed.

In considering the several acts, relative to the embargo, as one system, it may be convenient to exhibit an analysis of their contents.

The general, or primary, provisions are contained in the first act, passed December 22, 1807; which lays "An Embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and places, within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, cleared or not cleared, bound to any foreign port or place ;" and in the fourth section of the third additional act, passed March 12th,

1808, which prohibits the exportation, from the United States, in any manner whatever, either by land or water, of any goods, wares or merchandise, of foreign, or domestic, growth or manufacture. To the same head belongs the prohibition of the exportation of specie, by any foreign ship or vessel, by section 5th, of the first supplementary act.

The exceptions to these prohibitions are,

1st. Vessels under the immediate direction of the presi dent of the United States.

2d. Foreign ships or vessels, either in ballast, or with goods wares and merchandise on board, when notified of the first act.

3d. Armed vessels, possessing public commissions, from any foreign power, not including in this description, privateers, letters of marque, or other private armed vessels.

4th. Vessels licensed for the fisheries, or bound on a whaling voyage, with no other cargo than sea stores, salt, and the usual fishing tackling and apparel.

5th. Vessels dispatched in ballast, under permission from the president of the United States, to import, from abroad, property from any citizen, which was actually without the jurisdiction of the United States, prior to the 22d December,

1807.

The remaining provisions, in the several acts, are merely auxiliary, and appear intended more effectually to ensure the execution of the primary prohibitions.

The first act is without limitation, and the several supplementary acts are to exist, during the continuance of the first.

A separate act, passed April 22d, 1808, authorises the president of the United States to suspend the operation of the act laying an embargo, and the several supplementary acts," in the event of such peace, or suspension of hostilities, between the belligerent powers of Europe, or of any changes in their measures, affecting neutral commerce, as may render that of the United States safe, in the judgment of the president”—with a proviso, that such suspension shall