Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Deposit of Ships' Papers with American Consuls. ernment. If this power of pardon is wisely used, peace will be established upon a sure and permanent basis.

On these grounds, in addition to what has before been said, I am of the opinion that another and a new offer of amnesty, adapted to the existing condition of things, should be proclaimed.

I do not conceive that it is in place just now, even if I were prepared to do so, which I am not, because not sufficiently advised of the temper of those in rebellion, for me to say what should be the terms of the suggested proclamation.

I am, sir, very respectfully,

The PRESIDENT.

Your obedient servant,

JAMES SPEED.

DEPOSIT OF SHIPS' PAPERS WITH AMERICAN CONSULS.

The provisions of the act of February 28, 1803, in reference to the deposit of ships' papers with American consuls, apply to American steam ferryboats running between Detroit and Windsor, Canada West.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
May 12, 1865.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of 28th ultimo, submitting for my opinion two questions relative to the duty of the masters of certain American steam ferry-boats running between Detroit and Windsor, Canada West, to deposit their vessels' papers with the consul of our Government at the latter port, and to pay the tonnage fees provided by law.

These questions are stated in the despatch of our consul at Windsor to the Secretary of State, dated 20th ultimo. The act of February 28, 1803, (2 Stats., 203,) provides "that it shall be the duty of every master or commander of a ship or vessel belonging to citizens of the United

Deposit of Ships' Papers with American Consuls.

States, on his arrival at a foreign port, to deposit his register, &c., with the consul, &c., if any there be at such port."

[ocr errors]

If in the case of the vessels named, the only substantial question on which the consul has difficulty or doubt be, whether ports in the British North American provinces are, within the meaning of this act, "foreign ports, I have no difficulty in advising that they are, and that every American vessel, on her "arrival" at one of those ports is obliged by the law to deposit her papers with the consul or commercial agent of our Government there.

I know of no statute taking vessels arriving,at ports in Canada, and in the other British provinces in America, from out of the provision of the act of 1803.

The vessels to which reference is made by the consul in his despatch must therefore deposit their papers with him, on the occasion of each arrival at Windsor. The question, what is an "arrival," within the meaning of the act of Congress, has been the subject of frequent consideration in this office and in the courts. If a vessel make an entry, or is required by law or usage at the foreign port to make an entry, on coming to port, I am of opinion that her coming there amounts to an "arrival," within the meaning of the statute.

Specifically replying, then, to the second question of the consul, I think that all American vessels entering Windsor are obliged by law to deposit their papers in the consulate there, be their stay there ever so short.

Cases may occur, where vessels, on coming to foreign ports neither make entries, nor are obliged by the law or usage there to enter, in which the requirement of the law would, nevertheless, attach. If their voyages end at the foreign ports, I think their coming is on each occasion an arrival, whether they are required by the law of the foreign ports to enter and clear or not. The case presented by the consul in his first inquiry would seem to be one of this kind; and even if a formal entry and clearance by the

Deposit of Ships' Papers with American Consuls.

vessels he refers to, on coming and leaving Windsor, is not required of them by the law or usage prevailing there, I should be of opinion that they are, nevertheless, liable to deposit their papers, and pay tonnage fees.

But the act of August 5, 1861, (12 Stats., 315) does not allow consuls to receive from vessels running regularly by weekly or monthly trips to or between foreign ports fees for more than four trips in a year. This act is not to be construed, however, in my opinion, as affecting in any way the duty of the master with regard to depositing his papers, under the statute of 1803. The fees are not collectable by the consul for more than four trips in each year, but at each arrival the master must still deposit his papers.

I send, for the information of the consul, a fuller opinion in the case of certain vessels touching at Sarnia, on the foregoing question, by my learned predecessor, Mr. Bates, in the doctrine of which I concur.

I should think, let me observe, in conclusion, that it would be highly expedient at this time, in view of the relation of Canada and the other British provinces to this country, as a place of refuge and escape sought for and reached by many dangerous persons from the insurrectionary States, for the department to require that our consuls and commercial agents at the British North American ports enforce compliance strictly and rigidly with the provisions of the act of 1803, in cases to which they are legally applicable.

I am, sir, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

JAMES SPEED.

Hon. Wм. W. HUNTER,

Acting Secretary of State.

Arrest of Paroled Rebels by State Process.

ARREST OF PAROLED REBELS BY STATE PROCESS.

The Government of the United States should not interfere with process, issued out of a State court in Kentucky for the arrest of "paroled rebel prisoners," charged with robbery on the occasion of "Morgan's raid."

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

May 27, 1865.

SIR: I have received and considered the letter of Hon. W. C. Goodloe, of Kentucky, to you, transmitted to me, under cover of your communication of 20th instant.

I am of opinion that there is no legal duty imposed upon the Government of the United States to prevent or interfere with the execution of process issued out of a State court in Kentucky for the arrest of persons who may be "paroled rebel prisoners," charged and indicted in such court with robbery, committed within its jurisdiction, on the occasion of what is described as "Morgan's raid," and, therefore, that the Government of the United States ought not to prevent or interfere with the execution of such process.

Whether such persons are guilty of robbery, and whether they have any adequate legal defence to such a charge, are questions for the judicial determination of the court before whom they may be tried. The jurisdiction of the court to decide those questions, after the parties are arrested, is unquestionable, and the Government of the United States should not interfere to take the cases in question out of, or place them beyond the cognizance of the State tribunal. I return herewith the letters of Judge Goodloe.

I am, sir, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

JAMES SPEED.

Mitchell's Claim.

MITCHELL'S CLAIM.

The appropriations made by the acts of April 16, 1862, and July 16, 1862, for the purpose of facilitating the colonization of persons of African descent, cannot be used to pay the salary of the "Commissioner of Colonization," for services rendered after the passage of the act of July 2, 1864.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

June 2, 1865.

SIR: You ask my opinion on two questions, as follows: 1st. Is Mr. Mitchell entitled to his salary from July 2, 1864, at the rate fixed by the order of the Secretary of the Interior of December 1, 1862?

2d. Are the appropriations made by the act of April 16, 1862, and the act of July 16, 1862, applicable to the payment of such salary?

I prefer, for reasons presently to be stated, to consider these questions in the inverse order to determine whether the moneys appropriated by the statutes of April 16 and July 16, 1862, are available for the payment of Mr. Mitchell's claim, before considering the point you first present, whether he is entitled in law to receive anything from the United States. In the first place, who is Mr. Mitchell, and how does his claim with respect to the salary in question arise?

He is styled in the order of the Secretary of the Interior, fixing his compensation, a "commissioner of colonization." But the document which is the evidence of the authority he received from the President, denominates him an "agent to aid in the execution of the several laws and parts of laws enacted and approved, during the second session of the Thirty Seventh Congress, which provide for the migration or colonization of persons of African descent." Whatever is or was his proper designation, we see in the President's memorandum of his appointment, what duties were intended to be imposed upon him, and what functions it was designed he should exercise. He was appointed simply an "agent" to aid in the execution

vol. xi.-16

« ZurückWeiter »