598

TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 233. 1832.

act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, anddisabilities, accruing in certain cases therein mentioned,” or in any actin addition to, or amendatory of said act, and not exceeding fifty dol-lars in amount, or value, the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby

forfeiture. 4th. The defendant is not liable to the plaintiffs for such parts of the proceeds of the for-feiture as he had paid over to other officers of the custom-house for their shares, before notice of theclaims of the plaintiffs. Sawyer et al. v. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 464.

A bond was given to T. S., the collector of the district of Petersburg, under the second section ofthe embargo act of the 22d of December, 1807, and a suit was afterwards brought by him on the samebond in the district court; and pending the proceedings, to wit, on the 30th of October, 1S11, J. S., thecollector, died ; and judgment was recovered in favour of the United States , on the 30th of November,1811. On the 26th of the same November, J. J. was appointed collector of the same district, andentered on the duties of his office on the 14th of December, 1811 ; until which time T. S., who wasdeputy collector under JT S., at his decease, continued as such to discharge the duties of the office. Thejudgment of the district court was subsequently affirmed by the circuit court. When the bond wastaken, A. T. was surveyor of the district, and continued in that office until his death, w’hich was afterthe commencement of the suit on the bond, and before judgment thereon, and was succeeded by J. H.P., who was appointed on the 30th of March, 1811, and entered on the duties of his office on the 16thof the same month. It was held, that the personal representatives of the deceased collector and sur-veyor, and not their successors in office, were entitled to that portion of the penalty which is, by law,to be distributed among the revenue officers of the district where it was incurred. There being no navalofficer in the district, the division was adjudged to be made in equal proportions between the collectorand surveyor. Jones and others v. Shore’s Executors and others, 1 Wheat. 462; 3 Cond. Rep. 624.

The Secretary of the Treasury has authority, under the remission act of the 3d of March, 1797, ch.13, to remit a forfeiture or penalty accruing under the revenue laws, at any time, before or after a finalsentence of condemnation or judgment for the penalty, until the money is actually paid over to thecollector for distribution. United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246; 6 Cond. Rep. 90.

Such remission extends to the shares of the forfeiture or penalty to which the officers of'the customsare entitled, as well as to the interest of the United States . Ibid .

The ship Good Friends, and her cargo of British merchandise, owned by Stephen Girard, a citizen ofthe United States, was seized by the collector of the Delaware district, on the 19th of April, 1812, for a viola-tion of the non-intercourse laws of the United States then in force. The ship and cargo were condemned asforfeited, in the district and circuit court of the Delaware district. On the 29th July, 1813, Congress passed“An act for the relief of the owners of the Good Friends,” & c., and a remission of the forfeiture wasgranted by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the authority of that act, with the exception of a sumequal to the double duties imposed by an act of Congress passed on the 1st of July, 1812. The collectorwas entitled to one moiety of the whole amount reserved by the Secretary of the Treasury, as the con-dition of the remission. M’Lane v. The United States , 6 Peters, 404.

Where a sentence of condemnation has been finally pronounced in a case of seizure, the Supreme Court ,as an incident to the possession of the principal cause, has a right to proceed to decree a distributionof the proceeds, according to the terms prescribed by law. And it is a familiar practice to instituteproceedings for the purpose of such distribution, whenever a doubt occurs as to the rights of the parties,who are entitled to share in the distribution. Ibid.

The duty of the collector in superintending the collection of the revenue, and of making seizures forsupposed violations of law, is onerous and full of perplexity. If he seizes any goods, it is at his ownperil ; and he is condemnable in damages and costs, if it should turn out upon the final adjudication,that there was no probable cause for the seizure. As a just reward for his diligence, and a compensa-tion for his risks; at once to stimulate his vigilance and secure his activity, the laws of the UnitedStates have awarded to him a large share of the proceeds of the forfeiture. But his right by the seizureis but inchoate; and although the forfeiture may have been justly incurred, yet the government hasreserved to itself the right to release it, either in whole or in part, until the proceeds have been actu-ally received for distribution ; and in that event, and to that extent, it displaces the right of the collector.Such was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the United States v.Morris, 10 Wheat. 246. Ibid . ,

But whatever is reserved to the government out of the forfeiture, is reserved as well for the seizingofficer, as for itself; and is distributable accordingly. The government has no authority, under its exist-ing laws, to release the collector’s share, as such, and yet to retain to itself the other part of the for-feiture. Ibid.

In point of law, no duties, as such, can legally accrue upon the importation of prohibited goods.They are not entitled to entry at the custom-house, or to be bonded. They are, ipso facto, forfeited bythe mere act of importation. Ibid.

The Secretary of the Treasury may remit not only the interest of the United States , but of individuals,in penalties and forfeitures in certain cases, after suit brought, and before judgment. United States v.Lancaster, 4-Wash. C. C. R. 64.

A pardon of the President of the United States , after condemnation, as to all the interest of theUnited States , in the penalty incurred by a violation of the embargo laws, and directing all further pro-ceedings on behalf of the United States to be discontinued, does not remit the interest of the custom-house officers in a moiety. Ibid.

Under the 91st section of the duty act of March 2d, 1799, ch. 22, the share of a forfeiture to whichthe collector, &c., of the district is entitled, is to be paid to the person who was the collector, &c., inthe office at the time the seizure was made ; and not to his successor in office at the time of condemna-tion, and the receipt of the money. Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 445.

Until final judgment, no part of the forfeiture vests absolutely in the collector ; but after final judg-ment, his share vests absolutely, and cannot be remitted by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Hollen,X Mason’s C. C. R. 431.

If, pending the proceedings, a remission be made of the whole property forfeited, the whole title of