AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1823 



Here is the United States statute, and I am surprised, I must oonfww, 

 at United States lawyers making any charge against British legislation 

 when their legislation on the same subject is in nowise different. The 

 clause thus concludes : 



Provided that probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the court. 



There is no difference whatever between our law and theirs on this 

 subject. 

 Then again, on page 182 of the same volume, section 970, it Hays this: 



When, in any prosecution commenced on .account of the seizure of any vessel, goods, 

 wares, or merchandise, made by any collector or other officer under any act of (.'wg r*** 

 authorizing such seizure, judgment is rendered for the claimant, but appear* to the 

 court that there was reasonable cause of seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate 

 thereof to be entered, and the claimant shall not in such case be entitled to costs, nor shall 

 the person who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account 

 of such suit or prosecution ; provided, that the vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise be, after 

 judgment, forthwith returned to such claimant or his agent. 



This clearly proves what is done in case the seizing-officer is in the 

 wrong, and when consequently the property seized has to be restored, 

 and it that enactment is not on all fours with ours I do not know wbat 

 is. 



Mr. FOSTER. There is no such provision for the return of the property 

 in your act. 



5lr. THOMSON. I am really surprised at Judge Foster saying so. What 

 is the result of a proceeding in rem ? Can there be any doubt about it 

 at all ! It must result in a judgment one way or the other. There are 

 only two judgments possible in a proceeding in rent judgment of con- 

 demnation or judgment of acquittal, which restores the projierty at 

 once, while it is transferred to the government in case of condemnation. 

 I have not time to look for the matter in this immense volume, but I 

 have here another book which shows that a bond must be given in these 

 cases in the United States as well as here. I think that the United 

 States look after their interests about as well as any other nation ; and 

 I believe that in the volume which I now hold in my hand it will be 

 found that a bond has to be given. This volume contains the customs 

 regulations of 1874, and epitomes of the different acts, as I presume, for 

 the guidance of the customs officers. In article 841', page 397, it says 

 that " seizures may be made by any private person, but at the peril of 

 responsibility in damages in case the seizure is not adopted by the 

 government." Well, this is a most extraordinary law, and it altogether 

 eclipses the English or our law on the subject. 



In case the act is adopted by the government such person i 

 from action, or, in other words, any American citizen who ohooaM to 

 make a raid against any person who has committed any infraction of 

 the customs, or other laws of the country, can do so, and The latter can- 

 not bring an action against him if the government chooses to adopt his 

 case. It is further stated on page 398 : 



From that danger officers of customs are protected bylaw in all cae whew reasonable 

 cause of seizure shall appear. 



It is immaterial who makes the seizure, or whether it waa irregularly made 

 adjudication is for a sufficient cause. 



On page 402, article 859, it is stated, and there is cited in the mar- 

 gin an act of July 18, 18G6 ; so you see that this iuhospitabl 

 lation n is of very recent date : 



Any person claiming the property so seized, or any part thereof, may.j 

 specified, file with the collector a claim, statiug his or her interest in th 

 deposit with such collector, or other officer, a bond to the Luited States in the pn 



