TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Monticello, July 29, 1808.
Dear Sir,—I enclose you a letter of information of what is passing on the Canada line. To prevent it is, I suppose, beyond our means, but we must try to harass the unprincipled agents, and punish as many as we can.
I transmit, also, the petition of Tyson and James, millers of Baltimore, for permission to send a load of flour to New Orleans, to direct in it what is regular, for I do not see any circumstance in the case sufficiently peculiar to take it out of the rule. If their views are honest, as I suppose them to be, it would be a great relief to them to be permitted, by giving bond for an increased valuation, to send their flour to its destination, and equal relief to us from these tormenting applications. Yet, as the other gentlemen seemed not satisfied that it would be legal, I would not have it done on my own opinion alone, however firmly I am persuaded of its legality. Could you not in the way of conversation with some of the sound lawyers of New York, find what would be then primâ facie opinion, and if encouraged by that, we may take the opinion of the Attorney General, and others. The questions to be solved are,—first: To what place should the valuation refer? and second: Would too high a valuation render the bond null in law? On the first, I observe that the law says that bond shall be given in double the value, &c., without saying whether its value here, or at the place of sale, is meant; that, generally speaking, its value here would be understood; but that whenever the words of a law will bear two meanings, one of which will give effect to the law, and the other will defeat it, the former must be supposed to have been intended by the Legislature, because they could not intend that meaning, which would defeat their intention, in passing that law; and in a statute, as in a will, the intention of the party is to be sought after. On the second point we would ask, who is to value the cargo on which the bond is to be taken? Certainly the collector, either by himself or his agents. When the bond is put in suit it must be recovered. Neither judge nor jury can go into the question of the value of the cargo. If anybody could, it would be the chancellor; but his maxim is never to lend his power in support of fraud or wrong. The common law could only give a remedy on an action for damages, as, for instance, if a collector, by requiring too large security, prevents a party from clearing out, damages might be recovered. But in the case in question, the consent of the party would take away the error, and besides, as the voyage takes place, no damages for preventing it can be recovered. These are general considerations to be brought into view in such a conversation, which, indeed would occur to every lawyer who turned his mind to the subject at all. It would be a most important construction for the relief of the honest merchant, to whom the amount of bond is important, and to us, also, in the execution of the law; and I think its legality far more defensible than that of limiting the provisions to one-eighth of the cargo. My situation in the country gives me no opportunity to consult lawyers of the first order. Should such occur, however, I will avail myself of them.