Silva had the assistance of friends or counsel, or that she had any idea of a right to freedom, except that was derived from the deed of manumission, which bears the same date as the indenture, and must be considered as having been executed immediately before it. Taken together, these two instruments form one transaction. Thus situated, an ignorant girl binds herself to serve for thirteen years, for no other consideration than, meat, drink, washing and lodging. No education is to be given, no art, trade, or useful business, to be taught she is not even to receive freedom dues.On what principle can such an indenture be supported? Can it be said that the infant receives any benefit from it? It was determined in Commonwealth vs. Keppele, 2 Dall. 197, that an indenture from an infant, living in the state, to serve till the age of fifteen years, even with the consent of his guardian, was void. That was the case of a white child: but there is no authority or reason for making any distinction between black and white; except it may be in the case ef compromise, which I have before mentioned. I am therefore of opinion, that the indenture was void, and the prisoner must be discharged.

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE U.S. NEW YORK.

Schooner Enterprize and cargo, John Yellowly, claimant appellant.

versus

The United States, libellant respondent.

This was an appeal from his honour Judge Talmadge, in the New York District court of the United States, condemning the schooner Enterprize and cargo, for having been laden in the night without a permit from the collector or the inspection of a revenue officer. The clause of the law under which the condemnation in the district court had been pronounced is the second section of the third supplement to the Embargo act, and is in the following words:

"And be it further enacted, that during the continuance of the act laying an embargo on all ships and harbours of the United States, and of the several acts supplementary thereto, no ship or vessel of any description whatever, other than those described in the next preceding section, and wherever bound, shall receive a clearance, unless the lading shall be made hereafter, under the inspection of the proper revenue officers, subject to the same restrictions, regulations, penalties and forfeitures, as are provided by law for the inspection of goods, wares and merchandize, imported into the United States, upon which duties are imposed, any law to the contrary notwithstanding; provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect vessels laden in whole or in part, on the receipt of this act by the respective collectors."

From the decree of condemnation, an appeal to the Circuit Court of the United States was entered by the claimant; and

the appeal came on to be argued before his honor Judge Livingston. The cause was argued by Mr. Sanford, the district attorney, on behalf of the United States, and by Mr. Griffin as counsel for the appellant.

The facts being admitted, the attorney of the United States contended that the penalty for loading in the night season, or even in the day time without a permit from the collector, was the forfeiture of both vessel and cargo. That although the forfeiture of vessel and cargo, was not declared in so many terms by the foregoing section of the supplement to the embargo act, yet that it clearly intended to refer to and adopt certain of the regulations and penalties contained in the collection law; and that the regulations and penalties thus referred to and adopted are to be found in the 50th section of that law; which in substance provides, that goods, wares and merchandize imported into the United States from a foreign country shall not be unladen or delivered in the United States but in open day, except by special license from the collector, nor at any time without a permit from the collector; and punishes every person who may be engaged in the prohibited unlading of such foreign goods, wares, or merchandize, with a forfeiture of four hundred dollars respectively, and a disability to hold any office of trust or profit under the United States for a term not exceeding seven years; and directs the collector of the district to advertize their names in a public newspaper; and subjects to forfeiture the goods, wares and merchandize so unladen; and further declares that if the value of such goods, wares or merchandize shall amount to four hundred dollars, the vessel from which they are unladen, with her tackle, apparel and furniture shall be subject to the like forfeiture.-The Attorney of the United States stated that the construction of the law for which he contended, had received the judicial sanction of most of the district courts in the United States-That in this district in particular, a number of condemnations had been pronounced under circumstances similar to those of this case, in all of which the adverse counsel had acquiesced, except in those where his présent client was engaged.-That the question now agitated was one of great importance, as by far the major portion of seizures under

the embargo laws, had been made under this very section. The Attorney of the United States concluded his argument by expressing a very confident expectation that the decree of the district court would be affirmed.

The counsel for the appellant observed that as the cases alleged to have been decided in other districts of the United States did not come before the court in the definite form of regular reports, it was impossible for him to answer or explain them.-That they might or might not, have corresponded in all their parts, with the case now in controversy. That this district, as he was well aware, abounded with condemnations under this section of the law; but that in all of those cases where he was engaged, he had entered his protest against their authority by an immediate appeal-That if the other counsel engaged in similar prosecutions had omitted to pursue the same course, he was confident, from his knowledge of the sentiments of those gentlemen, that the omission had not arisen from their conviction of the correctness of the condemnations-That their client, already deprived of their vessels and cargoes probably of their all, by the rigor of the law, rendered more rigorous by judicial interpretation, might have been unable to find the necessary security for the prosecution of appeals; or they might have shrunk from a contest, where they were threatened not only with the loss of the property in controversy but also with the most formidable personal disabilities and penalties. Under these circumstances, the counsel for the appellant trusted that the cause would come before this court, unprejudiced by what had been said to have taken place elsewhere. He was anxious that the question should be fairly met, and decided on its merits.

He contended that the only consequence of lading a vessel contrary to the provisions of this section of the law, was the refusal of a clearance. That the subject of a clearance was the thing chiefly in contemplation of the Legislature in the sections immediately previous and subsequent, as well as the one in question. That in this section, there was no absolute prohibition against lading a vessel in any manner which the owner might elect; but simply a provision that if the lading was not under the inspection of a revenue officer, the vessel should be deprived of the privilege

of a clearance. That the construction is harsh and to be avoided, which imputes to the Legislature an intention of converting into a crime, the exercise of the privilege which every citizen enjoys of employing his vessel as a store house, or for any purpose not immediately connected with navigation, whenever he pleases, without permission from any revenue officer whatsoever.-But that the argument of the opposite counsel not only imputes this intention to the legislature, but also supposes that the legislature intended to attach to this new created crime, the most severe set of penalties to be found in the whole range of our revenue system; -and that under this section, if a merchant, from motives of convenienco, and perhaps with no design to depart from the wharf, has the audacity to place a single article on board his vessel without the permission and superintendence of the revenue officers, he is not only liable to enormous penalties and forfeifures, but is also under a seven years diability, to hold any office of trust or profit in his country, and is, in the meantime to be advertised in public newspapers as a culprit and outlaw! That if such an intention indeed possessed the minds of our national legislature, they had not, fortunately for the honor of the country, ventured to express it in clear and intelligible language: the despotic mandate had been happily couched in terms of so much darkness and mystery, that our courts were not bound to understand and enforce it.

The counsel of the appellant insisted on the rule of the common law that penal statutes are not to be construed strictly against the accused, nor was he aware of any privilege which the embargo act and its supplements could reasonably claim to be exempted from the operation of this benevolent and wholesome maxim. But if any forfeitures over and above the penalty of being refused a clearance, are created by this section, what are those forfeitures and from what part or parts of the collection law, are they to be taken? That the answer of the attorney of the United States on this subject, ought to have been very explicit and satisfactory; for although it be admitted that a penal statute may by reference incorporate and adopt the penalties and forfeitures of some other penal law, yet that the terms of such reference and