Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/629

THE LAURA. 615 �the rights of the offioers. The question as to the power of .the pres- ident, by pardon, to defeat the inchoate rights of the officers was not passed upon. �In U S V. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, it was held that the interests of officers of the customs in forfeitures were subordinate to the suthor- ity of the secretary of the treasury, under section 1 of the act of March 3, 1797, 1 St.at Large, 606, (now section 6292 of the Revised Statutes,) to remit them. In the case of a vessel eondemned as for- feited to the United States for a violation of the slave-trade act, the president wag advised to remit only the interest of the United States, on the grdnnd that his pardon oould not defeat the vested rights of the seizing officer. 4 Op. Attys. Gen. 573. On the question ■whethei' the president had the power to pardon offences comtoitted by the owners ormasters of steam-vessels in respect to the transportation of passengers in violation of certain statutes, he was advised that he had such power; and the question whether he had authority to remit, by pardon, a penalty accruing to individuals, was euggested, but not discussed. 6 Op. Attys. Gen. 393. In the case of a vessel arrested for violating a statute in regard to the transportation of passengers, a remission being applied for to the secretary of ' the treasury, under section 1 of the act of March 3, 1797, the question oecurred whether the case came within the pardoning power of the president. The secretary was advised— �(1) That the pregident had power to pardon the imprisonment, fines, and forfeitures imposed for violating the provisions in regard to space for, and ntimber of, passengers, unless, pertiaps, as regarded a forfeiture, the right of which had duly vested in the custom-house officers, or others, except the United States ; (2) that it was doubtf ul whether the president had power to remit such forfeiture; (3) that the secretary of the treasury had power to remit all forfeitures of vessels for carrying an excess of passengers ; (4) that the president had power to pardon in all cases of vessels libelled by reason of liens on them for penalties imposed by the statute; (5) that the secretary of the treasury had the concurrent power to remit in the last-named cases, but any doubt could be cured by the authority of the president, as no interest but that of the United States was affected; (6) that, as the act of 1797 aiiorded the means of judicial investigation as to the question of remission, it was more eonvenient in the cases of seizures, and prosecutions instituted by offi- cers of the customs, to dispose of that class of seizures in that way, than to refer them to the unaided discretion of the president. Id. 488. �In U. S. V. Harris, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 110, a person was convicted and fined for violating the internai revenue law. Afterwards the court adjudged that H. was the informer, and that one-half of the fine should be for his use and the remainder for the use of the United ��� �