ticles might be introduced into the hold without the knowledge of the owners or the captain, yet every thing which is put on board the veffel, is, in general, comprehended in that defcription. But, 3dly, the knowledge of the captain is here proved by ftrong prefumption. The quantity of porter that was put on board, the removal of it at fea, the evidence of the delivery of 24 hampers at his ftore, and by his order, are circumftances from which, we fuppofe, the claimants themfelves, did not think his ignorance of the tranfaction tenable.
Then there remains only the great point upon which the counfel for the claimants feem chiefly to rely, to wit, their innocent and ignorance, with refpect to the fraud that has been committed. There is no evidence, indeed, that tends to fhew, that the owners of the fhip meant to any thing unfairly; but, on the contrary, that the mate brought the goods hither with the avowed intention to defraud them, as well as the ftate. The queftion then recurs, what difference does it make, whether they knew of it, or not? – Here is a pofitive law that directs a due entry of all goods, wares, and merchandize imported into this ftate, under certain penalties, and one of them is the forfeiture of the veffel or boat from which they are unladed. It does not fpeak of the knowledge of any perfon, but feems to be ftudioufly worded to avoid that conftruction. It is not a novel law, though perhaps it is a ftricter now than formerly: For, in England it has long exifted, and before the revolution it was known in Pennʃylvania The Legiflature has thought that nothing elfe would anfwer, and the Judges and the Jurors are equally bound to obedience. If indeed the law was doubtful or latitudinal, admitting one interpretation, which would be juft, and another which would by unjuft, it would become us to prefer the former. But if the policy of the Legiflature feems to bear hard on the fubject, we are not to judge, and determine upon its propriety–that is a matter for the deliberation of thofe who made the law–and however unjuft it feems, we muft acquiefce, or there muft be a diffolution of fociety. It muft certainly affect every humane man to fee the innocent fuffer ; but in fociety this is not ftrange or uncommon ; and the diftinction may properly be taken between criminal and civil cafes. The law never punifhes any man criminally but for his own act, yet it frequently punifhes him in his pocket, for the act of another. Thus, it a wife commits an offence, the hufband is not liable to the penalties ; but if fhe obtains the property of another by any means not felonious, he muft make the payment and amends. There are a variety of other inftances, in which men are refponfible for one another, in confequence of their connection in fociety. The drayman, if he drives over and kills a child, muft himfelf fuffer the judgment of the law–but if the flaves a pipe of wine, his mafter muft take the compenfation.–Upon the whole, it is neither a hard nor a novel cafe, fince men muft occafionally employ others to act for them, and ought to anfwer for thofe in whom they confide. If the Legiflature has thought proper to fubject the owners to this forfeiture, we muft fubmit. With the Jury, therefore, the power is happily lodged,
