“An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, and disabilities, accruing in certain cases therein mentioned,” or in any act in addition to, or amendatory of said act, and not exceeding fifty dollars in amount, or value, the Secretary of the Treasury, be, and he hereby
forfeiture. 4th. The defendant is not liable to the plaintiffs for such part of the proceeds of the forfeiture as he had paid over to other officers of the custom-house for their shares, before notice of the claims of the plaintiffs. Sawyer et al. v. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 464.
A bond was given to T. S., the collector of the district of Petersburg, under the second section of the embargo act of the 22d of December, 1807, and a suit was afterwards brought by him on the same bond in the district court; and pending the proceedings, to wit, on the 30th of October, 1811, J. S., the collector, died; and judgment was recovered in favour of the United States, on the 30th of November, 1811. On the 26th of the same November, J. J. was appointed collector of the same district, and entered on the duties of his office on the 14th of December, 1811; until which time T. S., who was deputy collector under J. S., at his decease, continued as such to discharge the duties of the office. The judgment of the district court was subsequently affirmed by the circuit court. When the bond was taken, A. T. was surveyor of the district, and continued in that office until his death, which was after the commencement of the suit on the bond, and before judgment thereon, and was succeeded by J. H. P., who was appointed on the 30th of March, 1811, and entered on the duties of his office on the 16th of the same month. It was held, that the personal representatives of the deceased collector and surveyor, and not their successors in office, were entitled to that portion of the penalty which is, by law, to be distributed among the revenue officers of the district where it was incurred. There being no naval officer in the district, the division was adjudged to be made in equal proportions between the collector and surveyor. Jones and others v. Shore’s Executors and others, 1 Wheat. 462; 3 Cond. Rep. 624.The Secretary of the Treasury has authority, under the remission act of the 3d of March, 1797, ch. 13, to remit a forfeiture or penalty accruing under the revenue laws, at any time, before or after a final sentence of condemnation or judgment for the penalty, until the money is actually paid over to the collector for distribution. United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246; 6 Cond. Rep. 90.Such remission extends the shares of the forfeiture or penalty to which the officers of the customs are entitled, as well as to the interest of the United States. Ibid.The ship Good Friends, and her cargo of British merchandise, owned by Stephen Girard, a citizen of the United States, was seized by the collector of the Delaware district, on the 19th of April, 1812, for a violation of the non-intercourse laws of the United States then in force. The ship and cargo were condemned as forfeited, in the district and circuit court of the Delaware district. On the 29th July, 1813, Congress passed “An act for the relief of the owners of the Good Friends,” &c., and a remission of the forfeiture was granted by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the authority of that act, with the exception of a sum equal to the double duties imposed by an act of Congress passed on the 1st of July, 1812. The collector was entitled to one moiety of the whole amount reserved by the Secretary of the Treasury, as the condition of the remission. M’Lane v. The United States, 6 Peters, 404.Where a sentence of condemnation has been finally pronounced in a case of seizure, the Supreme Court, as an incident to the possession of the principal cause, has a right to proceed to a decree of distribution of the proceeds, according to the terms prescribed by law. And it is a familiar practice to institute proceedings for the purpose of such distribution, whenever a doubt occurs as to the rights of the parties, who are entitled to share in the distribution. Ibid.The duty of the collector in superintending the collection of the revenue, and of making seizures for supposed violations of law, is onerous and full of perplexity. If he seizes any goods, it is at his own peril; and he is condemnable in damages and costs, if it should turn out upon the final adjudication, that there was no probably cause for the seizure. As a just reward for his diligence, and a compensation of his risks; at once to stimulate his vigilance and secure his activity, the laws of the United States have awarded to him a large share of the proceeds of the forfeiture. But his right by the seizure is but inchoate; and although the forfeiture may have been justly incurred, yet the government has reserved to itself the right to release it, either in whole or in part, until the proceeds have been actually received for distribution; and in that event, and to that extent, it displaces the right of the collector. Such was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246.But whatever is reserved to the government out of the forfeiture, is reserved as well for the seizing officer, as for itself; and is distributable accordingly. The government has no authority, under its existing laws, to release the collector’s share, as such, and yet to retain to itself the other part of the forfeiture. Ibid.In point of law, no duties, as such, can legally accrue upon the importation of prohibited goods. They are not entitled to entry at the custom-house, or to be bonded. They are, ipso facto, forfeited by the mere act of importation. Ibid.The Secretary of the Treasury may remit not only the interest of the United States, but of individuals, in penalties and forfeitures in certain cases, after suit brought, and before judgment. United States v. Lancaster, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 64.A pardon of the President of the United States, after condemnation, as to all the interest of the United States, in the penalty incurred by a violation of the embargo laws, and directing all further proceedings on behalf of the United States to be discontinued, does not remit the interest of the custom-house officers in the moiety. Ibid.Under the 91st section of the duty act of March 2d, 1799, ch. 22, the share of a forfeiture to which the collector, &c., of the district is entitled, is to be paid to the person who was the collector, &c., in the office at the time the seizure was made; and not to his successor in office at the time of condemnation, and the receipt of the money. Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; 5 Cond. Rep. 445.Until final judgment, no part of the forfeiture vests absolutely in the collector; but after final judgment, his share vests absolutely, and cannot be remitted by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Hollen, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 431.If, pending the proceedings, a remission be made of the whole property forfeited, the whole title of
