1787.
claimants were either acquainted with the conduct of their officers, or were guilty of the groffett negligence : but it fhould be remembered, that they might have seen the porter on board the fhip, if, as their own witnefs expreffed it, they had chofen to look– that the contraband unlading took place at their wharf, and but a few yards diftant from their counting-houfe, that it was a matter known to every failor on board the fhip, and that the mate, who is fuppofed to have done them fo fevere an injury, was retained in their fervice for two or three weeks after feizure. Still however, the innocence of the claimants, has no connection with the prefent queftion, which depends upon this fingle iffue, whether the allegation contained in the information is, or is not true?– in other words– whether 42 hampers of porter have been unladed from the fhip Anna, before they were duly entered at the collector's office? Much declamation indeed has been exercifed upon this propofition, “ that the innocent ought not to fuffer for the guilty: ” but, however juft it may be in the abftract, the ftate of fociety neceffarily introduces many ftriking exceptions. Thus, if a carrier is attacked by robbers, and after a brave defence is overpowered, notwithftanding his innocence and his misfortune, he is ftill anfwerable for the goods of which he was plundered; nay, if his mafter, on whom no fhadow of blame could poffibly be reflected, is called upon, he muft render to the owner a full indeminfication. Again ; if a man lends a piece of furniture to another, which is disftrained with the goods of the borrower for arrearages of rent, is there any thing culpable in his conduct ? and yet the law works a forfeiture of his property, to fatisfy the demands of the landlord. How many various wives fuffer for the depravity of their hufbands–how many inoffenfive children for the diffipation of their parents ? In fhort, the relative obligations of focial life are fuch, that we may trace the fortunes and happinefs of mankind to a dependence upon the actions of each other, in almoft every fublunary ftation–but in none is it more obfervable than in the important connection between mafter and servant. From every book that treats upon the fubject, as well as from daily experience, we find that the mafter is refponfible for the actions of his fervant, the owner for the agency of his captain ; but we fhall readily concur with out antagonifts in acknowledging, that this refponfibility continues only while the fervant or captain is engaged in the bufinefs of the mafter or owner.
What then is the prefent cafe? The law requires the mafter of any fhip or other veffel to exhibit a true manifeft, upon oath, to the collector of the port – does it not confequently become his duty to do fo? and is not his neglect or evafion in this refpect, a neglect or evafion committed, while in the actual tranfaction of the owner's bufinefs? Upon their own conftruction, therefore, the claimants are liable ; and it is nneceffary for us to prove, as we could do, that had the fraud been perpetrated even by the failors, a forfeiture of the veffel would have enfued. In England, the owners of the utmoft
