United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/10th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 5

←

United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2
United States Congress

Public Acts of the Tenth Congress, 1st Session, V

→

The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general embargo enacted by the United States Congress against Great Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. The embargo was imposed in response to the violations of the United States neutrality, in which American merchantmen and their cargo were seized as contraband of war by the belligerent European navies. The British Royal Navy, in particular, resorted to impressment, forcing thousands of American seamen into service on their warships. Widespread evasion of the maritime and inland trade restrictions by American merchants, as well as loopholes in the legislation, greatly reduced the impact of the embargo on the intended targets in Europe. British merchant marine appropriated the lucrative trade routes relinquished by U.S. shippers due to the embargo. At the end of 15 months, the embargo was revoked on March 1, 1809, in the last days of Jefferson's presidency. Tensions with Britain continued to grow, leading to the War of 1812. Warning: template has been deprecated.

2477866United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2 — Public Acts of the Tenth Congress, 1st Session, VUnited States Congress

Dec. 22, 1807.

[Repealed.]

Chap. V.—An Act laying an Embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States.^[1]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an embargo be, and Act of Jan. 9, 1808, ch. 8.
Act of March 12, 1808, ch. 33.
Act of April 25, 1808, ch. 66.
Act of March 1, 1809, ch. 24.
Embargo laid upon shipping in the U. States.
Clearances to be given to none but vessels under the direction of the President.
Foreign vessels in ballast or with goods on board when notified to be allowed to depart.
Registered or sea letter vessels not to proceed from one port to another in the U. States without giving bonds, &c. &c.
Exception of public armed vessels, &c.hereby is laid on all ships and vessels in the ports and places within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, cleared or not cleared, bound to any foreign port or place; and that no clearance be furnished to any ship or vessel bound to such foreign port or place, except vessels under the immediate direction of the President of the United States: and that the President be authorized to give such instructions to the officers of the revenue, and of the navy and revenue cutters of the United States, as shall appear best adapted for carrying the same into full effect: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the departure of any foreign ship or vessel, either in ballast, or with the goods, wares and merchandise on board of such foreign ship or vessel, when notified of this act.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That during the continuance of this act, no registered, or sea letter vessel, having on board goods, wares and merchandise, shall be allowed to depart from one port of the United States to any other within the same, unless the master, owner, consignee or factor of such vessel shall first give bond, with one or more sureties to the collector of the district from which she is bound to depart, in a sum of double the value of the vessel and cargo, that the said goods, wares, or merchandise shall be relanded in some port of the United States, dangers of the seas excepted, which bond, and also a certificate from the collector where the same may be relanded, shall by the collector respectively be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. All armed vessels possessing public commissions from any foreign power, are not to be considered as liable to the embargo laid by this act.

Approved, December 22, 1807.

↑ Cases decided upon the embargo acts of December 22, 1807, chap. 5: January 9, 1808, chap. 8: March 12, 1808, chap. 33: April 25, 1808, chap. 66: and January 9, 1809, chap. 5:—
Where a vessel had been driven by stress of weather into a port, in the West Indies, while proceeding to Portland in Maine, and there detained by the government of the place, this was such a casualty as came within the exception of “dangers of the seas,” in the condition of an embargo bond, dated 29th December, 1807, taken in presence of the act of Congress of December 22, 1807. United States v. Hall and Worth, 6 Cranch, 176; 2 Cond. Rep. 340.
Subsequent to the execution of this bond, on the 9th of January, 1808, Congress passed a supplement to the embargo law, by which other and additional penalties were imposed, and the circumstances under which the obligor in any embargo bond given under the act of 22d December, 1807, could obtain relief, were changed. The court said they would never consider the latter act as applying to previous facts, unless such construction should be unavoidable. Ibid.
In an action of debt for the penalty of an embargo bond, it is a good plea under the act of Congress of 12th March, 1808, sec. 3, that the party was prevented relanding the goods in the United States by unavoidable accidents. Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Cranch, 307; 2 Cond. Rep. 380.
It was no offence under the embargo laws, to take goods out of one vessel and put them in another in the port of Baltimore; unless it was with an intention to export them. 6 Cranch, 327.
The evidence of the necessity which will excuse a violation of the embargo laws, must be clear and certain. Brig James Wells v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 22; 2 Cond. Rep. 402.
The departure of a vessel from a wharf in a port, and proceeding a mile and half therefrom, with the intention of proceeding to sea, is not a departure from the port within the meaning of the supplementary embargo act of January 9, 1808, if the vessel had not actually gone out of the port before seizure. Sloop Active v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 100; 2 Cond. Rep. 431.
A vessel which has proceeded to a foreign port, contrary to the embargo act of January 8, 1808, is liable to be seized on her return, although that act gives a penalty of double her value, in case she should not be seized. United States v. The brig Eliza, 7 Cranch, 113; 2 Cond. Rep. 437.
A merchant vessel captured as prize, condemned and sold, and afterwards purchased by her former master, a citizen of the United States, who obtained a Danish burgher’s brief, and who cleared out of a port of the United States as a Dane, is a foreign ship within the fifth section of the act of January 9, 1808, supplementary to the embargo act, although the purchaser was yet a citizen of the United States. The schooner Good Catherine v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 349; 2 Cond. Rep. 525.
By the 11th section of the act of April 25, 1808, the collector had no right to detain a vessel and her cargo, after her arrival at her port of destination, under a suspicion that she intended to violate the embargo, and such suspicions could not be justified by instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury nor the confirmation of the President. Otis v. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 589; 2 Cond. Rep. 618.
Under the 11th section of the embargo act of April 25, 1808, the collector was justified in detaining a vessel by his honest opinion that there was an intention to violate or evade the provisions of the embargo laws. It was not necessary for him to show that his suspicions were reasonable. Crowell et al. v. M’Faddon, 8 Cranch, 94; 3 Cond. Rep. 48.
A bond taken under the first section of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, is not void, although taken by consent of the parties, after the vessel had sailed. Speake et al. v. The United States, 9 Cranch, 28; 3 Cond. Rep. 244.
The obligors are estopped to deny that the penalty of the bond is double the true value of the cargo. Ibid.
Under the third section of the embargo act of April 25, 1808, a vessel is not subject to forfeiture, for departing without a clearance, unless she has departed out of port. The Active v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 100; 2 Cond. Rep. 431.
It seems to be a good defence to an action on an embargo bond, that the same was given for more than twice the value of the cargo, and that the obligors were constrained to execute it by the refusal of a clearance. United States v. Gordon et al., 7 Cranch, 287; 2 Cond. Rep. 494.
If the collector justify a detention under the embargo law of April 25, 1808, sec. 11, he need not show that his opinion was correct, nor that he used reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts on which his opinion was founded. Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch, 339; 3 Cond. Rep. 424. See Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1; Otis v. Walter, 2 Wheat. 18; 4 Cond. Rep. 10.
Under the embargo act of December 22, 1807, the words, “an embargo shall be laid,” not only imposed upon the public officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sea-lettered vessels on a foreign voyage, but consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the supplementary act of January 9, 1808. In such a case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable. The William King, 2 Wheat. 148; 4 Cond. Rep. 71.
Under the embargo act of April 25, 1808, a vessel not arriving at her port of original destination, excites an honest suspicion in the collector, that a demand of a permit to land a cargo, was merely colourable; this is not a termination of the voyage, so as to preclude the right of detention. Otis v. Walter, 11 Wheat. 192; 6 Cond. Rep. 270.
Under the 5th section of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, “a foreign vessel,” means a vessel navigating under the flag of a foreign power; and not a vessel owned in whole or in part by foreigners, domicilled in the United States. The Sally, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 58.
A departure from any place within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, although such place be not within any port, is within the embargo act of December 22, 1807. The Ann, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 62.
A vessel, which during the existence of the embargo laws, departed from one port of the United States to another, but was obliged from irrestistible necessity, to put into a foreign port, and sell her cargo, was not guilty of a violation of the embargo laws. The Brig William Gray, Paine’s C. C. R. 16.
The embargo law was passed December 22, 1807. A vessel cleared for St. Mary’s, Georgia, on the 15th of January; the collector received information of the passage of the law, and gave notice of it. It did not appear that this was known to the master or owners previous to the sailing. Being seized for a violation of the law, the court ordered her restitution. The Cotton Planter, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 23.
To excuse a vessel which has sailed under an embargo bond, from re-landing her cargo in the United States, under this clause, “the perils of the sea only excepted,” the accident must happen without any fault or negligence of the master, and must occur at sea: or if at land, it must be the immediate consequence of the peril happening at sea. United States v. Hall et al., 2 Wash. C. C. R. 366. See the United States v. The Nancy, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 281. The United States v. Morgan et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 10. The United States v. Mitchell et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 95.
The third section of the embargo act of December 22, 1807, was not repealed by the act of 1809. The Argo, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 314.
A libel against a vessel violating the embargo laws, must contain a substantial statement of the offence, with reasonable precision. 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 347.

[p487-1] Cases decided upon the embargo acts of December 22, 1807, chap. 5: January 9, 1808, chap. 8: March 12, 1808, chap. 33: April 25, 1808, chap. 66: and January 9, 1809, chap. 5:—
Where a vessel had been driven by stress of weather into a port, in the West Indies, while proceeding to Portland in Maine, and there detained by the government of the place, this was such a casualty as came within the exception of “dangers of the seas,” in the condition of an embargo bond, dated 29th December, 1807, taken in presence of the act of Congress of December 22, 1807. United States v. Hall and Worth, 6 Cranch, 176; 2 Cond. Rep. 340.
Subsequent to the execution of this bond, on the 9th of January, 1808, Congress passed a supplement to the embargo law, by which other and additional penalties were imposed, and the circumstances under which the obligor in any embargo bond given under the act of 22d December, 1807, could obtain relief, were changed. The court said they would never consider the latter act as applying to previous facts, unless such construction should be unavoidable. Ibid.
In an action of debt for the penalty of an embargo bond, it is a good plea under the act of Congress of 12th March, 1808, sec. 3, that the party was prevented relanding the goods in the United States by unavoidable accidents. Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Cranch, 307; 2 Cond. Rep. 380.
It was no offence under the embargo laws, to take goods out of one vessel and put them in another in the port of Baltimore; unless it was with an intention to export them. 6 Cranch, 327.
The evidence of the necessity which will excuse a violation of the embargo laws, must be clear and certain. Brig James Wells v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 22; 2 Cond. Rep. 402.
The departure of a vessel from a wharf in a port, and proceeding a mile and half therefrom, with the intention of proceeding to sea, is not a departure from the port within the meaning of the supplementary embargo act of January 9, 1808, if the vessel had not actually gone out of the port before seizure. Sloop Active v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 100; 2 Cond. Rep. 431.
A vessel which has proceeded to a foreign port, contrary to the embargo act of January 8, 1808, is liable to be seized on her return, although that act gives a penalty of double her value, in case she should not be seized. United States v. The brig Eliza, 7 Cranch, 113; 2 Cond. Rep. 437.
A merchant vessel captured as prize, condemned and sold, and afterwards purchased by her former master, a citizen of the United States, who obtained a Danish burgher’s brief, and who cleared out of a port of the United States as a Dane, is a foreign ship within the fifth section of the act of January 9, 1808, supplementary to the embargo act, although the purchaser was yet a citizen of the United States. The schooner Good Catherine v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 349; 2 Cond. Rep. 525.
By the 11th section of the act of April 25, 1808, the collector had no right to detain a vessel and her cargo, after her arrival at her port of destination, under a suspicion that she intended to violate the embargo, and such suspicions could not be justified by instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury nor the confirmation of the President. Otis v. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 589; 2 Cond. Rep. 618.
Under the 11th section of the embargo act of April 25, 1808, the collector was justified in detaining a vessel by his honest opinion that there was an intention to violate or evade the provisions of the embargo laws. It was not necessary for him to show that his suspicions were reasonable. Crowell et al. v. M’Faddon, 8 Cranch, 94; 3 Cond. Rep. 48.
A bond taken under the first section of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, is not void, although taken by consent of the parties, after the vessel had sailed. Speake et al. v. The United States, 9 Cranch, 28; 3 Cond. Rep. 244.
The obligors are estopped to deny that the penalty of the bond is double the true value of the cargo. Ibid.
Under the third section of the embargo act of April 25, 1808, a vessel is not subject to forfeiture, for departing without a clearance, unless she has departed out of port. The Active v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 100; 2 Cond. Rep. 431.
It seems to be a good defence to an action on an embargo bond, that the same was given for more than twice the value of the cargo, and that the obligors were constrained to execute it by the refusal of a clearance. United States v. Gordon et al., 7 Cranch, 287; 2 Cond. Rep. 494.
If the collector justify a detention under the embargo law of April 25, 1808, sec. 11, he need not show that his opinion was correct, nor that he used reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts on which his opinion was founded. Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch, 339; 3 Cond. Rep. 424. See Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1; Otis v. Walter, 2 Wheat. 18; 4 Cond. Rep. 10.
Under the embargo act of December 22, 1807, the words, “an embargo shall be laid,” not only imposed upon the public officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sea-lettered vessels on a foreign voyage, but consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the supplementary act of January 9, 1808. In such a case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable. The William King, 2 Wheat. 148; 4 Cond. Rep. 71.
Under the embargo act of April 25, 1808, a vessel not arriving at her port of original destination, excites an honest suspicion in the collector, that a demand of a permit to land a cargo, was merely colourable; this is not a termination of the voyage, so as to preclude the right of detention. Otis v. Walter, 11 Wheat. 192; 6 Cond. Rep. 270.
Under the 5th section of the embargo act of January 9, 1808, “a foreign vessel,” means a vessel navigating under the flag of a foreign power; and not a vessel owned in whole or in part by foreigners, domicilled in the United States. The Sally, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 58.
A departure from any place within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, although such place be not within any port, is within the embargo act of December 22, 1807. The Ann, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 62.
A vessel, which during the existence of the embargo laws, departed from one port of the United States to another, but was obliged from irrestistible necessity, to put into a foreign port, and sell her cargo, was not guilty of a violation of the embargo laws. The Brig William Gray, Paine’s C. C. R. 16.
The embargo law was passed December 22, 1807. A vessel cleared for St. Mary’s, Georgia, on the 15th of January; the collector received information of the passage of the law, and gave notice of it. It did not appear that this was known to the master or owners previous to the sailing. Being seized for a violation of the law, the court ordered her restitution. The Cotton Planter, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 23.
To excuse a vessel which has sailed under an embargo bond, from re-landing her cargo in the United States, under this clause, “the perils of the sea only excepted,” the accident must happen without any fault or negligence of the master, and must occur at sea: or if at land, it must be the immediate consequence of the peril happening at sea. United States v. Hall et al., 2 Wash. C. C. R. 366. See the United States v. The Nancy, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 281. The United States v. Morgan et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 10. The United States v. Mitchell et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 95.
The third section of the embargo act of December 22, 1807, was not repealed by the act of 1809. The Argo, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 314.
A libel against a vessel violating the embargo laws, must contain a substantial statement of the offence, with reasonable precision. 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 347.

[1]

United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/10th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 5

Navigation menu

Search