of the collector in this case; and when it is considered that he had an interest in the condemnation of the cargo to upwards of $13,000, a sum' probably greatly exceeding all the compensation ever received by him for many years service as collector of the port of Georgetown, it can hardly be conceived that he could have been guilty of wilful neglect in prosecuting such a claim. But the truth is that the Diana was seized by Lieutenant Mark immediately after crossing the bar of Georgetown, and the collector was never called upon or required by the duties of his office to do more than visit the vessel immediately on her arrival in the harbor, and to put a custom-house officer on board, which was done. [See the statement of L. Joseph, annexed.]

It is true that the collector did testify that the Diana appeared to be in distress on her arrival in the harbor of Georgetown, and this is the sum and substance of his testimony, which so far proved only what was fully established by the other witnesses. The decree of the circuit court (which is also annexed) shows that the vessel actually was in distress, and that the cargo was condemned, after a thorough examination, on facts disclosed, for the first time, at the trial, and which could not possibly be known to the collector. From the annexed certificate from the friends and neighbors of Mr. Chapman, as well as from other information received by the committee, they are perfectly satisfied that he was a very thorough, pious, and most scrupulous man, who, throughout the whole of this affair, as on every other occasion of his life, acted in a faithful and conscientious manner. conduct, as detailed by Mr. Gadsden, offers a striking illustration of this. Though the district attorney made no objection, and, indeed, was ready to give his consent to Mr. Chapman's receiving his portion of the forfeiture in this case, and though advised by his own counsel that no application to the court was necessary, yet, having heard it doubted whether he had not forfeited his claim, so great was "his scrupulosity and integrity," that he insisted that the question should be submitted to the judge. The committee would be slow to believe that a man acting on such elevated principles could have been guilty of any neglect of duty, and they can find nothing in the testimony to justify the suspicion.

His

On the whole case, the committee are of opinion that it must be considered as doubtful whether, according to the strictest construction of the law, Thomas Chapman did actually incur a forfeiture in this case; but if such forfeiture was incurred, it being clear that it was incurred innocently, and that he was misled by the opinion of the district attorney, it does not become the United States to take advantage of that mistake, by converting to their own use a sum of money which rightfully belonged to one of their officers, who is proved to have served them for many years with the utmost fidelity. Influenced by these views, the committee report a bill for the relief of the legal representative of Thomas Chapman, deceased, late collector of the port of Georgetown, in the State of South Carolina.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES-December 8, 1818.

The committee to whom was referred the petition of Thomas Chapman, collector of the customs for Georgetown district, in the State of South Carolina, report:

That in February, 1814, the collector was called on by the captain and supercargo of the brig Diana, a Swedish vessel, then at anchor without the bar, who represented that they were in great distress for want of provisions and water, and requested information whether the brig could enter the port for the purpose of obtaining a supply without paying tonnage and light money, and what steps they should take. That, upon obtaining the desired information, they returned to the brig with the intention to bring her into port.

That soon after entering the port, she was boarded by Lieutenant Mark, of the United States cutter Boxer, who, from circumstances, deemed it necessary to detain vessel and papers, and gave immediate notice thereof to your petitioner. Upon which your petitioner sent an inspector on board, with a view of preventing injury to the revenue; and when the vessel was brought up by Lieutenant Mark, and anchored in Wenyaw bay, your petitioner likewise went on board, at which time the cargo was in a state of confusion, owing, as was represented, to the leaks in the deck.

Legal process was issued, at the instance of Lieutenant Mark, against the brig, and the vessel and cargo were libelled. The collector was examined on interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, under a commission from the court, without knowing, as he says, under what law the vessel and cargo were libelled, and without knowing that his examination could be prejudicial to his interest. That, upon trial of the cause in Charleston, the vessel was acquitted, and cargo condemned; and, upon appeal made to the supreme court, the cargo was finally condemned in February last.

The collector not receiving his moiety of the proceeds of the condemned cargo, to which he thought himself entitled, made application to the court, by petition, for his proportion of the forfeiture in the case; and it was decided by the court, Justice Johnson presiding, that, in consequence of the collector being a witness in the case, his proportion, amounting to $13,457 55, accrued to the United States. The prayer of the petitioner is to obtain from Congress what had been denied him by the Court.

The act of Congress to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage, section 91, passed in 1799, is conclusive against the petitioner's claim; and your committee do not deem it advisable to break in upon long established principles and usages, unless the claim to an exception is better founded in equity than the present application. The committee, therefore, submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES-December 20, 1817.

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Thomas Chapman, collector of the customs for the district of Georgetown, in the State of South Carolina, have had the same under consideration, and report:

The petitioner states that, in the month of February, 1814, he, as collector aforesaid, was called on by the captain and supercargo of the brig Diana, a Swedish vessel, then lying without the bar, to know if the vessel might enter the port without paying tonnage and light money, they being in great distress; and, after obtaining the necessary information, the vessel was brought into port. Soon after her arrival, she was boarded by Licutenant Mark, commanding United States cutter Boxer, who, from circumstances, suspected that attempts had been and were making to smuggle the cargo, and called the attention of the petitioner, as collector, to the subject. The petitioner went on board himself, and also sent an inspector, with a view of preventing injury to the revenue. From all the circumstances of the case, the petitioner did not think the evidence of improper conduct such, on the part of the said vessel, as to justify the issuing of legal process against her for a breach of the revenue laws. The petitioner further states, that, at the instance of Lieutenant Mark, commander of the cutter, the said vessel was libelled for such breach of the laws, and was condemned before the proper court. The petitioner having been called on as a witness on the part of the Swedish claimants of the property, gave testimony accordingly. That the vessel was acquitted on the trial in Charleston, but the cargo condemned. That an appeal was taken to the supreme court, where the decision of the court below was finally affirmed. That in apportioning the proceeds of the condemned cargo among the persons entitled to receive it under the acts of Congress on this subject, the part of the collector was one-fourth, but that the court determined that your petitioner, the collector, having been examined as a witness in the cause, was expressly excluded by the words of the statute, which opinion was confirmed by the supreme court. The petitioner states a number of reasons which, in his opinion, will justify Congress in giving to him that portion of the condemned property to which, under certain circumstances, he would have been entitled, and finally prays the passage of a law granting the amount to him.

The committee, having attentively considered the circumstances of this case, are unable to discover anything which would justify Congress in making any change of that disposition of the property which has been made by the courts through which this case has passed. It was there investigated fully, no doubt, by able counsel on both sides, as the sum of thirteen thousand dollars was depending on the issue, and finally decided before tribunals fully competent to give correct decisions. That part of the forfeiture of property condemned for the violation of the revenue laws, which is given to the officers who are instrumental in detecting frauds attempted to be practised, was undoubtedly intended to excite those officers to vigilance in frustrating such attempts, and bringing to justice the perpetrators thereof. But the petitioner, so far from having been instrumental in the condemnation of the Diana, appears, from his own showing, to have been

ignorant of the law under which the proceedings were carried on: took no part whatever in the prosecution; indeed refused to take a part, and was examined as a witness on the opposite side of the question. Considering all the circumstances of this case, the committee recommend to the Senate the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

Certificate of John Gadsden.

In the case of the Diana, the collector of Georgetown directed me to submit the question to the circuit court, whether he had been deprived of his share of the penalty by being examined on the part of the claimants, and giving testimony in their favor. Upon inquiry, I ascertained that the district attorney considered Mr. Chapman entitled to the penalty, and would have permitted him to receive it; and I therefore would not make any question in the case, until I had again consulted Mr. Chapman, who positively directed me to bring the matter before the court. I therefore brought the subject to the view of the circuit judge, and endeavored to show that the evidence given, being against and not for the penalty, did not establish any such interest as was contemplated by the act. The judge, however, was of a different opinion, though he seemed to regret, I think, that this was the legal conclusion, and intimated that it might be proper for the collector to apply to the general government. I would observe that Mr. Chapman's determination to submit the matter to the court did not arise from his having any doubt about his rights, (being much disappointed at the decision,) but from his great scrupulosity and integrity.

DECEMBER 16, 1822.

True copy:

JOHN GADSDEN.

WM. THOS. CARROLL.

Certificate of Robert Bentham.

I certify that, some time prior to March, 1814, I entered into copartnership with the late Thomas Parker, district attorney for South Carolina, and continued in copartnership with him to the day of his death; that I was well acquainted with his business generally, and particularly with that portion of it which concerned his office of district attorney; that, on the 5th of March, 1814, he filed a libel in behalf of the United States, against the brig Diana and cargo, (a Swedish vessel which had put into the port of Georgetown on the plea of distress,) and that said vessel and cargo were finally condemned for an attempt to import goods into the United States contrary to our laws; that in the progress of said suit, the claimants applied through their attorney, Keating L. Simons, esquire, to take the examination of Thomas Chapman, the collector of Georgetown, by commission,

on the part of the claimants. Mr. Parker, on looking into the law, was of opinion that the collector would not forfeit his share of the vessel and cargo unless examined in support of the libel, and he therefore consented to join in the commission for the examination of the collector. A commission was issued accordingly, under the seal of the court, by which the said collector was required to state, on the part of the claimants, the facts and circumstances in relation to the condition of the vessel on her arrival at Georgetown, which went to show that she was actually in distress, and was, therefore, not liable to condemnation. The examination of the collector on the points did tend to prove that the vessel was in distress, but it was rebutted by other evidence drawn from other sources, which proved an intention, at the very inception of the voyage, to bring the goods into the United States. On the cargo being condemned, the collector claimed his portion of the forfeiture; but Judge Johnson was of opinion, (contrary to the opinion of the district attorney,) that the law created a forfeiture of a claim, whether he was examined in favor of or against his interests. I further certify that, throughout the whole transaction, no imputation of improper conduct was attributed to the collector, and it was certainly the wish of the district attorney that he should have received his proportion of the proceeds.

CHARLESTON, 16th December, 1822.

True copy:

WM. THOS. CARROLL.

ROBERT BENTHAM.

Lizar Joseph's Affidavit.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, District of Georgetown:

Personally appeared before me Lizar Joseph, for many years employed by the collectors of this district and port as inspector, &c., who, being duly sworn, deposeth that Thomas Chapman, deceased, did, in pursuance of his duty as collector of this port, take possession of, and put on board the Swedish brig Diana, immediately upon her arrival in his district under charge of the revenue cutter, John Lewis Poyas, as inspector, and there continued him until the said brig was about discharging her cargo, when he, the said deponent, as he further sweareth, took charge and superintended the unlading of the said brig, having been, till then, unable to undertake the sald charge. And the said deponent further saith, that the late Thomas Chapman was not in that, or any other case, guilty of any neglect of duty, but always discharged it in an upright and exemplary manner. And he saith further, that the said Thomas Chapman, deceased, late collector of this port, was improperly and unjustly made an evidence in the trial of the aforesaid Swedish brig Diana, believing, as he most conscientiously does, his testimony was taken through the mistaken cunning of Lieutenant Mark, of the said cutter, who, this deponent rests satisfied, supposed his own share of the cargo would be increased by causing the collector to forfeit his.

Sworn before me, this 8th day of January, 1822.

L. JOSEPH.

JACOB WAYNE, J. P.