his cases of doubt1 is a complete protection to the collector, surveyor, inspector, or any officer for whose protection it is lawfully given. But the certificate can be given only when authorized by statute.2 Without such protection, it might prove difficult for the government to enfore its rights to the condemnation of property in any doubtful case. The officer, even where he would be entitled to a moiety of the thing to be seized in case of condemnation, might not deem it his duty to incur the risk of being mulet in damages, the half of which government would not bear. And yet, it would manifestly be the duty of a collector of the port to cause the seizure in case he honestly believed the penalty of forfeiture had been incurred, especially if so advised by the district attorney. He should, in such case, do his duty, whatever the risk, or resign his officer. He would, of course, have the benefit of the advice of the secretary of the treasury, in case there was sufficient time before the seizure, but even that, if wrongly given, would be no protection except so far as made such by statute.3 The duty of making seizure is often a very delicate and dangerous one, not only on account of the liability of being prosecuted for damages in case there should be judgment of restoration and a refusal of the certificate of reasonable cause, (which may be the result in consequence of an erroneous verdict and judgment when the seizure was really lawfully made,) but also because of the hazardous nature of the undertaking in many cases, putting the seizing officer in jeopardy of life and limb. To protect officers of the revenue, under such circum 1 1 Stacey . Emery, 7 Otto, 642; United States v. Riddle, 5 Cr. 311; United States v. Grundy, (note) 3 Cr. 356; The Friendship, 1 Gal. 111; Locke . United States, 7 Cr. 330; The Ship Recorder, 2 Blatchf. 119; Stoughton . Dimick, 3 Id. 356; The Brig Henry, 4 Id. 359; Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242; Carrington. Merchants's Ins. Co., 8 Pet. 495; 22 Pieces of Cloth, 16 Id. 342; The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362; Sixty 2 The Apollon, 9 Wh. 362; United States v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565; Schr. Abigail, 3 Mason, 331. See Imley v. Sands, 1 Caines, 565; Cox v. Barney, 14 Blatch. 289. 8 Tracy v. Swartwout, 10 Peters, stances, heavy penalties have been prescribed by several statutes to punish those who resist his authority. $ 48. Protection of the Seizing Officer. Protection to seizing officers of the revenue and their subordinates, is given by the act of 1799, (the Collection Act,) by which the person resisting is finable to an amount not exceeding four hundred dollars; and, if master of a vessel arriving into a United States. port and hindering an officer of the revenue from boarding her officially, he is finable five hundred dollars, or less. 1 And, if any person should rescue, or attempt to rescue, any property seized by virtue of any revenue act of the United States, he is made liable to imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, and fine not exceeding three hundred dollars. Double costs are awarded to the revenue officer when defendant in an action for damages, in case of the non-suit of the plaintiff, or of judgment for the defendant. 3 "Every person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, or interferes with any officer of the customs, or his deputy, or any person assisting him in the execution of his duties, or any person authorized to make searches or seizures, in the execution of his duty, or who rescues or attempts to rescue, or causes to be rescued, any property which has been seized by any person so authorized, or who, before, at, or after such seizure, in order to prevent the seizure or securing of any goods, wares or merchandise by any person so authorized, staves, breaks, throws overboard, destroys, or removes the same, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not less than one month nor more than one year, or both; and every person who discharges any deadly weapon at any person authorized to make searches or seizures, or uses any deadly or dangerous weapon in resisting him in the execution of his duty, with intent to commit a bodily injury upon him, or to deter or prevent him from discharging his duty, shall be imprisoned at 1 Act of March 2, 1799; Act of Feb. 18,.1793; Act of March 3, 1823; Act of April 30, 1790. 2 Act of July 13, 1866, C. 184, § 67; U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5446. 8 Act of 1799, § 71; U. S. Rev. Stat., p. 183, § 971. hard labor for a term not more than ten years nor less than one year." The general scope of the section which we have quoted covers all officers of the customs, and their subordinates and employés, and all private persons lawfully assisting them. Inspectors are included in the term "officers of customs," and all weighers, gaugers, clerks, keepers, temporary laborers even, are sufficiently described in the foregoing section of the act of 1866. To enforce the above and other penalties for resisting revenue officers and their lawful aids, a criminal prosecution lies against the wrongdoer, but it has been held that no indictment lies. for resisting an inspector after the collector who appointed him has gone out of office; but the correctness of this depends upon the soundness of the doctrine advanced, (in the case in which this is held,) that all appointees of a collector necessarily go out of office with him. The seizing officer, or any person seizing or capturing things for forfeiture, has further protection in the law of pleading, which throws the onus probandi upon the claimant as soon as probable cause has been established. And, in case of informers, or custom-house officers who are entitled to a part of the forfeiture, or captors who share in the prize, there is some remuneration for the risk taken when seizing at their peril. An officer seizing in obedience to a writ issued to him, is usually safe in executing the process. 5 ure $49. Methods of Seizure. Methods of seizure for forfeitvary, as the things seized are different in their nature. Hubbard, 44 Ala. 593; Gore v. Master, 66 N. C. 371; Seekins v. Goodale, 61 Me. 400; Watson v. Watson, 9 Con. 140; Erskine . Hohnbach, 14 Wall. 613. The Schooner Silver Spring, 1 Sprague, 551; Hall. Warren, 2 McLean, 332; United States v. One Case of Silk, 4 Ben. 526; The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312; Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103. As, in personal actions in which property is seized, the method is different when a corporeal object is taken, from that when an incorporeal thing is the subject of the taking, so, in actions in rem, like distinctions prevail. The seizure of a tangible article of personal property should be by taking it into physical possession and keeping it uninterruptedly. The seizure of intangible property, such as railroad stocks, bank stocks, etc., may be made by the service of notice of seizure upon the custodian of the stock, who is usually the president of a company, describing the shares by number or such other description as shall be sufficient to designate them. If certificates of bank stock or other stock can be found, they may be taken into actual custody, though that would not be the legal seizure of the incorporeal rights which they evidenced, without notice to the president, cashier, or whomever may be the proper custodian before the seizure. The method of seizing all incorporeal hereditaments, all intangible things, necessarily varies according to the character of the right or interest to be secured. The best rule is to give such notice to the person in control of such property as to prevent him from transferring, or allowing the owner to transfer such property, stating to him that it is seized, and reporting the seizure to the court directly, when information has already been filed; or to the law officer of the government, when seizure is to precede pleading. The best that the circumstances admit of is always a good seizure, if the intangible thing is liable to be seized at all. To seize real estate, notice of seizure must be served upon the tenant in possession; and, as such property is immovable, (as always technically styled in the civil law,) there is no danger of its running off or being spirited away, and, therefore, no keeper is necessary. Real estate may be seized and held without actual entry upon the land. 1 Should buildings be upon the land, however, and found either vacant or in charge of untrustworthy tenants, it might become necessary, in the 1 Emerson v. Upton, 9 Pick. 170; Ashmun et al. v. Williams et al., 8 Pick. 402; Taylor e. Mixter, 11 Pick. 341; Perrin v. Leverett, 13 Mass. 128 exercise of common prudence, to put some one in charge. Where anything less than the fee simple title to real estate is seized, the notice should specify the right sought to be condemned and sold, as otherwise the seizure of the land in a proceeding in rem would, if resulting in condemnation before a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter, take the whole property from the owner forever. away Admiralty seizures are usually made under a warrant issued by the court; and vessels, etc., must be physically seized and placed in the charge of a keeper, as in the case of all movable property. The method of seizure must be such as is required by State statutes, which varies in different States, and the Federal courts are obliged to conform to State law, in this respect, when it is not in conflict with some act of Congress. 1 Great delicacy should be observed on the part of seizing officers, that they do not unnecessarily offend the sensibilities of innocent persons, whose houses or ships may be liable to search under the very extensive powers given to such officers. As the power is great, it should be exercised with great caution. Ships may be boarded, if a collector, surveyor, naval officer, or any person specially appointed for the purpose, "shall have reason to suspect" that any goods subject to duty are concealed thereon; and they may be searched, and the goods seized. And any one of those officers may, upon like suspicion, enter a dwelling house, (or other private building,) and search and seize, if armed with a warrant from a justice of the peace. 2 And even travelers and their baggage may be searched pursuant to regulations prescribed by the secretary of the treasury.3 Internal revenue officers may also make searches and seizures of like nature under a search warrant.4 Force be used when there is resistance to search or seizure; and the measure of the force is the strength of the opposition. To the extent of the whole power of the govern may Act of 1866, U. S. Rev. Stat., § 3,061. * Rev. Stat. U. S., § 3,066 Rev. Stat. U. S., § 3,064. Rev. Stat. U. S., § 3,462. |