RULES AND ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. February Term, 1817. WHENEVER it shall be necessary or proper, in the opinion of the presiding judge in any circuit court, or district court exercising circuit court jurisdiction, that original papers of any kind should be inspected in the supreme court upon appeal, such presiding judge may make such rule or order for the safe keeping, transporting, and return of such original papers as to him may seem proper, and this court will receive and consider such original papers in connection with the transcript of the proceedings. In all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where new evidence shall be admissible in this court, the evidence by testimony of witnesses, shall be taken under a commission to be issued from this court, or from any circuit court of the United States, under the direction of any judge thereof; and no such commission shall issue but upon interrogatories to be filed by the party applying for the commission, and notice to the opposite party, or his agent or attorney, accompanied with a copy of the interrogatories so filed, to file cross interrogatories within twen ty days from the service of such notice. Provided, however, that nothing in this rule shall prevent any party from giving oral testimony in open court, in cases where by law it is admissible. REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1817. (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) SLOCUM V. MAYBERRY et al. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States; and any intervention of a state authority which, by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the United States officer, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. In such a case, the court of the United States, having cognizance of the seizure, may enforce a re-delivery of the thing, by attachment, or other summary process. The question under such a seizure, whether a forfeiture has been actually incurrd, belongs exclusively to the courts of the United States, and it depends upon the final decree of such courts whether the seizure is to be deemed rightful or tortious. If the seizing officer refuse to institute proceedings to ascertain the VOL. II. A 1817. Slocum V. Mayberry. forfeiture, the district court may, upon application of the aggrieved party, compel the officer to proceed to adjudication, or to abandon the seizure. And if the seizure be finally adjudged wrongful, and without probable cause, the party may proceed, at his election, by a suit at common law, or in the instance court of admiralty, for damages for the illegal act. But the common law remedy in such a case must be sought for in the state courts; the courts of the United States having no jurisdiction to decide on the conduct of their officers, in the execution of their laws, in suits at common law, until the case shall have passed through the state courts. Where a seizure was made, under the 11th section of the Embargo Act of April, 1808, it was determined that no power is given by law to detain the cargo if separated from the vessel, and that the owner had a right to take the cargo out of the vessel, and to dispose of it in any way not prohibited by law; and in case of its detention, to bring an action of replevin therefor in the state court. ERROR on a judgment rendered by the court for the state of Rhode-Island. supreme John Slocum, the plaintiff in error, was surveyor of the customs for the port of Newport, in RhodeIsland, and under the directions of the collector had seized the Venus, lying in that port with a cargo ostensibly bound to some other port in the United States. The defendants in error, who were owners of the cargo, brought their writ of replevin in the state court of Rhode-Island for the restoration of the property. The defendant pleaded that the Venus was laden in the night, not under the inspection of the proper revenue officers; and that the collector of the port, suspecting an intention to violate the embargo laws, had directed him to seize and detain her till the opinion of the president |