The Reform

Mr: Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Cause of seizure,, as alleged in the libel of information, was that the vessel with her cargo was, on the seventh day of May, 1862, proceeding from the. port of Baltimore, on a voyage to that part ©f the State of Virginia which was in insurrection against the United States, and which had been so proclaimed to> be by the President of the United States. Allegations of the libel, so far as the charge is concerned, are founded upon the provisions ©f the 5th section of the act of the thirteenth of July,1861, which, under certain conditions, conferred authority upon the President.to declare, by proclamation, that the inhabitants of a State, or part of a State, falling within the category therein described, were in a state of insurrection against the United States. Whenever a State or part of a State was so proclaimed to be in a state of insurrection, the provision was, that thereupon all commercial intercourse by and between the same and the citizens thereof, and the rest of the United States, should cease and be unlawful, so long as such condition of hostility should continue. Purpose of the section was, in case of such insurrection, not only to interdict commercial intercourse, but to enforce the prohibition by forfeiture. Provision was accordingly made, that all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from said State or section into the other parts of the United States, and all proceeding to such State or section, by land or water, should, together with the vessel or vehicle conveying the same, or conveying persons to or from such State or section, be forfeited to the United States. Defence of the vessel and cargo is placed upon the same ground, and, therefore, it will not be necessary to give the respective claims a separate examination. Decree of the District Court discharged the vessel and cargo, and dismissed the libel; and the Circuit Court, on *629 appeal, affirmed the decree. Libellants appealed to this court; and they now insist that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed, because, as they contend, the vessel and cargo are both justly forfeited, as ¡alleged in the libel of information. 1. Before considering the merits of the controversy, however, it becomes necessary to examine the motion filed by the respondents to dismiss the appeal, which presents a preliminary question, and consequently should be first decided. Theory of the respondents is, that commercial intercourse with the States lately in insurrection is no longer unlawful; and inasmuch as there is no reservation in ¡any act cf Congress, nor in any proclamation of the President, whereby a liability for former violations of the law is continued and preserved, no condemnation cf the vessel or cargo can .now take place, and that the ¡appeal ought to be dismissed. Tt ey contend that the act of Congress was a temporary .act; because the restrictions upon commercial intercourse, as therein declared, were limited in duration, by the terms of the act, to the existence and continuance cf actual hostilities; and the argument is, that hostilities having ceased, the act has expired, and, consequently, that the appeal cannot be sustained. Respondents are correct in supposing that ¡a forfeiture incurred under a penal statute, temporary in its terms, cannot be enforced after the statute has expired, and that .the repeal of a penal statute has the same effect, unless the repealing law contains a saving clause as to pending prosecutions. • Many authorities were cited in support of these propositions; but it does not seem to bemeeessary to give them much examination, as the propositions are elementary and undeniable. Granting all this, however, still it is quite evident that the motion cannot prevail, because the act of Congress under consideration was not a temporary act, as assumed by the respondents, nor has it ever been repealed. On the contrary, it is a general law without any limitation as to its duration, and is still in full force-for the recovery of penalties, or for the enforcement of forfeitures incurred dur *630 ing the insurrection, and before the termination of hostilities. Bestrictions upon commercial intercourse were limited to .the period of the continuance of hostilities, but there was no limitation as to the duration of the act of Congress. Cessation of hostilities restored the right of commercial intercourse; but the restoration of such intercourse could not have the effect to repeal the act of Congress which suspended such intercourse during the continuance of hostilities, or to exonerate a vessel or cargo from a forfeiture incurred for a violation of the restrictions while they were in full operation. Motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, overruled. 2. Principal defence upon the merits was, that the vessel, with the cargo, was engaged, at the time of the seizure, in a lawful voyage under a license from the Secretary of the Interior, issued by the express authority of the' government. Claimants admit that the vessel, with the cargo, was proceeding, at the time of seizure, to the place specified in the libel of information, and that all commercial intercourse, not specially authorized by the government, between the States declared to be in rebellion and the rest of the United States, was prohibited and unlawful. Considering the nature and extent of the admissions as exhibited in the answer, it is clear beyond controversy that the burden of proof is upon the respondents to establish their defence. Such a defence, unquestionably, may be valid, and, if fully proved, the decree of the Circuit Court must be affirmed. Authority was conferred upon the President, by a proviso of the section under consideration, to license and permit in his discretion commercial intercourse, in the interdicted States or places, in such articles, and for such time, and by such persons, as he might think most conducive to the public interest; but all such intercourse was to be conducted and canned on only in pursuance of rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. * Congress, also, on the thirteenth day of February, 1862, appropriated the sum *631 of three thousand dollars out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated for the purchase of cotton-seed, and one thousand dollars for the purchase of tobacco-seed, under the superintendence of the Secretary of the Interior, for general distribution; but the provision was that the cotton-seed should be purchased from places where cotton was grown, as far north as possible. 3. Beferring to those two acts of Congress, the claimants allege that the Secretary of the Interior appointed William L. Hodge to procure the cotton-seed as authorized in the place for which the vessel was embarked, and to which she •was proceeding at the time of the seizure. They plead the letter of the Secretary of the Interior in their answer as a license and permit from the government, and as a document affording a full defence to the allegations of the libel. Substance of the letter is as follows: “ Congress having authorized this department to procure cotton-seed for planting in the loyal States, I hereby authorize and appoint you to procure a cargo of the same in Virginia, and bring it to Baltimore, this department to have the privilege to take such portion of said cargo as it may require, not exceeding one-half, at the actual cost and charges.” Statement of the letter also, was, that it “ will be your authority to procure said seed,” and contained a request to all parties in the employment of the United States to allow the appointee to pass freely for that purpose. Answer of the claimants also shows that the Secretary of the Navy, on the twenty-fifth day of April following, indorsed the letter of appointment, in the terms following, to wit: “Naval officers in command of ships of war will respect the inclosed, and will afford protection iii waters under their control and jurisdiction inside the capes of Chesapeake Bay.” 4. Sufficiency of the defence is denied by the United States upon various grounds, but in the view taken of the case there is no necessity of examining more than two of the series. 1. They deny that the Secretary of the Interior had any authority under the appropriation act to license or permit the transportation of merchandise from any loyal State *632 to any section of a State declared and being in insurrection, in order that the same might be there sold for the purpose specified or for any other purpose. 2. Purport of the second proposition is, that the Secretary of the Interior, by his letter of appointment to "William L. Hodge, did not authorize and did not intend to authorize him, or any one, to transport merchandise for that or any other purpose, to any State or section of a State with which commercial intercourse was prohibited. 1. Proclamation of the President of the sixteenth of August, 1861, which declared that certain States and parts of States were in insurrection, expressly excepted from that condition those districts, or parts of the same, which might be “from time to time occupied and controlled by the forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of the insurgents.” Intercourse for commercial purposes was not prohibited with such places or districts while so occupied and controlled. They were not regarded, as this court said, in the case of The Venice, * “as in actual insurrection, or •their inhabitants as subject in most respects to treatment as enemies.” Such intercourse, however, with any such State, place, or district, so occupied and controlled, was absolutely forbidden, unless the person or persons conducting it were furnished with a license and permit of the President, and conformed in all respects to the treasury rules and regulations. Respondents do not pretend that the Secretary of the Interior possessed any power under those provisions to grant any license or permit for any such adventure as that which is the subject of the present controversy, and it is clear that the pretence, if set up, could not for a moment be sustained, .as the power is expressly vested in the President, and the requirement was that any commercial intercourse carried on under such a license and permit, should be conducted in conformity to the regulations of the Treasury Department. Want of power, therefore, in the Secretary of the Interior, *633 is clearly shown, unless it be made to appear that those provisions had been modified or repealed before the date of the letter under which the claimants attempt to justify. Express repeal, is not set up, and the pretence of implied repeal has no better foundation. Repeal by implication, upon the ground that a subsequent provision upon the same subject is repugnant to the prior law, is not favored in any case; but where such repeal, if admitted, would operate to the prejudice of the government, the supposed repugnancy ought to be clear and controlling before it can be held to have that effect. * Instead of the last provision being repugnant to the former, the truth is that the two are entirely consistent. Whole effect of the subsequent provision was, that it appropriated the sum of three thousand dollars for the purchase of cottonseed under the general superintendence of the Secretary of the Interior for general distribution. Purchase of the cotton-seed, it is presumed, might have been made in the districts or places within the insurrectionary States, which were occupied and controlled by our military forces, or at all events, the conclusion is a reasonable one that such were the views of Congress when the appropriation was made. Presumption is that Congress did not intend to relax the existing restrictions upon commercial intercourse with the States or districts declared to be in insurrection, because there is not a word or phrase in the act indicating any such intention. Condition of affairs was well known to Congress at that period, and it is to be presumed that those who voted for the appi’Of nation act and directed the purchase of the cotton-seed, if they had intended to relax the commercial restrictions as a means of facilitating the purchase, would have employed appropriate language to signify that intention Nothing of the kind is expressed in the appropriation act, and consequently there is no repugnancy between that act and the prior provision which established the commer *634 cial restrictions, and prohibited commercial intercourse to the place where the vessel in question with the cargo was bound at the time of the seizure. 2. Second proposition of the appellants is, that by the true construction of the letter under which the claimants attempt to justify, it did not give to the appointee, or any one else, any authority whatever to transport a cargo of merchandise from Baltimore to the place where the vessel was bound at the time of the seizure. Admission of the answer, it will be remembered, is, that the vessel was bound to the place alleged in the information, and that the place, as there alleged, was one of the places declared by the President to be in a state of insurrection. Question here presented is one of construction, but the court, in determining it, may look at the surrounding circumstances and the subject-matter, as well as at the language employed in the instrument. Legal presumption is, that the author of the letter, inasmuch as he was a public officer, intended to perform his duty, and that he did not intend to violate the law of the land. Three thousand dollars, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, were placed at his disposal for the purchase of cotton-seed for general distribution. Directions in the act making the appropriation were, that he should make the purchase from places where cotton was grown, as far north as possible; but the presumption is, that he had full knowledge of the then existing commercial restrictions, and that the appropriation act, under which all his authority was derived, did not in terms repeal or in any manner modify or relax those restrictions. Satisfactory evidence that the Secretary of the Interior and his appointee had such knowledge, is exhibited in the record. First application for the license was made to the President. Pursuant to that application, the Secretary of the Treasury, on the seventh day of March, 1862, granted a license and permit to the same William L. Hodge, and the recital of the document is, that it was granted with the approbation of the President, and by virtue of the power conferred by the act under which the forfeiture of the vessel and cargo is now *635 claimed. Power conferred was, that the licensee might em • ploy a vessel to carry cotton-seed from any point on the waters of Virginia, emptying into Chesapeake Bay, to Baltimore, provided he gave bond in the penal sum of twenty' thousand dollars, conditioned that the vessel so employed should not transport, either way, any merchandise or supplies, other than those actually required for the use of the crew for one trip; or convey any person, letter, or information, or in any way aid or comfort those in rebellion. Although this license was never used by the licensee, still it is proper to refer to it as showing the views of the government, and as affording conclusive evidence that the licensee knew that the commercial restrictions, established under the prior act, were unrepealed and in full force. Dissatisfied with the license and permit granted by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approbation of the President, the licensee proceeded to the Department of the Interior, and there obtained the letter under consideration. Introductory recital of the letter is not quite correct, but in determining what is the true construction of the document, it is proper to weigh the language as it is written. Substantial statement of the author of the letter is, that he is “ authorized to procure cotton-seed for planting in the loyal States,” and that in consequence thereof, he authorizes and appoints the licensee to procure a cargo of the same in Virginia, and bring it to Baltimore, on the conditions therein named. He says nothing about transporting cargo to the place of destination, or about bringing back any other cargo than the cotton-seed. No allusion is made to the existing commercial restrictions, nor any intimation given that they would be modified or repealed. Applying the usual rules of construction to the letter, the conclusion must be that it conferred no authority whatever upon the licensee to transport any merchandise to the port or place where the vessel ■was bound at the time of the seizure. 5. Evidence of authority in William L. Hodge to embark in any such adventure being entirely wanting, it is unnecessary to examine the question whether the license, if valid, *636 and sufficiently comprehensive in its terms to protect the licensee, would afford any justification to the claimants. 6. Grounds of the decision, as already stated, render it unnecessary, also, to examine the question of fraud, or to remark upon the evidence respecting the prior voyage. Decree' of the Circuit Court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree of forfeiture against both the vessel and cargo. Decree accordingly. Footnotes [*] 12 Stat. at Large, 257. [*] 2 Wallace, 277. [*] United States v. Walker, 24 Howard, 311; Wood v. United States, 16 Peters, 363.