v.
the United States
March 15.
Livingston, J.delivered the opinion of the court as follows, viz.
This is a seizure on land, by the collector of the port of Alexandria, for a breach of the act for enrolling and licensing ships or vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same, passed 18th February, 1793.
The breach alleged is, that a certain schooner called the Sea Flower, duly enrolled and licensed, sailed to a foreign port, without having first giv-n up her enrolment and license, and without being duly registered. That, on her return voyage, there were imported in the said schooner, from the HaVanna into the port of Vienna, in the district of Maryland, certain goods, and thence transported to the town of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, and within the collection district, of Alexandria. The goods were condemned by the circuit court, and the only error relied on is, that there is no law authorizing a condemnation in a district different from that in which the forfeiture accrued.
The 35th section of the act under which the seizure was made, declares that all penalties, incurred thereby, shall be sued for in the same manner as pehalties incurred by virtue of an act entitled “ An act to regulate the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels.”
On examining the different acts of congress on this subject, there is none whose title exactly corresponds with the reference here made. It is con[*310] tended by the counsel for the United States, that the act here intended, although it does not bear, in terms, the same title, is the one regulating duties, which passed the 31st of July, 1789, and that this does not render it necessary that the trial should be within the district where the forfeiture accrued; while the plaintiff insists that, as this act had been repealed several years prior to the passing of-the law under which this seizure was made, it is more probable that a reference was intended to another act, on the same subject, of the' 4th of August, 1790, which requires that the trial of any fact which may be put in issue shall be within the judicial district in which 'any,penalty shall have accrued. It is not improbable that <his was the law intended; but as the title of neither corresponds with the one given in this act, the court thinks that the proceedings on forfeitures accruing under it, may 'wéll be governed by the 9th section of the act to establish the judicial cou' ts of the United States, which confers, on the district courts, jurisdiction of all seizures uh-: der laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, when the seizures are made on waters which .are navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons' .burden, •within their respective districts> and also of all seizures on land, or other waters, than as aforesaid made,, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws-of the United States. It is a fair construction of this section, taking the 'whole together, that nothing more is necessary to give jurisdiction in cases of this nature,, than that the seizure should be within the district,' without any regard to the place where the forfeiture accrued. It would, in many cases, be attended with much delay and injury, without any one advantage, were it necessary to send property for trial to a distant district, merely because the forfeiture had been incurred there. The court feels.no disposition to impose these inconveniences on either of the parties, unless where it be .positively directed bv au act of . congress. There being no provision of that kind in the law under which this forfeiture accrued, the court cannot perceive any error in the proceedings below ; and[*311] iheretore orders that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed with costs,