HOUSE....No. 213. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 3d, 1848. Mr. Lombard, of Wellfleet, moves to amend the bill (Senate Document, No. 124,) relating to the inspection of pickled fish, by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting the following: 1 Mackerel, hereafter brought into this Common2 wealth by sea or land, having been packed or in3 spected in any other state, province, or country, or 4 bearing any other inspection-mark than such as is 5 authorized and made under the provisions of the 6 twenty-eighth chapter of the Revised Statutes, shall 7 not be intermixed with other fish of the same kind, 8 or taken out in part or whole, or shifted, or otherwise 9 changed, or repacked in the casks, barrels, or other 10 vessels in which said mackerel shall have been in11 spected out of the Commonwealth as aforesaid; nor 12 shall the same, when taken from such casks, barrels, 13 or other vessels bearing an inspector's mark made out 14 of the Commonwealth, be repacked, or reinspected, or 15 otherwise branded or marked in this state; and if any 16 person shall shift, change, intermix, or alter the 17 mackerel so inspected out of the Commonwealth and 18 brought here, or shall repack, reinspect, or otherwise 19 mark or brand the same, for the purpose of shipment 20 or sale, he shall forfeit fifteen dollars for each package 21 so altered or marked; and if any package so altered 22 or marked shall be offered for sale, or shall be put on 23 board any vessel, or carriage of conveyance, for the 24 purpose of being transported out of this state, the 25 same may be seized and libelled according to the pro26 visions of the one hundred and eighteenth chapter of 27 the Revised Statutes concerning the seizing and libel28 ling of forfeited goods, and the same proceedings 29 shall be had therein as is provided in the sixty-second 30 section of the twenty-eighth chapter of the Revised 31 Statutes. 32 The first section of the one hundred and seventieth 33 chapter of the year 1846, entitled "an Act in addition 34 to an act regulating the inspection of pickled fish,” 35 passed March 31st, 1846, is hereby repealed. HOUSE....No. 214. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. House of Representatives, May 4, 1848. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Thaddeus Nichols, in behalf of Sally Blake, for an allowance for moneys expended for the capture of William Baird, a fugitive from justice, have considered the same, and REPORT: That said Baird, at Boston, in February, 1845, burglariously entered said Blake's house, and robbed her of about $300 in value, and filed with it to the province of New Brunswick The petitioner, by her agent, obtained from the government of the United States a requisition upon the authorities of New Brunswick, under the tenth article of the treaty of August 9, 1842, between the governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States. By virtue of said requisition, the petitioner procured the surrender of Baird by the authorities of New Brunswick. Although the petitioner obtained a warrant from the police court of the city of Boston, and caused an indictment to be found in the municipal court in Suffolk, neither of which could operate upon Baird, except within our state jurisdiction. The petitioner expended a large sum of money, viz. $722 45, in the pursuit, arrest, and return of Baird to within the jurisdiction of this state. Such expenses were incurred by the institution of such pro cesses and examinations in New Brunswick as were there necessary to show "probable cause" for Baird's surrender upon said requisition. Baird Whatever was done by the petitioner out of the limits of this state, was upon her own account and not of the state. was not "given up to the officers of this Commonwealth, acting by direction of his excellency the governor," as stated in the petition. Your committee are satisfied his excellency did no act authorizing, directing, or adopting the doings of the petitioner, but merely made such certificates as might as well have been made by a notary public. It appeared, the main object of the pursuit was not to serve the state, or on account of the intrinsic value of the stolen property, but the recovery of articles in themselves valuable to her as mementoes of family affection; and she accomplished her object. Your committee have had a case involving the same principle as this (No. 122, House Document); in that case, the petitioner was poor, believed he had authority, and in good faith did the state essential service in the pursuit, arrest, and return of a fugitive from this state, who had gone to another jurisdiction; said pursuit being made without authority of the state executive. If any case could induce your committee to act from sympathy rather than upon fixed principles, that case would have been the one, rather than this. In that case, the petitioner's object was to do his whole duty, under a supposed authority to serve the state. In this case, the object was the gratification of laudable feelings, and pleasant reminiscences of deceased relatives, without intending or supposing she was serving the state. Had the executive procured the requisition, or by any official act adopted it, a different case would have been presented. Your committee are clearly of opinion that no law or legislative precedent exists for the allowance of this claim, and therefore recommend that petitioner have leave to withdraw her petition. For the committee, JONA. P. BISHOP. |