Слике страница
PDF
ePub

SWEDEN.

TRANSLATION of a Discourse delivered by the King, before the Academy of Agriculture, on the anniversary of its institution.

Gentlemen-At the institution of this academy, twelve years ago, I remarked, in my address, that agriculture flourished most where a people may rest secure as to the future, under the protection of guaranties. Our expectations have been surpassed by the results. The influence of law, regard for its execution, individual security, and the assurance that the power of government was engaged to secure them inviolate and lasting, are the causes of our immense productions, notwithstanding the severity of our climate.

Twelve years ago, we were dependent on our neighbors for the first necessaries of life; we are now able to send supplies wherever a scarcity may prevail. The ships of Sweden have already exported our grain to the ports of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. But, gentlemen, there is one grand object which should ever be kept in view it is the system of conservation. If this principle regulate enterprise, equilibrium will be preserved, the riches of the country increased, and individual fortunes enlarged. We should, at this time, direct agricultural speculations towards this conservation, rather than to the maintenance of that impulse already given to them, which has been so perseveringly and successfully followed.

To conquests there is a limit; the necessity of things, the force of events, and nature itself require it. Let us profit by the lessons which every thing conspires to teach. The good of a nation, the preser

vation of its rights, and the establishment of its prosperity, are not secured by precipitation, which effects nothing ; permanent improvements must be introduced by time and repeated exertions. There are individuals who do not always perceive the beneficent purposes of the government, and imagine themselves aggrieved, when it is only intended to break the chains by which custom has bound them; whilst the very extent of knowledge in others impels them to leap the barrier to their wishes. If it be the duty of a citizen to respect the laws-even if they contain errors-the chief of a state himself is often compelled to act cautiously in abrogating usages consecrated by time, however opposed they may be to the development of the richness and greatness of his country.

Nations are unlike to individuals. These are eager to enjoy whatever dazzles, captivates and enchains them. Nations, on the contrary, perceive ages to pass away, and await the approach of future ones; the slow march of time and the experience of the past, confirm their existence, and prepare them for a condition that may be the pride of their contemplation. It is this progressive march which I ask for the interests of agriculture. It instructs us that the surplus of agricultural productions should be exchanged against the products of industry of towns: and that while these are cultivators of the soil, and not employed in manufacturing, a country may be tranquil in its interior, and content with the enjoy

ment of its labors. But if towns compete with the country in cultivation, this branch of industry must finally be limited. They

must, therefore, labor in producing those articles which we require, and for which we are yet tributary. We have the satisfaction to know, that the increase of population, since 1811, is equal to the whole amount of that of the two most populous provinces of the kingdom at that time.

A nation studies the legislation of its neighbors, to extract from it what is useful; it should study their agriculture and administration, to profit of their discoveries, and avoid their errors. Agriculture is a branch of industry, and the most important of all; but, like others, it is governed by laws, and these depend on the quantity of consumers. If production be greater than consumption, and have not a home or foreign market for its surplus, the condition of the cultivator will become every day more serious and distressing.

Let us take advantage of whatever is useful, and reject what is prejudicial. Let us revert to the

past, reflect on the present, and trust in the future with confidence, under the protection of that Providence, which has, in so miraculous a manner, watched over one of the most ancient people of Europe; let us reflect that whilst many nations are obliged to seek new resources to supply their annual deficit, the two governments of Scandinavia have executed great works of internal communication for the benefit of agriculture, and every year have presented an excess of revenue, or subtracted from the burden of taxes which weighed most heavily on the agriculturist. Let us not forget, that to continue free in our domestic, and independent in our political relations, we have but to prove true to ourselves, and to reconcile the love of independence with respect for authority. The two people of the peninsula maintaining relations of union and mutual confidence and attachment, will be powerful in that connection, and no less strong in the policy of their government; for ambitious of nothing abroad, they have nothing to fear.

TRIALS AND LAW PROCEEDINGS.

Circuit Court of the UNITED STATES for the Eastern District of PENN

SYLVANIA.

EDWARD D. CORFIELD, vs. DANIEL CARRAL.

This was one of a number of actions of trespass, originally brought in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia, to recover damages for an alleged interference with the rights of oystermen, and the owners of oyster boats, in the cove of Morris river, Cumberland County, New-Jersey.

The plaintiff was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and the owner of the Hiram, captured in the act of dredging, on the 15th May, 1821, by the schooner Independence, fitted out from Leesburg, on the river, to enforce obedience to the oyster laws of New-Jersey. The defendant, a citizen of New-Jersey, was one of the crew of the Independence.

In these circumstances, the case was removed, under the act of congress, to the circuit court; and, at April sessions, 1823, a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on all the points in controversy. At October sessions, 1824, the cause was again fully argued by counsel, and held under advisement.

J. R. Ingersoll and C. J. Ingersoll, for plaintiff.

McIlvaine and Condy, for defendant.

At the present April sessions, 1825, the opinion of the court was delivered by Washington, J., as follows:

The points reserved present for the consideration of the court many interesting and difficult questions, which will be examined in the shape of objections, made by the plaintiff's counsel, to the seizure of the Hiram, and the proceedings of the magistrates of Cumberland county, upon whose sentence the defendant rests his justification of the alleged trespass. These objections are,

First. That the act of the legislature of New-Jersey, of the 9th June, 1820, under which this vessel, found engaged in taking oysters in Morris river cove, by means of dredges, was seized, condemned and sold, is repugnant to the constitution of the United States, in the following particulars :

[ocr errors]

1. To the 8th sec. of the 1st art. which grants to congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

2. To the 20 sec. of the 4th art. which declares that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

3. To the 2d sec. of the 3d art. which declares that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

In case the act should be considered as not being exposed to these constitutional objections, it is then insisted

Secondly. That the locus in quo was not within the territorial limits of New-Jersey But if it was, then,

Thirdly. It was not within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Cumberland county.

Fourthly. We have to consider the objection made by the defendant's counsel to the form of this action.

The first section of the act of New-Jersey declares, that from and after the 1st May till the 1st September, in every year, no person shall rake on any oyster-bed in this state, or gather any oysters on any banks or beds within the same, under penalty of 10 dollars.

2d sec. No person, residing in or out of this state, shall, at any time, dredge for oysters in any of the rivers, bays, or waters of the state, under the penalty of 50 dollars.

The 3d sec. prescribes the manner of proceeding in cases of violations of the preceding sections.

The two next sections have nothing to do with the present case.

The 6th section enacts, that it shall not be lawful for any person, who is not at the time an actual inhabitant and resident of this state, to gather oysters in any of the ri

vers, bays, or waters, in this state, on board of any vessel not wholly owned by some person inhabitant of, or actually residing in, this state; and every person so offending shall forfeit 10 dollars, and shall also forfeit the vessel employed in the commission of such offence, with all the oysters, rakes, &c. belonging to the same.

The 7th section provides, that it shall be lawful for any person to seize and secure such vessel, and to give information to two justices of the county where such seizure shall be made, who are required to meet for the trial of the said case, and to determine the same; and, in case of condemnation, to order the said vessel, &c. to be sold.

The first question then is, whether this act, or either section of it, is repugnant to the power granted to congress to regulate commerce? Commerce, with foreign nations, and amongst the several states, can mean nothing more than intercourse with those nations, and among the states, for purposes of trade, be the object of the trade what it may. This intercourse must include all the means by which it can be carried on, whether by the free navigation of the waters of the several states, or by a passage over land through the states where such passage becomes necessary to the commercial intercourse between the states. It is this intercourse which congress is invested with the power of regulating, and with which no state has a right to interfere. But this power, which comprehends the use of, and passage over, the navigable waters of the several states, does, by no means, impair the right of the state governments to legislate upon all subjects of internal po

« ПретходнаНастави »