HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0522 and id is 1 raw text is: the colony or not; nor whether on former occasions the acting governor had
received bounties. If I should be of opinion that all bounties for the seizure of
slaves during the absence of the governor were payable to the acting governor, then
as to a part of the slaves, the question, whether the governor had actually quitted
the colony at the time of the seizure of some of the slaves, might be so far of import-
ance ; but if I should be of a contrary opinion, that disputed fact would be irrelevant.
Nor do I think that the fact, assuming it to be proved, that on some occasions the
acting governor has received the bounties, can affect the main question, viz. the
construction of a modern Act of Parliament. I must observe that I am somewhat
surprised that in these pleadings no reference is made on either side to the statutes ;
upon the interpretation of which, if I am not wholly mistaken, the whole question
depends. The whole subject of the bounties is a creation of the Legislature, and the
sole enquiry is, to whom the Act or Acts of Parliament have directed the bounties to
be paid. The Acts in question are the 5 Geo. IV, c. 113, s. 26; and the 11 Geo. IV
& 1 Will. IV, c. 55. These statutes are in pari materia, and must be read together.
The 26th section of the 5th Geo. IV directs, that in the case of the seizure on land,
there shall be paid to the governor or commander-in-chief the sum of £7, 10s. for each
slave. The 11 Geo. IV & 1 Will. IV, c. 55, enacts that the different rates heretofore
payable on each slave shall be repealed, and in lieu of the former bounties there shall
be paid to the seizor or governor respectively, in those cases where any governor
is entitled, a bounty of £5. Then as to the construction of these two [150] enactments.
I will first consider each statute separately, always remembering that if the words
bear a plain meaning, that meaning must not be altered by ingenious reasoning as to
what is fit or right to be done. It has been urged that in the seizure of slaves, the
intention of the Legislature must have been to reward the person by whose immediate
agency the capture was effected, to stimulate to some further exertion. That
argument is, I think, to a certain extent, well founded ; but it does not apply so
directly to the case of a governor or acting governor as it does to the case of an actual
seizor. The proper part of a governor is general management-the institution of
a good system, whereby not one particular capture may be made, but the trade
effectually suppressed. It is obvious that such duty and conduct of a governor
is not confined to a single act. The bounty to him is for a general performance of
duty. Moreover it may be that, as the capture of slaves is accidental as to time,
the seizure might be effected during a short absence, and in consequence of the
governor's previous measures. Admitting, however, that the principle of reward to
him through whom the capture is effected, is greatly entitled to weight, it can only
be applicable in cases where the language of the statute raises a fair doubt. I have
been referred to the 38th section, which enables an acting governor to do all the acts
a governor might do ; but I 'cannot say that this section helps me to a correct inter-
pretation of the statute. It would be a very strained construction of this section to
say that a power to do acts meant a power to receive bounties. I have looked to the
43rd and 44th sections, which were cited, but they leave the question where it was.
I return then to the 26th section, and I am of opinion that there being a governor, I
cannot enter into any speculation as to the meaning of the words commander-in-
chief. I think that the governor takes as persona designata, and that Colonel Hill,
as such governor, is entitled to these bounties. I might add, that the conclusion
I have come to is strengthened by the fact, that in the statute 11 Geo. IV & 1 Will.
IV the word used is, payment to the governor.
Rothery, proctor for Colonel Hill.
Jennings, proctor for Mr. Fitzjames.
[151] IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Present-Lord Chelmsford.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce.
Lord Justice Turner.
THE AMALIA. July 27, 1863.-Collision between British and foreign vessel-
Limitation of liability--25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54.-In a cause of collision beyond
British jurisdiction, between an English and a Belgian vessel. Held, that the
54th section of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act, 25 & 26 Vict.
c. 63, with respect to limited liability applies equally to British and foreign vessels.
THE AMALIA
323
BR. & L. 150.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0522&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)