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/ussccases0215 and id is 1 raw text is: 164 SUPRE]ME COURT.
Cross et al. v. Harrison.
ALEXANDER CROSS, WILLIAM L. HOBSON, AD WILLIAMr Hoop-
ER, TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF CROSS, HoBsoN,
& COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. E wARI H. HARRISON.
In the war with Mexico, tite port of San Francisco was co nquered by the arms of the
United States, in the year 1346, and shortly afterwards the United States had mili-
tary possession of all of Upper California. Early in 1847 the President of the Uni-
ted States, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, authorized
the military and naval commanders of the United States forces in Caifornia to ex-
ercise the 1elligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form i. civil and military govern-
ment for the conquered territory, with power to impose duties on imports and ton-
nage for the support of such government, and of the army, which had the conqucst
in possession.
This was done, and tonnage and import duties were levied under a war tariff, which
had been established by the civil government for that purpose, until official notice
was received by the civil and military Governor of California, that a treaty of
peace had been made with Mexico, by which Upper California had been ceded to
the United States.
Upon receiving this intelligence thd governor directed that import and tonnage duties
should thereafter be levied in ponformity with such as were to be paid in the other
ports of the United States, by the acts of Congress; atd for such purpose he ap-
pointed the defendant in this suit, collector of. the port of San Francisco.
The plaintiffs now seek to recover from him certain tonnage duties and imposts
upon foreign merchandise paid by them to the defendant as collector between the
3d of Febrnar-y, 1848, (the date of the treaty of peace,) tnd the 13th of November,
1849, (when the colector appointed by the President, according to law, entered
upon E8e duties of his office,) upon the ground that they had been illegally ex-
acted.
The formation of the civil government in California, when it was done, was the law-
ful exercise of a belligerent right over a conquered territory. It was the existing
government when the territory was eeded to the United States, as a conquest, and
did not cease as a matter of course, or as a consequence of the restoration of peace;
and it was rightfully continued after peace was made with Mexico, until Congress
legislated otherwise, under its constitutional power, to dis -ose of and make all need-
ful rules and regulations respecting the territory or othef property belonging to the
United States.
The tonnage duties, and duties upon foreign goods imported into San Francisco,
were legally demanded and lawfully collected by the civ I governor, whilst the war
continued, and afterwards, from the ratification of the teeaty of peace until the re-
venue system of the United States was put into practical operation in California,,
under the acts of Congress, passed for that purpose.
THIS case came up, by writ of error, frora the Circuit Court
of the United States, for the Southern District of New York.
Cross, Hobson, & Co., brought an action of assumpsit to reco-
ver back from Harrison, moneys paid to him while acting as col-
lector of customs at the port of San Francisco, in California, for
tonnage on vessels and duties on merchandis3, not of the growth,
produce, or manufacture of the United Staies, imported by the
plaintiffs from foreign places into California, and there landed,
between February 3, 1848, and November 12, 1849.
The plea was non assumpsit, and the verdict and judgment
were for Harrison, in January, 1852.
The bill of exceptions contained the substance of much testi-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0215&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)