OPINIONS OF WILLIAM PINKNEY, OF MARYLAND: APPOINTED DECEMBER 11, 1811. ENLISTMENTS FOR NAVAL SERVICE. Eats for the naval service being for "two years from the time when the ship shall weigh anchor for sea," are regular for that term, although made before, and the persons esting serve awhile in fitting the vessel for sea. ANNAPOLIS, July 13, 1811. 1. I CAN perceive no inconsistency whatever between the words of the act of Congress of January, 1809, and the articles of enlistment quoted in the foregoing opinion. The act requires that the engagement shall be for a period which it defines, and the engagement is for that period. The objection that the enlistment should not have been made to commence at the time "when the ship should last weigh anchor for sea," appears to me to have nothing in it. The act of Congress does not prescribe the time when the engagement shall commence; it leaves that to the discretion of the executive government, to be exercised with a view to the nature and benefit of the service intended for the ship. It is of no consequence that the men were in fact employed before the ship set out on her cruise, and that they have thus already served more than two years. If that consideration be of any account, it cannot go to affect the regularity of the enlistment for two years from the last weighing of the ship's anchor. It can only tend to show that it was unlawful for the Navy Department to employ the same men in the service of the ship before the term of their regular enlistment, as fixed by the articles, commenced-a conclusion which might be admitted, without injury to the night of the commander of the "Constitution" to keep the men in question until the expiration of the two years defined in the articles; but I do not think that even that conclusion would be just. The President was authorized to prepare the ship for a cruise or station on our coasts, &c. It can scarcely be doubted that, if the Navy Department had ordered the preparatory service to be performed by one set of persons, it might then have enlisted another set for two years more, for the performance of the principal service, to which the other was preliminary. But if it could do this with two different sets of persons, why not with one-provided that the enlistment for the principal service was limited, as the law prescribed, to two years? 2. If there is no room for doubt upon the letter of the law, there is still upon the spirit. The enlistments were expressly directed by the act With a view to a specified actual service in which the ships were to be employed; and, of course, that commencement of the enlistments, which was also the commencement of the service intended for the ships, w clearly the most natural, and the most consonant to the intention of th statute. 3. I am of opinion that, even if the true construction of the act of Co gress be such as the men contend for, their objection cannot be mai tained against their own engagement. The provision in the law concerning the term "enlistment," is mere directory to the executive government, and stands upon general groun of policy. It was not meant for the protection of individuals; and does not lie with those who have enlisted to say that the directions co tained in the provision have not been obeyed, and that the executiv government has violated its duty. They are bound by their contrac which is perfectly precise, and in no respect unreasonable or oppressiv and can look no farther. Whether the executive government ought have authorized such a contract, is for the consideration of those to who it is constitutionally answerable for the proper execution of the will of the legislature. To the SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. WM. PINKNEY. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS. Patents for inventions cannot be withheld on moral grounds, where the allegation and oath and a suitable specification, have been filed, and a model (if required) deposited. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 22, 1812. SIR: I had the honor to receive yesterday your letter, and the accom panying papers, relative to the application of James McDonald for a pa tent for a machine for making bricks; and have to state, in answer to the inquiry which it contains, that, however desirable it may be to refuse the patent, and exceptionable as the conduct of the applicant would seem to upon moral grounds, the Department of State has no discretion to de cline to issue the patent as applied for, in case the allegation and oath prescribed by the act of Congress have been made, a suitable specification has been filed, and a model (if required) has been deposited. The effi cacy of the patent, when issued, will be for judicial cognizance. To the SECRETARY OF STATE. WM. PINKNEY. DELIVERING COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS OF PATENTS. There is no reason for refusing applicants a copy of the specifications, drawings, or model of any patented invention." ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, May 20, 1812. SIR: In answer to your letter of the 14th instant, I have to state that I see no reason for refusing any applicant a copy of any specification of a patent, or drawings of a model, lodged in the office of the Secretary of State. I do not suppose that the officer who may be intrusted to give such copies has any concern with the purpose for which they are asked. The act of Congress has provided no means by which he could protect himself against a misrepresentation of that purpose, and, of course, did not intend that he should inquire into it. No injury can result from a free and unlimited communication of such specifications and drawings. The policy of the law rather requires than forbids it, and the letter of it looks the same way. In England, (according to my recollection,) the specifications of all patents are regularly published in a periodical work conducted by private individuals, of which I do not at present remember the title. The security of the patentee is in the protection which the law extends to his inventon, not in the secresy of the description or representation of it. Indeed, a general knowledge of that description and representation Cd seem to be necessary to enable those who wish to respect the rights of the patentee to avoid an invasion of them. To the SECRETARY OF STATE. WM. PINKNEY. IN THE MATTER OF JOHN KENT, SUSPECTED TO BE A SPY. It does not appear that the British pilot, under the circumstances, has committed any offence for which he can be prosecuted; and there is not any evidence of criminal intention. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 5, 1813. SIR: I have the honor to inform you, in reply to your letter of the 13th of last month, (which, by reason of its having been sent to Baltimore, I have only very lately received,) that it does not appear to me that John Kent can be prosecuted for any offence. He appears to be a native American, (born at Boothbay,) settled in the island of Grand Manan, and acting as a British pilot, under British authety. His account of himself and his errand is plausible, and, I should think, true. The fact that he has a brother at Boothbay, where he was arrested, is in his favor; and there is no evidence of any criminal intention or criminal conduct. If it should be thought advisable to detain him longer in custody, it eught to be for the purpose of fuller inquiry-the result to be transmitted, for further order, to the Department of State. It is scarcely possible that he should be a spy. To the SECRETARY OF STATE. WM. PINKNEY. OFFENDERS AGAINST NAVAL LAWS. Offenders are regularly kept in the custody of that service, the peculiar laws of which they are accused of having violated, and by which they are to be tried. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY General of the U. S May 12, 1813. SIR: I suppose that the persons to whom your letter of the 8th instant alludes must remain in custody until such a tribunal as the law prescribes can be formed for their trial. Such offenders are regularly kept in the ex clusive custody of that service, the peculiar laws of which they are ad cused of having violated, and by which they are to be tried. They have of course, been delivered up to the commanding officer of the place t which they were brought, who will detain them until a court-martial ca be assembled under the orders of the Secretary of the Navy. The ex pense must devolve on the United States. It appeared to be intended at the last session of Congress to remove th inconvenience of which you very justly complain, by allowing officers in the land service to be placed on certain naval courts-martial; and I has imagined that this was done. Perhaps it may be well to go even a ste further, and to give a power to refer offences committed on board of pri vateers to the ordinary tribunals, when a court-martial (either of navy of ficers only or of navy and land officers) cannot be had without prejudice to the public. A general reference of them to the ordinary tribunals would not be judicious, nor would a particular reference be so where it could be avoided; but there may be occasions to justify and require it. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. PINKNEY. To the SECRETARY OF THE Navy. OPINIONS OF RICHARD RUSH, OF PENNSYLVANIA: FUR TRADE AT MICHILIMACKINAC. It would be unlawful to grant permission to John Jacob Astor to send a vessel in ballast to Michilimackinac to bring away skins and furs. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, April 11, 1814. SIE: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 9th of this month, enclosing one addressed to you from Mr. John Jacob Astor, in which he ass permission of the government to send a vessel in ballast to Michili inac, for the purpose of bringing away a quantity of skins and furs belonging to him, and now at that place, and requesting my opinion whether such permission would be warranted by our laws. Considering Michilimackinac as a place now in the actual possession and under the dominion of Great Britain, I think the decisions of the last Supreme Court of the United States would make it unlawful to grant the permission in question. To the SECRETARY OF STATE. RICHARD RUSH. SURETIES OF A PURSER. A former purser reappointed to that office in the navy, under the act of 30th March, 1812, should give a new bond. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U. S., April 14, 1814. SIR: I have received your letter of the 13th instant, relative to Edwin T. Satterwhite, formerly a purser in the navy, reappointed and confirmed by the Senate under the act of the 30th of March, 1812, in which you state its having become important to know whether his sureties under the riginal bond are, or are not, liable for acts done since the reappointment. Un examining the act in question, I think its correct interpretation imports the necessity of a new bond in all cases of reappointment under its provisions. But, by this opinion, I would not be understood to say that the original sureties of Mr. Satterwhite are wholly discharged of responsi the United States. bility since the reappointment. This point should be saved on behalf of I have the honor to be, with very great respect, sir, your obedient servant, To the SECRETARY of the Navy, RICHARD RUSH. |