Responsibility of the Government

Responsibility of the Government in the United States

Responsibility of the Government and the Rise of the Cotton Kingdom (1820–1851)

In the book “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1), W. E. B. Du Bois explained the following: Not only did the government thus negatively favor the slave-trade, but also many conscious, positive acts must be attributed to a spirit hostile to the proper enforcement of the slave-trade laws. In cases of doubt, when the law needed executive interpretation, the decision was usually in favor of the looser construction of the law; the trade from New Orleans to Mobile was, for instance, declared not to be coastwise trade, and consequently, to the joy of the Cuban smugglers, was left utterly free and unrestricted.36 After the conquest of Mexico, even vessels bound to California, by the way of Cape Horn, were 162allowed to clear coastwise, thus giving our flag to “the slave-pirates of the whole world.” Attorney-General Nelson declared that the selling to a slave-trader of an American vessel, to be delivered on the coast of Africa, was not aiding or abetting the slave-trade. So easy was it for slavers to sail that corruption among officials was hinted at. “There is certainly a want of proper vigilance at Havana,” wrote Commander Perry in 1844, “and perhaps at the ports of the United States;” and again, in the same year, “I cannot but think that the custom-house authorities in the United States are not sufficiently rigid in looking after vessels of suspicious character.”39

In the courts it was still next to impossible to secure the punishment of the most notorious slave-trader. In 1847 a consul writes: “The slave power in this city [i.e., Rio Janeiro] is extremely great, and a consul doing his duty needs to be supported kindly and effectually at home. In the case of the ‘Fame,’ where the vessel was diverted from the business intended by her owners and employed in the slave trade—both of which offences are punishable with death, if I rightly read the laws—I sent home the two mates charged with these offences, for trial, the first mate to Norfolk, the second mate to Philadelphia. What was done with the first mate I know not. In the case of the man sent to Philadelphia, Mr. Commissioner Kane states that a clear prima facie case is made out, and then holds him to bail in the sum of one thousand dollars, which would be paid by any slave trader in Rio, on the presentation of a draft. In all this there is little encouragement for exertion.”40 Again, the “Perry” in 1850 captured a slaver which was about to ship 1,800 slaves. The captain admitted his guilt, and was condemned in the United States District Court at New York. Nevertheless, he was admitted to bail of $5,000; this being afterward reduced to $3,000, he forfeited it and escaped. The mate was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.41 163Also several slavers sent home to the United States by the British, with clear evidence of guilt, escaped condemnation through technicalities.

Governmental Immunity from Tort Liability

Note: there is more information about the Governmental Immunity from Tort Liability here.

Operations of government

“Abrogation of governmental immunity does not mean that the state is liable for all harms that result from its activities. Both the state and individuals are free to engage in many activities that result in harm to others so long as such activities are not tortuous. Thus the harm resulting form free competition among individuals is not actionable, nor is the harm resulting form the diversion of business by the state’s relocation of a highway. People v. Symons, 54 Cal.2d 855, 9 Cal.Rptr. 363, 357 P.2d 451; Holloway v. Purcell, 35 Cal.2d 220, 230, 217 P.2d 665. It does not follow, however, that torts may not be committed in carrying on such activities.

A competitor may be liable for the harm resulting from his violation of traffic laws in getting his product to market, just as the state may be liable for the harm caused by its agents’ violations of such laws. Although it “is not a tort for government to govern.” (Jackson, J., dissenting in Dalchite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 57, 73 S.Ct. 956, 979, 97 L.Ed. 1427), and basic policy decisions of government within constitutional limitations are therefore necessarily nontortious, it does not follow that the state is immune form liability for the torts of its agents. These considerations are relevant to the question whether in any given case the state through its agents has committed a tort (see 3 Davis, Administrative Law (1958), § 25.11, p. 482, § 25.13, p. 489), but once it is determined that it has it must meet its obligations therefor.” (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District 359 P.2d 457 @ 462 (Cal. 1961))

“Thus in holding that the doctrine of governmental immunity for torts for which its agents are liable has no place in our law we make no startling break with the past but merely take the final step that carries to its conclusion an established legislative and judicial trend.” (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District 359 P.2d 457 @ 463 (Cal. 1961))

Resources

Notes and References

  1. W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1893), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Further Reading

  • John Quincy Adams. Argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney, delivered on the 24th of Feb. and 1st of March, 1841. With a Review of the case of the Antelope. New York, 1841.
  • Pope Gregory XVI. To Catholic Citizens! The Pope’s Bull [for the Abolition of the Slave Trade], and the words of Daniel O’Connell [on American Slavery.] New York, [1856.]
  • Henry B. Dawson, editor. The Fœderalist: A Collection of Essays, written in favor of the New Constitution, as agreed upon by the Fœderal Convention, September 17, 1787. Reprinted from the Original Text. With an Historical Introduction and Notes. Vol. I. New York, 1863.
  • Frederick Law Olmsted. A Journey in the Back Country. New York, 1860.
  • British Parliament, House of Lords. Report of the Lords of the Committee of the Council appointed for the Confederation of all Matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations, etc. 2 vols. [London,] 1789.
  • London Anti-Slavery Society . The Foreign Slave Trade, etc., No. 2. London, 1838.
  • Friends. The Appeal of the Religious Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, etc., [Yearly Meeting] to their Fellow-Citizens of the United States on behalf of the Coloured Races. Philadelphia, 1858.
  • Joseph Smith. A Descriptive Catalogue of Friends’ Books. (Bibliography.) 2 vols. London, 1867.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *