“Libel on information of seizure for a violation of the Coasting Act of 1793, ch. 8, and the Revenue Act of 1799, ch. 128. At the trial at October Term, 1821, the acts of illicit trade being proved to be in Passamaquoddy Bay, the principal question was, whether they were done within the territorial limits of the United States, or within the British waters. The deposition of the person who made the seizure, was offered in support of certain facts, on behalf of the United States, and objected to by the counsel for the claimants on the ground, that he was interested in the event of the suit, being liable for damages, if the seizure was wrongful, even though he had no interest in the forfeiture. But the Court overruled the objection, saying that the admissibility of such a witness had always hitherto been allowed in practice upon the ground of public policy; that the liability of the party was remote and contingent, and probable cause of seizure would excuse him; and that to deprive the government of his testimony would, in many cases of seizure, be equivalent to an acquittal, since seizures were often made under circumstances conclusive of guilt, but of which no proof could be effectually obtained, except from persons concerned in the seizure. As, where goods were found concealed, or in remote places, or disguised; and where an immediate seizure must be made, or the goods, though loaded with the strongest presumptions of guilt, would be carried beyond the reach of the law. Officers of the customs and others entitled to a part of the forfeiture were made competent witnesses by the revenue acts. Yet if this objection could now prevail, all such officers, who made or adopted the seizure, as collectors, &c. would be excluded; which certainly could not have been the under­standing of the legislature.”