Summary

Portrait of Joseph Story Joseph Story M'Lane v. United States — Opinion of the Court

As a just reward for his diligence, and a compensation for his risks; at once to stimulate his vigilance and secure his activity; the laws of the United States have awarded to him a large share of the proceeds of the forfeiture. But his right by the seizure is but inchoate: and although the forfeiture may have been justly incurred, yet the government has reserved to itself the right to release it either in whole or in part, until the proceeds have been actually received for distribution; and in that event, and to that extent, it displaces the right of the collector.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Joseph Story Joseph Story M'Lane v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Let it be admitted for the present purpose, that congress can by a legislative remission, release the forfeiture, and disappoint the just expectations of the collector, as an incident. Can congress do still more? can congres reserve to the United States, a portion of the forfeiture, giving up entirely that of the collector?
The proposition is too extravagant to be admitted for a moment. The intention to do so, is too manifestly unjust to be imputed. Respect for congress forbids the imputation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Joseph Story Joseph Story M'Lane v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It is not necessary to remined the court, that such an interpretation is always to be given, if possible, as is consistent with justice and the rightful power of the legislature. Nothing but express words can extort a different construction, even from an act of a parliament said to be omnipotent: still less of an act of a constitutional congress, whose power is limited by written law, and by a cautious respect for the rights of the citizen.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature