|
|
not Extortion, and therefore on this Supposition may be demanded
& taken.
This Consequence results from the very Nature of Extortion,
which is "taking of Money by any Officer by Colour of his Office,
either where none at all is due, or not so much is due, or where it is
not yet due." From this Definition of Extortion it is obvious, that
what is due must be settled, before the Excessiveness of the ffee
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 54
Nov. 22
|
|
|
|
actually received can be adjudged Extortion; and most certainly
when settled may be legally demanded and taken by the Officer; and
the Proposition is equally plain, that what is due upon a Service done
cannot be ascertained without the Consequence of ascertaining what
would be Extortion in that particular Case; and vice Versa, what
would be Extortion in any Instance, cannot be ascertained without
previously ascertaining what is due. But your Excellency's Procla-
mation adopts the expired Regulation as the Criterion of Extortion,
and therefore evinces, beyond a Possibility of Doubt, an implied
allowance to charge to the Extent of that Regulation.
On recurring to the late Inspection Law which limited the Officers
ffees, we find that the Words of that Act are "That no Officer or
Officers, hereafter mentioned in this present Act, their Ministers,
Servants or Deputies, by Reason or Colour of his or their Office
or Offices, shall have, receive, or take, of any Person or Persons,
directly or, indirectly, any other or greater ffees which shall become
due, after the last Day of November in the Year 1763, than by this
Act are hereafter limited and allowed to the several Officers hereafter
mentioned." Which Expressions every Body knows have always
been construed, an implied affirmative Allowance of the ffees; and
when your Excellency has been pleased to issue a Proclamation, in
the very same Words, we cannot but conclude, that you must [have]
had the same Idea affixed to them, as was universally affixed to those
Words, in the Act from whence they were copied. But even should
we be mistaken in our Conjectures, that you intended to restrain
the Registers of the Land Office, from charging more than allowed
to them by your Excellency's Regulation; or that you intended to
give an implied affirmative Allowance to the other Officers to charge
to the Extent of the late Regulation, under the Inspection Law, your
Excellency certainly thought, when you prohibited the Charging any
other or greater ffees, than by the late Inspection Law were limited
and allowed, under Pain of your Displeasure, that greater ffees were
excessive; and from your own Reasoning in your Message before
mentioned, "a Right to determine the Charges of ffees excessive,
implies the Right to settle the exact Compensation due for the Ser-
vices performed; because without the Standard, what ffees are ade-
quate, what are more or less, than the just Proportion, cannot be
ascertained"; Or if greater ffees are not excessive, you have at-
tempted by your Proclamation, illegally to restrain the Officers, from
|
p. 269
|
|
