construed to achieve it unless it is clear that such a purpose was intended.

The Act of 1898 makes no reference whatever to the classes of vessels now under consideration. The clearly defined purpose of section 1 of that Act, as shown by the Senate and House Committee Reports, was to guard against "evasions" under the then existing laws, and to insure that the inhibition of section 4347 of the Revised Statutes extended to the entire voyage between American ports. The "essential amendment" was the addition to section 4347 of the words, "or for any part of the voyage." It was expressly declared that otherwise the coastwise laws were left unchanged.*

Moreover, the fact that the Act of February 17, 1898, is an amendment to section 4347 indicates that that Act, like section 4347, must be read as subject to the statutes above set forth expressly excepting certain vessels from the requirements of documentation.

The Act of 1898 was not regarded by the Treasury Department or by the Bureau of Navigation as changing the law with respect to the vessels in question. No attempt was made to prevent such vessels from engaging in the coastwise trade or to subject the merchandise carried upon them to forfeiture. See Customs Regulations (1915 Ed.), Art. 14. I have no hesitation in adopting as correct the construction

In the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury of February 9, 1898, to the Senate Committee on Commerce, the Secretary, referring to Section 1 of the Act-the only section here material-stated (Cong. Rec., Vol. 31, p. 1729):

"The essential amendment is in the words or for any part of the voyage.' The question has recently been put to the Treasury whether American goods consigned to Alaskan ports from Seattle can be carried in American vessels to Victoria, a distance of only 72 miles, and at Victoria be put on British vessels to be carried to Dyea, a distance of about 900 miles, or to St. Michael, a distance of about 2,000 miles. The Treasury Department has ruled that this is a violation of the laws reserving the coasting trade to American vessels. It is a palpable evasion of those laws, but in some quarters doubt is expressed whether the courts will not decide, * that the law had been successfully evaded, not violated. The policy of the United

States is to confine carrying by water for the whole voyage between American ports to American vessels. It is believed that section 1 explicitly affirms that policy and removes all doubt."

Senator Frye, of the Committee on Commerce, and Mr. Payne, of the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in presenting the bill to the Senate and House, repeatedly declared that the only change contemplated by that part of the Act in question was that above set forth in the Secretary's letter, and that otherwise the existing coastwise laws were left unchanged. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 31, pp. 1610, 1729, 1730.)

placed upon the Act of 1898 by the administrative departments in charge of its enforcement.

Although it does not so state, section 27 of the Act of 1920 is a reenactment, with some changes, of section 4347 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of 1898. Under the 1898 Act the coastwise trade was confined to "vessels of the United States," and under section 27 of the 1920 Act that trade was confined (with the exceptions stated) to vessels "built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States." The vessels now under consideration do not come within the literal provisions of the 1920 Act any more than they did within the provisions of the 1898 Act. Nevertheless, for reasons similar to those above set forth, I regard section 27, like the Act of 1898, as compatible with and subject to section 4385 of the Revised Statutes and the Act of April 18, 1874.

An examination of the Act of 1920 and its legislative history reveals no intention to change the law with respect to vessels which were exempted from the requirements of documentation. No provision of the Act deals specifically with the laws concerning documentation, save with respect to foreign-built vessels admitted to American registry during the war, or acquired by the United States during the war and disposed of or to be disposed of to American citizens.

Section 27 formed no part of the Act as originally drafted and passed by the House. As explained by Senator Jones, of the Committee on Commerce, it was, like section 1 of the Act of February 17, 1898, an amendment offered by the Senate for the purpose of guarding against "evasions" possible under the existing law. In explanation, Senator Jones referred to an opinion of the Attorney General (30 Op. 3), which held the Act of 1898 applicable only to a voyage entirely by water. The Senate amendment extended the penalty of the statute to transportation "by water, or by land and water," following a suggestion contained in the Attorney General's opinion. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 59, pp. 7348– 7350, 6811.) The Senator expressly disclaimed any purpose of changing the coast wise laws. In explaining the amendment, he said (Cong. Rec., Vol. 59, pp. 6862–6863):

66 **

there is nothing in this bill that deals with the coastwise laws or coastwise shipping except the provision extending the application of the coastwise laws to the Philippine Islands, or to the island possessions of the United States, and the provision to prevent the evasion of the coastwise laws to which I referred yesterday, having in view especially the situation between Seattle and Skagway, Alaska. We do not deal in general in this bill with the coastwise laws. They are left just as they are; we have not attempted to interfere with them." (Italics supplied.)

Your Department advises me that during the ten years since the enactment of the 1920 Act vessels of the types exempted from documentation by section 4385 of the Revised Statutes, and by the Act of April 18, 1874, supra, have continued, without documentation, to perform their accustomed functions in the movement of our domestic commerce. See Customs Regulations (1923 Ed.), Art. 17. This practical construction of section 27 is amply supported by its legislative history and declared purpose.

You have not specifically asked me whether vessels of the classes now under consideration may engage in the coast wise trade if not built in this country and owned by American citizens, and I have not considered whether any vessels of these classes may engage in the coastwise trade if not so built and owned. With this qualification, I am of the opinion that vessels exempted from the requirements of documentation by section 4385 of the Revised Statutes, and the Act of April 18, 1874, supra, may continue to engage in the coastwise trade and that merchandise transported on them is not subject to forfeiture.

2. Foreign-built vessels wrecked on the coasts of the United States.

Section 4136 of the Revised Statutes (Act of December 23, 1852, c. 4, 10 Stat. 149), not in Title L, provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue a register or enrollment for any foreign-built vessel wrecked in the United States, when purchased and repaired by a citizen of the United States, where the repairs are equal to three-fourths of the cost of the vessel when so repaired. This section represented an exception to the provisions of sections 4132 and 4312,

which limited, with certain other exceptions here immaterial, the privileges of documentation to "vessels built within the United States." Section 4136 was repealed by the Act of February 22, 1906, c. 500, 34 Stat. 17. By the Act of February 24, 1915, c. 57, 38 Stat. 812 (U. S. C., Title 46, sec. 14), section 4136 was reenacted and revised to provide that a register or enrollment may be issued for any vessel wrecked on the coasts of the United States or her possessions or adjacent waters, when purchased by a citizen of the United States or her possessions and repaired in a shipyard in the United States or her possessions, where the repairs are equal to three times the salved value of the vessel.

Nothing in section 4347 of the Revised Statutes, either as originally enacted or as amended by the Act of February 17, 1898, supra, prevented vessels coming within the description of section 4136, or the Act of February 24, 1915, from engaging in the coastwise trade. If section 27 of the 1920 Act is to be given a more drastic effect than that given to its predecessor statutes, the effect will be to deprive American shipbuilders of the business of making repairs which they have heretofore secured by reason of the provision which has made it possible to employ foreign-built vessels in the coastwise trade when they have been wrecked on our coasts and repaired, to the requisite extent, in our shipyards. In my opinion the revision of section 4347, as amended by section 27 of the Act of 1920, was not intended to change the law as to such vessels.

Much of the discussion above with respect to undocumented vessels is applicable to the effect of section 27 upon section 4136 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of 1915. The legislative history of section 27 indicates clearly enough that it was not intended to affect vessels coming within the description of the Act of 1915. Indeed, it does not seem that the words "vessels built in * * * the United States " in section 27 were intended to add anything to the coastwise laws that was not expressed by the similar words used in section 4132 of the Revised Statutes. Moreover, vessels repaired in American shipyards to the extent prescribed by the Act of 1915 may well be regarded as vessels built within the United States within the long

established policy of confining the American coastwise trade to American-built vessels.

I am confirmed in this conclusion by the fact that your Department has, since 1920, continued to enroll for domestic trade vessels coming within the description of the Act of 1915. Article 11 of the Customs Regulations (1923 Edition), which are now in force, specifically provides that such vessels are entitled to enrollment.

The conclusion above reached does not conflict with the result reached in the opinion of the Attorney General in the case of the steamship China. (33 Op. 1.) Although the application to the present case of all of the reasoning of that opinion might lead to a contrary conclusion, the vessel there involved was of a class specifically dealt with by sections 22 and 37 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, and, consequently, there were strong reasons for holding that those sections impliedly repealed the prior inconsistent legislation on the same subject matter.

It is, therefore, my opinion that the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1915, supra, are not affected by section 27 of the Act of 1920.

3. Foreign-built vessels forfeited for breach of the laws of the United States.

Section 4132 of the Revised Statutes as originally enacted (Act of December 31, 1792, c. 1, 1 Stat. 287, 288) provided:

"Vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, and vessels which may be captured in war by citizens of the United States, and lawfully condemned as prize, or which may be adjudged to be forfeited for a breach of the laws of the United States, being wholly owned by citizens, and no others, may be registered as directed in this Title."

It has always been understood that the vessels enumerated in this statute could be enrolled and licensed to engage in the coastwise trade because of the provisions of section 4312 of the Revised Statutes, which permit the enrollment of vessels having the qualifications required for registration.

By the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912, c. 390, sec. 5, 37 Stat. 562 (U. S. C., Title 46, sec. 11), R. S. section