The daily union., 1854-12-12
EMIGRANT PASSENGER SHIPS.

Of the United States for MARYLAND district November term
1854 Appeal from the district court In admiralty
shall affirm the decree of the district court in this case
But as it is the first that has before this court under
the acts Of Congress regulating the transporting OF passen
gers and involves several questions which have been
strongly contested in the argument 1t is proper ha'
should state fully the grounds upon which my opinion is
formed
The baraue Anna sailed from Bremen Haven in Novem-
ber 1853 and arrived in the port of Baltimore IN te
cember following She took board at Bremer ha'eh
on the lower deck PLATFORM hundred and
passengers with intent to bring them to the united
and left the port with that number on board
The cholera made its appearance among them on the uay
she sailed and eleven passengers died on the one
brought into the United States one hundred and seventy
four.
Upon her arrival in the port of Baltimore she was
seized AS forfeited the United States for violation OF
the passenger laws And it is conended the part OF
the United States she is liable to forfeiture under the
acts of Congress of 1919 and l84 account OF the num-
Der of her passengers beyond those authorized by these
laws.
The testimony in the case exceedingly voluminous
and before examine it, it is necessary to dispose OF some
questions of law which have been raised the consruc-
ton of these acts of Congress.
In relation the act of l8l9 think it quite clear that
the libel cannot be maintained under that law The first
section prohibited any vessel from taking on board or
bringing to the United States, than two passengers
for every Of such vessel and inflicted certain
penalties the and owners who should be guilty
of violating this provision And by the second section,
if the number passengers should exceed the proportion OF
two to every five by twenty the vessel was forfeited
But this regulation repealed by the tenth section Of the
May IT, l848 1t true that the repeating clause
speaks only Of the first secton but it that section
which regulates the number OF passengers p e tonnage
of the vessel
And in repeating that regulation altogether they GER
tanly repealed all other parts of the law which inflicted
penalties and oretures breaches Of the rule thereby
| tablished.
1t cannot be supposed that Congress intended by the
peang clause exempt the captain and owners from the
pecunary penalty inflicted them by the first section for
breach of this law and retain the heavier penalty of
forfeiting the ship Such construction would be unrea-
And it evident that the act of l848 designed
to repeal altogether the rule of apporonment by tonnage
and to establish the provided by the act of February
o. l84 as the only by which the shpowner was to
! be governed.
The act of ls47 is supposed present question of more
difficulty; but after careful examination, think it will
| be found free from doubt
The lst section provides that if the master OF vessel
shall take on board at foreign port or place. greater
number of passengers in proportion to the space appro
priaed for their use than is therein specified with intent
to bring such passengers the United States and shall
leave such port place with the same and bring me- same
or anu number thereof within the jurisdiction of the United
States the master shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor
and fined fifty dollars and may be imprisoned for term
not exceeding one year.
The proportion prescribed by this section one pas
only every fourteen clear superficial feet on the
lower deck or platform this space to be unoccuped by
stores or other goods not being the personal luggage Of
such passengers the vessel is to pass through the top
les the proportion is required be twenty superficial feet
instead of fourteen
The second section subjects the vessel to forfeiture in
the passengers taken board and brought into the Oni-
ted Sates' shall exceed by twenty the number limited in
| the first section.
The claimants contend that the barque cannot be con-
n proporon n to the space when she
less there was like when she entered the United
foatestut although the loo which sho took
board Bremen Haven may have exceeded by twenty the
proportion to the space prescribed by the act of Congress-
vet she not forfeited unless the 174 which she brought
into the United States also exceeded by twenty the
Der which could lawfully be accommo dated in the
appropriated to the of the passengers
But this construction cannot be maintained either upon
the grammatical and fair construction of the act of Con-
gress, or upon its evident object and policy,
The words $50 taken board and brought into the United
States refer the whole provisions the preceding section
They the entire transaction therein descrbedo the
taking on board the forbidden number as well as to the
bringing them any number Of them, into the United
| States.
! The taking on board the intent at the time, and the
bringing into the United States all constituent parts
OF the Oence and 1t IS conSummated by the entry OF the
vessel into Of ports with any portion of the pas
sengers board who have been exposed the malades
and diseases incident over-crowded ship such
voyage And if Congress had intended make the
depend upon the number brought in and intended that the
number taken board should not constitute part of the
offence then the words taken board ought to have
been omitted.
There is certainly nothing in the object and policy of
law induce the court to restrain the operation of this
clause of the statute within narrower limits than
guage naturally and justly imports Before Congress egs
lated upon the subject the transportation of passengers
this country in many instances conducted in
| that shocked the moral sense of the community.
The ships crowded TO the places allotted to
the passengers not ventilated and they often during
the voyage fed upon unwhoesome food restricted to
very scany allowance and the natural result was that
ships continually arriving with contagious infec
ous diseases board and after having lost the voy
great portion of the passengers brought the survivors
into the country emaciated with disease become
fectious maades contracted shipboard, endangcrng
thereby the health and the lives of our citizens
1t prevent these evils that Congress passed the
act of which speaking, well the other of
Congress upon the subject and It is the duty of the
court interpret hem and them in the spirit in
which they were enacted by the legislature and give
to the words of the law fair and just Interpretation
with reference to the object intended to be accomplished
and to nic the penalty prescribed by the act whenever
its provisions have been disrcgardcd The construction
contended for by the claimant would make the perfect
lv for the