Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-08
HELEN BREWER
IS NOT DERELICT
Continued from page ~
REGULATIONS Not Definite.

Regulations Not Definite.
The articles of the Customs Regula.
tons. the sections of the Revised Stat
utes and the various Acts of Con.
gross referred to in your report have
all been examined by me. but in my
opinion, they merely postpone the diff
fCulty without resolving it. They
deal with the obligations Of ships and
ship masters about to enter upon OF
to return from a voyage concedodly
a foreign voyage; they postulate the
foreign character Of the voyage: they
assume. in other words. the very mat.
ter which Is in dispute here. In other
words. they establish regulations con
trolling foreign voyages. but they no.
where define the phrase foreign voy.
age" Here and there, scattered at
intervals throughout the statutes. one
finds the phrase From a port on the
Atlantic to a port on the Pacific"-but
I do not regard this phrase as Of any
Importance at this junCturc. ! ques'
iion very much whether a passage
from New York in the United States
20 Honolulu in the United States can
be regarded as a passage from a port
on the Atlantic to port on the Pa.
Cihc" in the sense in which this
phrase Is employed in the Revised
statutes. But. however that may be,
do not regard the references in your
report as throwing any light upon the
real question involved in this case I
have not examined Treasury Decisions
l5G1U. 1874 and 1867, for the reason
that they are not accessible to me:
but in the view which take of this
case. do not consider II necessary ia
examine those Decisions.
coastwse or Foreign.
Il would seem to be obvious that
every passage or voyage Is a transit
between two termini Speaking o;
American ships clearing from New
York. the terminus n quo of such
transit would be within the United
States, while the terminus ad quCn
thereof would be within the territory
and Jurisdiction of some foreign SOY,
ereign. 1t was held, however, in
United States VS.. Patten C27 Fed.
Gas, case No. lGOO7, page 46O) that
the term foreign trade includes trade
between the Atlantic and Pacific ports
OF the United States" and that the
term "COastwise trade" does not in
Cude trade between the Atlantic and
Pacific ports of the United States. In
that case, an American ship proceeded
IN ballast from the port of New YORK.
on the Atlantic coast to the port Of
San Francisco on the Pacific coast
but that is not the only point of dit
terentiatiOn between the Patten cas-,
and the case under consideration. II
the Patten case, Shepley. Circuit
Judge, was constituting the tenth sec
ton of the Act of June /. 1872 a.
Stat 1881, a statute which permitted
the withdrawal from bond of ship
building materials in certain cases
The Court was not discussing foreign
voyages" in the ordinary sense of tina
phrase, but was limiting itself speCifi
cally to the language of the particula
statute then before 1t. And since theI
that statute itself erected an arbitra
ry definition of the phrase foreign
trade" making that phrase Include
the trade between the Atlantic ant
Pacific ports of the United States" /
does not seem that there was muCl
else that the Court could do eXcep
hold as II did. | do not regard tn,
Patten case as controlling here.
Justice Story Quoted.
No less a person that Mr.. Justice
Story has given an exhaustive an,
convincing definition of the phras
foreign voyage" and take the liber
~ of quoting a brief extract from hi
opinion:
Where a penalty, or a provision II
the nature OF a penalty, IS to be en-