The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-10-26

coastwise property of the United
| States "a vessel not of the United
States having on board
goods, wares, or merchandise within
| the meaning of Section 4219?
4. Whether a British vessel employ
/ ed under the conditions prescribed by
| the Act approved April IS, 1904, in
transporting coastwise merchandise
owned by the government, is exempt
| from tonnage dues, not imposed on a
vessel Of the United States similarly
employed?
5. If tonnage dues at the rate of
fifty cents per ton accrue in this case.
is the vessel subject to light money!
as provided by Section 1925, U. S. r. S. E?
Attorney General Bonaparte saws
that the application of Section 4219,
U. S. r. s., to the case of the Ferndene
depends upon whether, in the words of
the Commissioner of Navigation, "a
vessel transporting coastwise property
of the United States is a vessel hav-
ing on board goods, wares, or mer-
chandfse' within the terms of the said
section. I would say, by way of ex-
PLANTATION, that I understand, from
your letter, that the Ferndene car
ried no other cargo than the coal be-
longing to the United States and in
tended for the use of the Navy. II
she had on board any other goods,
wares, or merchandise, not the prop
erty of the government, the last men
toned portion Of her cargo would
be liable to forfeiture under the pro-
visions of the Act approved February
II, 1898 go Stats, 24S). If, however,
as I understand to be the case from
your letter and that of the Commits
sioner of Navigation, the goods.
wares, or merchandise which she had
on board consisted only of the coal
belonging to the government, it is my
opinion that this cargo did not con-
stltute goods, wares, or merchandise
within the meaning of Section 1919.
In my recent opinion to the Secretary
of the Navy I gave my reasons for
holding that property belonging to the
government was not included under
the term merchandise as used in
Section 4347, u. s. R. S.
The general purpose of Section 4219 is
clearly the same as that of Section
4347, the intent of the one enactment
being to discourage, and that of the
other to prohibit, the use of foreign
vessels in the coastwise trade. To this
end, merchandise transported in such
vessels from one to another port of
our coast was made liable to seizure
and confiscation by Section 4347,
whereas, by the less drastic provisions
of Section 4219, special tonnage tax
was to be levied upon vessels trans
porting such merchandise, with an
obvious recognition Of the established
economical principle that such tax,
through the operation of the law of
competition, would constitute, in last
resort, a burden to be borne by the
owner of the merchandise, and, there
fore, a deterrent to the use, by such
owner, of foreign vessels for it's trans |
pOrtation. In the case
of a private shipper this would con-
stitute a reason why he should not |
employ them, and the aim of the law |
to encourage American shipping would |
be pro tanto attained; but, in the case |
Of the government, as it would receive |
back, in the form of tax, what it paid |
put in the form of increased charges
Tor transportation, the above mention
I'd motive could not operate, and it is
reasonable to conclude that the case
was not one contemplated by the |
trainers of the law. 1t follows that,
n my opinion, a vessel having no
1ther cargo than coal belonging to the
United states and intended for the use