The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-10-29
essel of the United states similarly

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.?
Attorney General Bonaparte says
that ''the application of Section 1919,
U. SIR. 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-
chandise' within the terms of the said
section. I would say, by way of ex-
PLANTATION, that l 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. If
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-
stitute goods, wares, or merchandise .
within the meaning of Section 4219.
In my recent opinion to the Secretary
Of the Navy 1 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 421e Is
clearly the same as that of Section
4S47, the intent of the one enactment
being to discourage, and that of the
other to prohibit, the use Of foreign
in the coastwise trade. To this
end, merchandise transported in such
from one to another port of
our coast was made liable to seizure
and confscation by Section 4347,
by the less drastic provisions
Of Section 1919, a special tonnage tax
was to be levied upon vessels trans
porting such merchandise, with an
obvious recognition of the established
principle that such tax.
through the operation of the law of
would constitute, in last
resort, a burden to be borne by the
owner of the merchandise, and, there
ore, a deterrent to the use, by such
,wner, of foreign vessels for its trans
1ortation In the case
If private shipper this would con-
ititute a reason why ne should not
Employ them, and the aim of the law
o encourage American shipping would
,e pro tanto attained; but, in the case
T the government as it would receive
Iack. in the form of tax. what it paid
ut in the form Of increased charges
Or transportation, the above mention
d motive could not operate, and 1t is
easonable to conclude that the case
-as not one contemplated by the
ramers of the law. 1t follows that,
4 my opinion, a vessel having no
Their cargo than coal belonging to the
United states and intended for the use
the Navy is not a vessel having
n board goods, wares. or merchandise
nder the terms of Section 1919, as
mended by the Acts OF 1877 and 1884:
nd, therefore, that supposing the
erndene to have had no other cargo
lan--the above mentioned coal, she is
OF liable to the tonnage tax Of fifty
snts per ton mentioned in your let
r.