Task: songer_r_bus

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

WOODBURY, Chief Judge.
These appeals present a common question. They were heard together and can be decided by one opinion.
The appellants were seamen and members of the crews of vessels who were injured while at work on their respective vessels when afloat on navigable waters within the territorial limits of Puerto Rico. Their employers had insured their employees in accordance with, and hence were covered by, the Puerto Rico Workmen’s Accident Compensation Act, Act No. 45, Laws of 1935, as amended, 11 L.P.R.A. 1 et seq., and each appellant applied for and was awarded compensation under that Act. Following this each appellant brought suit in the court below against his employer to recover under the Jones Act for negligence and under the general maritime law for unseaworthiness. These appeals are from summary judgments dismissing each complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ only remedy was that afforded by the local workmen’s compensation act.
In Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 1917, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred exclusive power upon the federal government with respect to matters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Saying at page 215 of 244 U.S., at page 528 of 37 S.Ct. that it must now be accepted as settled doctrine that “ * * * Congress has paramount power to fix and determine the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country,” the Court held that no State might validly apply its workmen’s compensation law to maritime injuries occurring on its territorial waters. Congress then amended the “saving to suitors” clause to provide not only that suitors in all cases should have the right to a common-law remedy when the common law was competent to give it, but also to give “ * * * to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen’s compensation law of any state.” But the amendment was struck down as unconstitutional in Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 1920, 253 U.S. 149, 164, 40 S.Ct. 438, 441, 64 L.Ed. 834, on the ground that the constitutional power of Congress to legislate concerning rights and liabilities within the maritime jurisdiction, and remedies for their enforcement, could not be delegated to the States, for the reason that “Congress cannot transfer its legislative power to the states — by nature this is non-delegable.” Later Congress made a similar but more limited attempt but it met the same fate in State of Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 1924, 264 U.S. 219, 44 S.Ct. 302, 68 L.Ed. 646.
These decisions impose constitutional restrictions on the power of the States and on the power of Congress to delegate its legislative powers to the States. But, whatever the actual status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be in all its details, its present status is certainly not that of a State of the United States. Nor is it even that of a territory incorporated into the union preparatory to statehood. Guerrido v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 1956, 234 F. 2d 349, 352. As such the Government of Puerto Rico has such powers as Congress from time to time has seen fit to give it. And the broad power of Congress under Article IY, § 3, If 2 to legislate for national territory is limited under the doctrine of the Insular Cases, so-called, only by fundamental constitutional principles.
This court in Lastra v. New York & Porto Rico S. S. So., 1 Cir., 1924, 2 F.2d 812, 813, and in Guerrido v. Alcoa S. S. Co., supra, was not aware of any basic principle of the Constitution which prevented Congress from giving Puerto Rico jurisdiction over its own waters. Nor are we. Our problem, therefore, is not one of constitutional limitations. It is one of statutory interpretation. It is whether Congress in the exercise of its constitutional power under Article IV, § 3,1T 2, to legislate for national territory has in fact seen fit to confer on the Government of Puerto Rico power to make its workmen’s compensation law applicable to injuries sustained by employees while at work on its territorial waters.
This court in the Lastra case cited above definitely answered this questioned in the affirmative. The basis for the court’s decision was that in 1917 by §§ 7, 8 and 37 of the Second Puerto Rico Organic Act, called the Jones Act, 39 Stat. 951, 954, 964, Congress conferred full power of control over local navigable waters upon the Government of Puerto Rico to the complete exclusion of the admiralty and maritime law of the United States. Later on in the Guerrido case we reaffirmed the result reached in Lastra but not on the broad basis on which this court rested its result in that case, saying in 234 F.2d at page 352 that we had “* * * reached the conclusion that the broad proposition that the admiralty and maritime law of the United States is not in force to any extent in the navigable waters of Puerto Rico which we laid down in the Lastra case cannot be sustained.” We rested this conclusion on a careful and thorough analysis of the applicable legislation, opinions and historical documents which need not be repeated here. It will suffice to say that as a result of our analysis we came to the conclusion “ * * * that almost from the day of the Spanish cession of Puerto Rico to the United States it was recognized that the navigable waters of the island were to be regarded as navigable waters of the United States subject to the federal jurisdiction.” We recognized that the statutes and opinions to which we referred to support this conclusion dealt primarily with the exercise of admiralty and maritime powers by the federal government in Puerto Rican waters. But at page 354 we said: “ * * * we find nothing in them to suggest that the rules of the maritime law of the United States were not equally applicable in those waters to determine the rights and liabilities of private persons.”
Nevertheless, in Guerrido we adhered to the conclusion reached in Lastra on the ground that §§ 7, 8 and 37 of the Second Organic Act of 1917, which were continued in force and form a part of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, gave the Legislature of Puerto Rico general legislative power over local waters. Therefore in the Guerrido case we came to the conclusion “ * * * that the rules of the admiralty and maritime law of the United States are presently in force in the navigable waters of the United States in and around the island of Puerto Rico to-the extent that they are not locally inapplicable either because they were not designed to apply to Puerto Rican waters or because they have been rendered inapplicable to these waters by inconsistent Puerto Rican legislation.” But we were very careful immediately to point out at page 355 that this was of course not to say “ * * * that Puerto Rican legislation could thus supplant a rule of maritime law which Congress in the exercise of its constitutional power has expressly made applicable to Puerto Rican waters.”
It is certainly true that neither the Jones Act nor the general maritime law of unseaworthiness are inherently inapplicable in Puerto Rico. But on the other hand, there is nothing in the Jones Act specifically making its provisions applicable in the territorial waters of Puerto Rico and we are not aware that Congress has ever taken action to make the general maritime law of unseaworthiness apply in those waters. Instead in Lastra and Guerrido this court held and we agree that Congress in the valid exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Constitution gave the Legislature of Puerto Rico power to enact legislation inconsistent with the Jones Act and the general maritime law, and that the Legislature of Puerto Rico had exercised its power in its Workmen’s Accident Compensation Act. Of course if Congress sees'fit it may supplant the local legislation as it applies to local navigable waters by making the Jones Act and the general maritime law of unseaworthiness specifically applicable in Puerto Rican waters, but it is not our function to do so.
We recognize that this holding creates an area of lack of uniformity in the maritime law. But it is clearly recognized in the Jensen case, supra, that absolute uniformity in things maritime is not a constitutional requirement nor is it even essential to the proper harmony of the maritime law in its interstate and international relations. For instances of lack of uniformity in the law of admiralty as applied in this country see the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in the Jensen case and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brandéis in the Knickerbocker Ice Co. case. If uniformity is desirable, it can be readily achieved by Congress. Until it specifically does so, we infer as this court did in the Lastra and Guerrido cases that in the sections of the Second Organic Act referred to above Congress intended to clothe the Government of Puerto Rico with power to provide for the application of its workmen’s compensation act to injuries suffered by employees on local navigable waters. And this inference is supported by the practically contemporaneous amendments of the “saving to suitors” clause held unconstitutional in the Knickerbocker Ice Co. and Washington cases, supra, for those amendments indicate that it was then the mood of Congress to permit application of local law to injuries suffered by employees on local navigable waters. If the mood of Congress has changed, means for expressing the change are readily at hand.
Judgments will be entered affirming the judgments of the District Court.
. At least, like the court below, we consider them to have been seamen and members of tbe crews of vessels although two of them worked on stationary dredges one of which was engaged in a highway construction project. See Senko v. La Crosse Dredging Corp., 1957, 352 U.S. 370, 77 S.Ct. 415, 1 L.Ed.2d 404; Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 1958, 356 U.S. 252, 78 S.Ct. 687, 2 L.Ed. 2d 737.
. Section 21 of that act in material part provides:
“When an employer insures his workmen or employees in accordance with this chapter, the right herein established to obtain compensation shall be the only remedy against the employer; * *
. De Lima v. Bidwell, 1901, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041, and Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088, and subsequent cases confirming and applying their doctrine, see cases cited in People of Puerto Rico v. Tapia, 1918, 245 U.S. 639, 38 S.Ct. 192, 62 L.Ed. 525.
. Law 600, 64 Stat. 319; 48 U.S.C.A. § 731 et seq.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1