Court Opinion

ID: 9653267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:42:23.729248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:57.435664
License: Public Domain

L. HAND, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
This is of course a penal statute and we must assume nothing against the defendant, but that is no reason for not giving it such latitude as will effect its whole purpose, if that can be gathered. My brothers agree that the ship’s “charterer,” ‘-‘agent” and “consignee” are all personally charged with the duty of holding the whole crew till the inspector comes aboard, but they believe that that duty ceases with the inspection and that no other reappears until notice is given. I agree, and if the charterer has some representative at hand, he will get the notice on the spot, and there is no hiatus; if he has not, I do not agree that the inspector must seek him out, and that meanwhile he is discharged. I do not believe that the charterer’s disregard of his original duty ought to excuse him. One may quite reasonably say that if he sends no one to the ship, he deputes the master to act for him; but that will not help him, because the master gets the notice. If he does not depute the. master, he has done nothing at all, and I cannot see why his neglect should give him any period of immunity. Congress thought the evü demanded stricter measures; to that end it required all these persons to co-operate actively in its repression. Our decision seems to me to put a premium upon the evasion of the means chosen.