Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/856

 S44 FBDEBAIi BBPOBTSB. �viding employment to the seamen upon a foreign vessel, ana it is lusisted that the verdict on these counts cannot be up- held beeause the statute does not assume to regulate the employment of seamen in any other than American vessels, and does not apply when employment is provided for the sea- men upon a foreign vessel. The section was originally sec- tion 11 of the act of June 7, 1872, and was evidently intended to supplement sections 7 and 8 of that act so as to protect seamen, not only from extortion on the part of officiais to whom was committed the supervison of the shipping of sea- men, but also from the interference of interlopers for gain in the transaction. The title of the act, which is for "the appointaient of shipping cpmmissioners * * * to superintend the shipping and discharge of seamen en^aged in mer.chant ships belonging to the ; United States, and for the future protection of seamen," affords some evidence of the legislative intent ; the sevirai sections of the act, which throughout are consistent with the title, contemplate a sur- ve^l^nqeby American oflScial^ pf American vessels; and the definition in section 66, for the purposes of the act, of a seaifian as a person employed or engaged to serve in any capacity "upon any ship belonging to any citizen of the United States," — allconeur to demonstrate the scheme and scope of the act as designed to secure protection of seamen in Amer- ican ships throughout the hiring, service, and discharge of such seamen. While section 4609 is broad eiiough, standing alone, to include a case where remuneration is exacted for providing a seaman with employment in a foreign ship, it muet be read in pari materia, and as a penal statute must nothe extended beyond the fair purview of the legislation of T^hich it is a part. �The further point is made for the defendant that the action is improperly brought in the name of the United States, and that the district attorney, and not the United States, is the proper party plaintiff. �Section 4610, under which this action is brought, reads as follows: ��� �