Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/339

 324 FEDBRAJa- OEPOETEE. �purposes of forfeiture, under that section. But the penalty of $400, imposed upon the master by section 2873 for the same occurrence, Btill remains unafPected by the act of 1881; and for that penalty it is claimed on behalf of the United States that the ship, under section 3088 above cited, may still be held and seized. �The seizure contemplated by section 3088, as held in the case of Tlie Missouri, 3 Ben. 508, is a seizure by the marshal under theusual judicial process of the district court of the United States. This is mure plainly indicated by the original eighth section of the act of 1866, which oontains, at the end of the section as above cited, the additional -words, "in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the offence," which words are omitted in the Kevision. �Title 34, referred to in the act of 1881, relates to the collection of duties upon imports, There are numerous sections of this title whefeby penalties may be incurred by the master for violations of the revenue laws, (2772, 2775, 2809, 2814, 2867, 2868, and others,) and for all these penalties the vessel, by section 8 of the act of 1866, now section 3088 of the Revised Sta tutes, could be held and seized. In the case oi The Missouri, above quoted, the penalty was incurred by the mas- ter, under section 2809, for goods not being on the ship's manifest. There are also several other sections of this title whereby the vessel may become subject to forfeiture, and in all siach cases the first step in proceedings for forfeiture must be a seizure by the revenue of&cers. From this it appears that there are two kinds of seizure of vessels equally provided for' by title 34 of the Revised Statutes; the one elass, a seizure by the officers of the revenue for the purposes of an entire forfeiture; the other class, a seizure by the marshal under process for the enforcement of some of the varions penalties pre- scribed by that title. And iji each alike the vessel was liable to seizure, though the master and owner might be in fact innocent of finy offence. �It is under this state of the law that the act of 1881 declares gen- erally and broadly that no vessel, in the cases stated, and unless it shall appear that the owners or master were a consenting party or privy to the illegal acts, shall be subject ,to seizure or forfeiture by force of the provision of title 34; i. e., by force of any provision of that title, The vessel in this case has been seized; the seizure bas been made by force of title 34, — that is, by section 3088, which is a part of that title, — and by no other right or warrant whatsoever. The right of seizure depends wholly upon that section. The case, there- fore, falls within the general language of the act of 1881. I think ��� �