Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/344

 ' THE SAEATOflA. 329 �for the purposes of forfeiture. Hence the word "seizure," in the act of 1881, would be reduced to mere surplusage upon the construction contended for by the libellants, thus violating another maxim of interpretation that effect shall, if possible, be given to all the words of the statuts. U. S. y. Bassett, 2 Story, 389. �The application of this maxim is the more imperative when, as in this case, both the words "seizure" and "forfeiture" have a natural and exact application to both the classes of cases found in title 34, to which the statute refers, viz. : the one to cases of strict forfeiture ; the other to seizure, under section 3088, for penalties without for- feiture. , �4. That such was the particular and special, intent of congresfe in the act of 1881 is strongly sustained bya consideration of theanalo- gous section of the Revised Statutes (3063) relating to vehicles used on land in transporting smuggled goods. By section 3062 any such vehicle or team is declared liable to "seizure and forfeiture;" but section 3063 declares that — �" No railway car or engins, or other veMcle, or team used by any person or corporation, as eommon carriers, * * * shall be subject to forfeiture by force of the provisions of this title, (34,) unless it shall appear that the owner, superintendent, or agent of the owner in charge thereof * * * was a consenting party or privy to such illegal importation or transportation." �This provision was originally a part of section 3 of the act of July 18, 1866, above referred to. The act of Pebruary 8, 1881, is man- ifestly modelled upon that section. Its language is almost identieal, and could not have been framed except with the former act in view. Yet section 3063, relating to railway cars and other vehicles, it will be noticed, prohibits "forfeiture" only, though section 3062 provides for "seizure and forfeiture;" but as there can be no seizure by revenue officers for the purposes of forfeiture, if forfeiture itself is forbidden, there was no need in the prohibitory section relating to railway cars and other vehicles to use the word "seizure," since there was no other existing legal liability of land carriages to "seizure," except for the purposes of forfeiture under section 3062. The prohibition of "for- feiture" in the prohibitory section (3063) necessarily included, a pro- hibition of seizure for the purposes of forfeiture ; and, accordingly» we do not find the word "seizure" there used, as it was not necessary» �But, in the case of vessels, there is an additional liability to "seiz- ure" for penalties, without forfeiture, which does not exist as regarda land vehicles, and which would not be covered by the use of the word ��� �