Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/345

 330 FEDERAL REPORTER. �"forfeiture" alone. The insertion of the additional words "seizure or," in the act of February 8, 1881, must, therefore, be held to have been intended to meet these additional cases of seizure under section 3088, which would not have been covered by the use of the word "forfaiture" only, sinee seizures, under that section, are the only cases for whieh the use of that word would be necessary. �5. If any doubt could still exist as to the intention of congress, it would be removed by a recurrence to the history of the act itself, as exhibited in the joumals of congress, and to the times in which it was passed, to which, in cases of doubt, the supreme court have held that reference may be made. Blake v. Nat. Bank, 23 Wall. 307; U. S. T. U. P. R. R. 91 U. S. 74. �That complaints had long been made of the hardship of enforcing these penalties and forfeitures by the seizure of vessels of innocent owners is well known. A memorial numerously signed was addressed to congress in 1879, asking relief by the passage of an act therein proposed in the precise language of the statute of February 8,. 1881, as finally passed. It was introduced into the senate on January 6, 18S0, and, after reference to the finance committee, (Gong. Bec. vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 194,) was reported by them as bill 939, to which the memorial is attached, (Gong. Reo, vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 778;) was passed without amondment on March 8th, (Gong. Rec. vol 10, pt. 2, p. 1365,) and sent to the house of representatives. It was there referred to the committee on ways and means, (Gong, Eec. vol. 10, pt. 2, p., 1633,) who, on May 24, 18S0, reported it with a recommendation of an amendment striking out the words "seizure or," whence it. was re- ferred to the committee of the whole. Gong. Rec. vol. 10, pt. 4, p. 3731. As thus modified it would have corresponded exactly to the section of the Revised Statutes (3063) relating to land carriages, and would not have covered the special liability of vessels to seizure for penalties only under section 3088. �The memorial, however, while making reference to the numerous sections of the Revised Statutes imposing penalties and forfeitures on vessels, called attention to forfeitures under section 2874, and com- plained particularly of section 3088 as "giving a lien on the vessel, which may be seized therefor." It is plain, therefore, ,that the amend- ment proposed by the committee of ways and means, to strike out the wordi "seizure or," and leaving cases of forfeiture only provided for, did npt cover the ground desired by the memorialists. The report of that committee was disagreed to, and some nine months after wards, ��� �