Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/347

 332 FEDERAL REPORTER. �nue oEQcers for the purposes of forfeiture, save only in section 3088 ",, and that the word "seizure" in the act of 1881 should, therefore, be interpreted accordiqg to this technical use, and according to its most common meaning in title 34. The title of this act, wherein the words "seizure and forfeiture" are conjoined, is also referred to in support of this view. �But it is well settled that the language of the title of an act is of little value, and cannot control the meaning of the body of the act. Haddon v. The Gollector, 5 Wail. 105-110. The title of this act does present a case of possible ambiguity, because its grammatical read- ing will apply equally well to all cases of either seizure or; forfeiture, disjunctively, or to the case of a technical "seizure and forfeiture" only. But in the body of the act, which is always controlling, there is no,such ambiguity. Its language is not "seizure. and forfeiture," but "seizure or forfeiture;" and the whole structure and reading of the act shows that these words were not there used, in the technical manner contended for. And in the great majority of instances where "forfeitures" are enacted by title 34, the word "seizure" is not used in conjunction with it. Nor can I regard the argument, derived from the fact that the word "seizure" is used to signify a seizure for pen- alties in only one section of title 34, as of any force, when the very language of the act of 1881 is such as to make it applicable ta every section of title 34. But, in fact, section 3088, through its relation to all penalties imposed upon masters, carries with it.a reference to a much larger number of the sections of title 34 than those whieh refer to the technical cases of seizure and forfeiture only, as the lat- ter sections are much less in number than those imposing penalties upon masters. Such criticisms, however, are of little vaine, and have no weight against the general and comprehensive language of a statnte which aliords relief in terms as naturally and justly applica- ble to the one class of cases as to the other. �Considering, therefore, the plain and comprehensive language of this act, the equity of the statute, and the genei'al relief it was mani- festly designed to afford, the analogous statute of relief in regard to land vehicles, and the insertion of the additional word "seizure" in the act of 1881, which would be requisite for no other cases than those of penalties ; and considering the various steps in the passage of this act which forbid the supposition of the insertion of any unes- sential words, — I am of opinion that the act was designed to embrace seizurea for penalties under section 3088, as well as for forfeitures. ��� �