Page images
PDF
EPUB

manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such opium or preparation or derivative thereof after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, such opium or preparation or derivative thereof shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed, and the offender shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for any time not exceeding two years, or both. Whenever, on trial for a violation of this section, the defendant is shown to have, or to have had, possession of such opium or preparation or derivative thereof, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.”

It is a fundamental and familiar rule that a repeal by implication is never held to take place unless there is an irreconcilable repugnancy between the earlier and later acts, and that if by any permissible construction both may stand and be enforced there is no such repeal.

It will be noticed that with the exception of a portion of a single sentence the first of these acts relates exclusively to the manufacture or preparation within this country of opium for smoking purposes. The single exception to this is the provision that "all prepared smoking opium imported into the United States shall, before removal from the customhouse, be duly stamped in such manner as to denote that the duty thereon has been paid." This portion of the earlier act is in great part an internal-revenue measure and, as already said, relates exclusively to the manufacture or preparation of smoking opium in this country and may be enforced in all its aspects independently of and notwithstanding any law either forbidding or regulating the importation of such opium. It relates to and regulates only the domestic preparation of the drug and is not affected by any act forbidding or regulating the importation of the same article. The two acts are quite independent of each other and relate to different subjects and the former may well continue to regulate the domestic preparation while the latter forbids the importation of the same drug. The former is not solely an internal-revenue measure, but is also a regulation of the preparation for use of a deleterious.

article, and if the later act should entirely prevent the importation of opium yet the same reasons both as a revenue measure and a regulation which operated to produce the earlier act would still exist, for there was still opium here which might be prepared for smoking. But if the later act did not entirely prevent such importation then there is further reason for such a law as that contained in the earlier act.

While with the single unimportant exception above mentioned the earlier act relates exclusively to domestic preparation, the later act relates exclusively to the importation of opium and, subjected to the accepted test above mentioned, no reason is perceived why both these acts may not well stand and be enforced.

An act which taxes or regulates the domestic manufacture or preparation of an article may well be entirely consistent with another and later act which absolutely prohibits the importation of such article. The former act would operate upon the domestic production thereof and former importations and subsequent importations made in violation of the later act.

But if the article is not one of domestic production and its importation is actually prevented by the later act, yet no repugnancy would exist between the two acts, but after the exhaustion of the supply on hand it would only present a condition where there is no subject upon which the former law could operate. Its provisions, however, would remain in force to be executed whenever occasion therefor should arise.

I have, therefore, no doubt that the provisions in question of the earlier act are still in full force and may be executed notwithstanding the later act of February 9, 1909. And I am further of the opinion that nothing in the above act of 1909 or in any other act has abrogated or dispensed with the necessity of observing each and all of the requirements of section 37 of said first-mentioned act as to notices, inventories, bonds, books, returns, etc., as there provided. Respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

INSPECTION OF STEAM MOTOR BOATS.

The engine, boiler, or other operating machinery of a steam motor boat more than 40 feet in length is subject to inspection by the local inspectors of steam vessels, and the design thereof is subject to their approval, by the proviso to section 1 of the act of June 9, 1910 (36 Stat. 462), which act repealed by implication so much of section 4426 of the Revised Statutes as requires inspection of small steam vessels of the motor-boat class, but it did not repeal prior laws relating to the inspection of motor boats propelled otherwise than by steam.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

May 29, 1911.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, in which you say: 16* * * In issuing regulations under the motor-boat act (see Department Circular No. 225, inclosed herewith), a ruling was made to the effect that the approval of the design of the engine, boiler, and other operating machinery of steam motor boats more than 40 feet, but not more than 65 feet in length, required by the act of June 9, 1910, was in addition to the inspection of steam vessels provided for by section 4426 of the Revised Statutes (see rule 13). The correctness of this regulation has been questioned by the Honorable William E. Humphrey, M. C., in a letter to the department, dated May 5, 1911, which, with its inclosures, is transmitted herewith. In view of the doubt thus raised as to the validity of the regulation, I have the honor to request your opinion as to whether the same is in conformity with law, or in conflict therewith."

No actual case is presented involving the application of the regulation. This being so, I might well decline to render an opinion upon the question submitted. (20 Op. 536; 21 ib. 109, 509, 568.) As it appears, however, that in making this regulation your department was influenced somewhat by the views expressed by this department in a letter to the United States attorney for the district of Maryland, dated March 14, 1911, relating to the inspection of a gasoline motor boat, which was called to your attention, I feel that I should comply with your request.

Section 4426 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"SEC. 4426. The hull and boilers of every ferry-boat, canal-boat, yacht, or other small craft of like character, pro

pelled by steam, shall be inspected under the provisions of this title. * * *""

By the act of May 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 193), section 4426 of the Revised Statutes was amended by adding thereto, among other provisions, the following, which was substantially a reenactment of the act of Janaury 18, 1897 (29 Stat. 489):

11* * * All vessels of above fifteen gross tons carrying freight or passengers for hire, but not engaged in fishing as a regular business, propelled by gas, fluid, naphtha, or electric motors, shall be, and are hereby, made subject to all the provisions of section forty-four hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the inspection of hulls and boilers and requiring engineers and pilots, *

* * "

The act of June 9, 1910 (36 Stat. 462), is entitled "An act to amend laws for preventing collisions of vessels and to regulate equipment of certain motor boats on the navigable waters of the United States." Its first section reads:

"Be it enacted, etc., That the words 'motor boat' where used in this act shall include every vessel propelled by machinery and not more than sixty-five feet in length, except tug boats and tow boats propelled by steam. The length shall be measured from end to end over the deck, excluding sheer: Provided, That the engine, boiler, or other operating machinery shall be subject to inspection by the local inspectors of steam vessels, and to their approval of the design thereof, on all said motor boats, which are more than forty feet in length, and which are propelled by machinery driven by steam."

The proviso to this section is the only provision in the act bearing upon the subject of inspection.

Section 9 of this act provides "that all laws and parts of laws only in so far as they are in conflict herewith are. hereby repealed."

As indicated by the quotation from your letter, you have construed the requirement of the proviso to the first section of the act of June 9, 1910, as to the approval of the design of the engine, boiler, and other operating machinery on steam motor boats more than 40 feet in length, as creat89760°-VOL 29-13-8

ing an addition to the inspection of steam vessels provided for by section 4426 of the Revised Statutes. In my opinion this construction is erroneous. The proviso referred to covers the inspection of steam motor boats more than 40 feet in length, as well as the approval of the design thereof by inspectors of steam vessels, and, in my judgment, was intended to supersede the provisions of existing law relating to the inspection of steam vessels so far as respects steam vessels included within the motor-boat class.

The history of the act confirms this view. The bill (S. 7359, 61st Cong. 2d sess.) as originally introduced, did not include vessels propelled by steam in the motor-boat class. It provided "that the words 'motor boat' when used in this act shall include any vessel as defined in section three of the Revised Statutes, if propelled by machinery other than by steam and less than sixty-five feet in length.” The bill was amended in the Senate so as to provide that "steam vessels not more than forty feet in length used exclusively for pleasure purposes shall be considered as motor boats and be subject hereafter only to the provisions of law relating thereto." The House amended the Senate bill so as to include in the definition of "motor boats," steam vessels not more than 65 feet in length, except tugboats and towboats. It also, in lieu of the provision subjecting steam vessels not more than 40 feet in length only to the provisions of law relating to motor boats, provided for the inspection of the engine, boiler, or the operating machinery of steam motor boats over 40 feet in length, and for the approval of the design thereof.

This action of Congress appears to have been contrary to the recommendation made by the Department of Commerce and Labor that this subject be not dealt with in this act. In a letter to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce in regard to the bill, which is incorporated in the House and Senate committee reports thereon (Senate Report No. 587; House Report No. 1162, 61st Cong., 2d sess.), the Acting Secretary of Commerce and Labor said:

"The Department is aware that in the matter of the inspection of hulls and machinery, license of officers, and other particulars the laws make considerable distinction between steamboats and motor boats. It has been urged on the one hand

« PreviousContinue »