The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

26 COAL IN FOREIGN BOTTOMS. Contracts for the transportation of coal for the use of Admiral Evans' fleet of 16 battleships on its journey to Pacific waters: have been awarded by the secretary of the navy and will be carried in foreign bot- toms. The coal itself, however, -will be entirely American, which is the only grain of comfort in the whole miserable transaction. The amount involved is over $1,200,000 and this should have been earned not only by American coal producers but by American ships. It will require 30 vessels to convey the coal. The fleet of colliers which will pvecede the squadron, will therefore be twice as much as the squadron itself. The successful bidders were as follows: ; "West Indies Steamship Company of New York, 7,000 tons at Trinidad, at $1.74 per ton. . tind & Co. "of New York, 6,000 tons at Rio Janeiro, Brazil, at $3.40 per ton. lind' & Go. of New: York, : 20;000 tons at Punta Arenas, (Sandy Point in the Magellan Straits,) at $4.90 per ton. The lowest bid submitted for this shipment was by the United States Shipping Company of New York, at $4.84 per ton, but the Bu- -reau of Equipment considered the - bid of Lind & Co. moze favorable to the Government, as. there were cer- _tain conditions in the proposals with which it complied more strictly. American Transportation Co. of 'Baltimore, 25,000 tons at Callao, Peru, at $6.09 per ton. A supplementary bid of $5:80 made by Lind & Co. came in too late for consideration. Tweedle Trading Co. of New York, 25,000 tons at Magdalena Bay, Low- er California, Mexico, at $6.50 per ton. A supplementary bid of $6.30 was declined because it came in too late. United States Shipping Co. of New York, a second consignment of 10,000 tons to Magdalena Bay at 6.631%. Lind & Co. of New York, two loads of 2,000 tons each at San Francisco, (Mare island Navy Yard,). at 6.15 per ton. The coal, aggregating 133,000 tons, will be delivered to the carriers at tidewater at the following points: Baltimore, Philadephia, Lambert Point, and Newport News, Va. Following is the full text of at- torney General Bonaparte's report, holding that the government could contract with foreign ships for the movement in hand. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of Oct. 1. In this you ask my opinion upon the 'from one port of the THE Marine REVIEW questions whether the prohibitions of Section 4347, R. S., andSthe Act of Feb. 17, 1898, (30 Stats., 248), refer to property owned by the govern- ment, and whether, under _ existing laws, coal for the use of the navy may be transported by sea from ports on the Atlantic to ports on the Pa- cific coast of the United States in ves- sels of foreign registry, provided it appears, as a matter of fact, that suf- ficient American vessels to transport such coal cannot be had, or that the charges made by such vessels are ex- cessive and unreasonable. Section 4347 of the United States Revised Statutes, so far as material to the foregoing questions, is as follows: No merchandise shall be (imported) (trans- ported) under penalty of forfeiture thereof, United States to an- other port of the United States, in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power. By the Act approved Feb. 17, 1898, (30 Stats., 248), this portion of the above mentioned section was amend- ed-so as to read as follows: That no merchandise shall be transported by water under penalty of forfeiture thereof from one port of the United States to anoth- er port of the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the voyage, in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States. You ask whether the contained in this statutory provision extends to merchandise which consti- tutes "property owned by the goy- ernment." It is a well settled princi- ple of statutory construction that a probihition of this character does not extend to, or affect, the sovereign, unless. its language requires that such a meaning shall be given to it. This rule is thus stated in Bacon's abridge- ment, title "Prerogative," 3-5: "Where a statute is general and thereby any prerogative, right, title or tmterest is divested or taken from the king, in such case he shall not be bound un- less the statute is made by express words to extend to him." This rule has been fully adopted with respect to the "United States, CU. S. . vs. inten, 14 Peters, 301), (U..-S." vs. Herron,.20 Wallace, 251). In the last mentioned case the supreme court says it is "The settled rule of con- struction that the sovereign author- ity of the country is not bound by the words of a statute, unless named therein," If, therefore, there had been nothing in the language of this statute to indicate whether it was or was not intended to apply to mer- chandise owned by the United States, the rule of construction, to which 1 have referred, would require that it be held not to have such application. There is, however, in the statute it- self language which, in my opinion, is decisive of this question. Both prohibition Section 4347 and the Act of 1898 pro- hibit' the transportation of merchan- dise from one domestic port to an- other in vessels owned by foreigners "under penalty of forfeiture thereof." A forfeiture in such case divests the title of the owner of the property forfeited, and vests this, title in the government. If the merchandise sub- ject to forfeiture 'already belongs to the government, it is obvious that the proceeding would be altogether nuga- tory and) futile. The government would acquire by it title to something which it already owned, and the of-- fender, that is to say, the United States itself, would be in precisely the same position in which it was prior to the infliction of, the penalty. Un- der these crcumstances, it. seems quite clear to me that, even without a resort to the rule of construction to which I have referred, the pro- visions of this law must be construed as inapplicable to merchandise owned by. the United States. I answer, therefore, your first' question in the negative, and advise you that, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 4347, U.S. RS, and of the Act ap- proved Feb. 17, 1898, do not apply to property owned by the government. In reply to your second question, .I advise you that its subject matter ap- pears to be covered by the Act ap- proved April 28, 1904, (33 Stats., 518). The relevant portion of this statute is as follows: That vessels of the United States, or be- longing to the United States, and no. others, shall be employed in the transportation by. sea -- of coal, provisions, fodder, or supplies of any description, purchased pursuant to law, for the use of the Army or Navy, unless the Presi- dent shall find that the rates of freight charges by said vessels are excessive and un- reasonable, in which case contracts shall be made under the law as it now exists: Pro- vided, That*no greater charges' be made by such vessels for transportation of articles for the use of the said Army and Navy than are made by such vessels for transportation of like goods for private parties or companies. It will be observed that this law makes it the duty of the war and navy departments to employ, in gen- eral, vessels of the United States, and no others, for the transportation of coal and other supplies purchased for the use of the army. or. navy. Of course, if the congress had seen fit by this statute to prohibit the transpor- tation of supplies for 4he army or navy in foreign vessels absolutely, un- der all circumstances, without excep- tion, and without regard to the con- sequences, any and all such shipments would be illegal; but the law pro- vides that if the president shall find "that the rates of freight charges by said vessels are excessive and unrea- sonable, * * * contracts shall be made under the law as it now ex- ists." "It is obvious, therefore, that the statute contemplates the possi-