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

October, 1915 clause and inserting in lieu thereof the so-called Alexander bill (H. R. 4616). This substitute with certain modifications (all of minor importance have the proviso here involved) was passed as the _ so-called ‘“Seamen’s Bill”. Section 14 first appeared in this substitute. That part of it which preceeds the proviso remained un- changed until passage. The proviso now in question was added thereto by a later conference amendment. This section 14 deals entirely with life-saving appliances and methods. As to appliances, it relates chiefly to life boats, of which the report (No. 852) said: “The life-boat provisions in the committee substitute, as applied to ocean-going vessels of the United States, are substantially those con- tained in the convention on safety of life at sea, adopted at London Jan. 20, 1914. They are applied in a modi- fied form to United States vessels in ocean voyages on routes not more than 20 miles off shore and on the Great Lakes to ‘meet the conditions in these services”. Of the amendatory proviso: “That foreign vessels leaving ports of the United States shall comply with the rules herein prescribed as to life sav- ing appliances, their ca mipinent and the manning of the same.’ The conference report said: “While sec- tion 4488 of the revised statutes, which is amended by section 14, seems to apply to foreign vessels, as well as vessels of the United States, the proviso was inserted by the conferees to make it clear that it shall so apply”. And the chairman, when the report was under consideration, said: nL was considered necessary, but at the same time perhaps it was not neces- sary, because I believe under the law that would be so any way. We wanted, however, to make it clear, I think under the statute that would be true.” (Vol. 52 pt V Cong. Rec. 63d Cong., 3d Ses., ph 4640, 4733, 4746). What Foreign Vessels? I think it clear that the foreign ves- sels so mentioned in the proviso are such foreign vessels, and no other, as were already subject to the pre-exist- ing law. There are ‘4 number of reasons which lead irresistibly to this conclusion. When we read the proviso with the remainder of Section 14 we are not embarassed by the canon of construc- tion that additional meaning must be given, if possible, to additional lan- guage, because the conference com mittee (the author of the proviso) expressly declared that it was not meant to enlarge the class of foreign ‘ing upon each other. vessels which were to be subject to the new regulations prescribed by Sec- tion 14, but only to make it clear that such foreign vessels as were already subject to the operation of Section 4488 should remain subject to the new regulations. We thus have from a high source a declaration of the legislative intent. Simply an Amendment Again it must be remembered that this Section 14 is not original or independent legislation, but purports to be a mere amendment of a pro- existing section, itself always re- stricted to a limited class of vessels. In order that the proviso may be given a broader scope than the..séé : tion amended, the legislative purpose’ to that effect must be clearly manifest. Thus 1 is’ said in Sutherland on statutory construction, second edition, 1904 (P. 444): The effect of an amendment of a section of the law is not to sever it from its relation to other sections of the law, but to give it operation in its new form as if it had been so drawn originally, treating the whole act as a harmonious. entirety, with its sev- eral sections and parts mutually act- Where a pro- viso is added to a section by amend- ment it will be strictly construed unless a contrary intent is clear. If we read the words ‘foreign ves- sels’ in the proviso as meaning “all foreign vessels”, this would include foreign men-of-war and foreign sail- ing vessels, although domestic vessels of both classes are wholly exempt from the operations of the statute. As to war vessels, such a construction — would, of course, invite serious ques- tions of constitutional and interna- tional law; and it would enlarge the class of vessels subject to the opera- tion of section 4488, contrary to the declared intention of the conference committee. This limitation of a phrase by its context is a familiar rule in statutory construction. ‘Repeated instances oc- cur in this seamen’s bill itself of use of the general words “a vessel”, “any vessel”, “no vessel”, or “the vessel” (sections 5, 9, 13 and 19), where, probably as to all, and necessarily as to some (sections 9 and 19) the words must have a narrower meaning. So the very words “foreign vessels”, which appear in section 18 of the act, are by the context in which they there appear, plainly limited to “for- eign vessels subject to the operation of this act.” I conclude, therefore, that the words “foreign vessels” in the proviso under discussion can only be read as “for- eign vessels subject to the operation ‘y un expired -or in lieu thereof having permits is- THE MARINE REVIEW 377 of section 4488, of which this proviso is amendatory”. This reading meets the declared purpose of the confer- ence committee; accords with the principles of construction applicable to such an amendatory proviso; and makes the amendment harmonize with the large underlying purpose’ (secur- ity, of life) of *the section. on’ which it wags impoged,. and also .6f the act to which that: section belongs. As noted at the outset, certain “for- eign Drvate: steam vessels carrying passengers” are exempt from the pro- visions of thé act, to wit, those be- longing to countries having inspec- tion: Jaws approximating those of the Uhited States and possessing either certificates of inspection, sued by the secretary of commerce. The scope “of this exception depends, of course, onthe,.meaning to be given to the word “approximate”. : What inspection laws do and what do not “approximate” those of the United States is necessarily a mixed question of law and fact. As such it must primarily be determined for their guidance by the proper officers of that department of the government charged with the administration of these navigation laws. If their de- termination should be controverted by the vessel owners, the issue is one for judicial determination like any other disputed fact. Speaking gen- erally, the term “approximation” is not synonymous with identity, but indicates merely substantial and ma- terial accord. ‘Trivial and unsubstan- tial differences should be disregarded, as also requirements in the foreign laws additional to and beyond our own. The phrase also contemplates “approximation” not at the date when it was added to the law, to wit, 1902, but approximation from time to time as the inspections and voyages occur. Questions of Fact Questions as to the proper issuance of foreign certificates of inspection; as to whether ‘such foreign countries ac- cord to the steam vessels of the United States visiting those countries the same privileges as are offered in the amendment of 1902 to steam ves- sels of those countries visiting the United States; as to whether vessels claiming the privilege of the secre- tary of commerce under the amend ment of 1906 are those operating upon regularly established lines, and as to whether such vessels will be regularly inspected by the authorities of their home government before they next return to a port of the United States —all these are of a similar nature and should be similarly resolved.