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

VOL. XV. Maritime Law. } CUSTOM’S DUTIES—FORBIGN BUILT VESSEL—LIGHT MONEY— e COLLECTORS CERTIFICATE. UNITED STATES V, SCHOONER MIRANDA. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. The foreign built yacht Miranda was purchased by an Amer- ican citizen, who recorded his bill of sale in the custom house, after proving his citizenship, and recovered the collectors cer- tificate setting forth such facts On entering a port of the United States, light money was demanded of her by the Goy- ernment under section 4225 Rey. Stats. on the ground that she - was nota vessel of the United States, the Government claiming that the collectors certificate was not such document as would exempt her from payment under Rey. Stats. Sec. 4226. Held, that the collectors certificate was such regular document as is required by Sec. 4226, and the yacht was exempt from the payment of light money, Benedict, J. The facts of this case are not indispute. They are as follows: Theschooner Miranda was built at Wivenhoe, England, in 1886. She was purchased by George Hi. B. Hill, the present claimant, who was then, and still is a citizen of the United States. By such purchase the claimant became, and has since continued to be the sole owner of the schooner and she has since her purchase been used for the purposes of pleasure only, never having been employed in trade, or in any kind of transpurtatlon for him. In the year 1886, the claimant produced to the collector of the port of ‘New York the bill of sale of the Miranda together with proof that he was a citizen of the United States, and thereupon, pursuant to a general regulation of the Treasury Department, the collector recorded the bill of sale in his office, and endorsed thereon a certificate under his hand and official seal, stating that the bill of sale held by George IH. B. Hill “is in form and sabstance yalid and effective in law, and has been duly recorded in my office and that the said George H. B. Hill is a citizen of the United States. The Miranda is enrolled among the yachts of the Royal Thames Yacht Club, and the claimant is a member of the Club, which is a regularly organized Yacht Club of Eng- land. By section 4216 of the Revised Statutes of the Uni- ted States, “ yachts belonging to a regularly organized Yacht Club of any foreign nation which shall extend like ’ privileges to the yachts of the United States shall have the privilege of entering or leaving any port of the Uni- ted States without entering or clearing at the Custom House thereof, or paying tonnage tax.” On the 18th day of July, 1891, the Miranda arrived at New York from Vineyard Haven, Mass., and anchored off Bay Bidge in the harbor of New York, whereupon the Collector of the Port of New York demanded pay- ment of light money for the yacht, which being refused this action, was brought to collect the same. The statute relied on by the Government is section 4225 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. That sec- tion is as follows: Section 4225—A duty of fifty cents per ton, to be denominated. light money, shall be levied and collected on all vessels not of the United States which may enter the ports of the United States. The claimant, among other things, relies upon the next sueceeding section of the Revised Statutes which contains the followmg provision: [Section 4226.] “The preceding section shall not be deemed to operate upon unregistered vessels owned by citizens of the United States, and carry- ing asea-letter, or other regular document issued from the Custom House of the United States, proving the ves- ‘sel to be American property.” ‘The contention in behalf of the Government is that the Miranda being a vessel not of the United States, having - been built in England, is liable to pay light money by CLEV. HLAND, OHIO, DECEMBER 31, 1891. within the port of New York, and is not exempted from liability to pay light money by sectiou 4426, because al- though she is an unregistered vessel owned by a citizen of the United States, the collector’s certificate which she carries is not such a document as is required by the terms of that section. The proceding is taken in the admiralty upon the ground that the statutes make light money, a charge upon the vessel herself, and that the charge is maritime in character, and so within the jurisdiction of the admi- ralty, and may therefore be enforced by an action in rem, The contention on the part of the claimart, is that the Miranda is not subject to light money, because: First.—She has not made entry at the Custom House, and is not required to make entry by virtue of Section 4216 above quoted. Second.—Because light money is a tonnage tax, and inasmuch as the claimant is a member of the Royal Thames Yacht Club, the Miranda may enter any port of the United States without payment of light money, by virtue of Section 4216 above quoted. Third.—Because she does not belong to the class of vessels upon which the provision for light money was introduced to operate. Fourth.—Because the certificate issued from the Custom House on September 15, 1886, is a regular document,prov- ing har to be American property within the meaning of section 4226, and sheis by virtue of that section from liability to pay light money. Careful arguments have been presented by the respect- ive parties covering all the points above stated. The argument in favor of the proposition, that the words “enter the ports of the United States” as used in section 4225 refer to an entry at the Custom House, and the sec- tion should be construed to mean that vessels required by law to make entry at the Custom House, and no others are liable to pay light money seems to me forcible, but 1 do not base my decision of this case on that ground. This decision is placed upon the last two propositions in behalf of the claimant as above stated, namely, that the document carried by the Miranda is such a document as is contemplated by section 4226, and inasmuch as the facts stated in that document have not been disputed, but on the contrary, it has been proved here that the Miranda is American property, she is not liable to pay light money, and is shown to be exempt by virtue of sec- tion 4226. This seems to me clear. I cannot assent to the propo- sition taken by the government, that the exemption declared by section 4226 is confined to vessels “regularly documented,” that is vessels registered or enrolled or licensed. The statute reads otherwise. It declares in terms that section 4225 shall not operate upon a vessel owned by a citizen of the United States, which although without a register, or enrollment, or license, or sea-letter, does have some other regular document issued from a Custom house of the United States, proving the vessel to be American property. Such a document in my opinion the Miranda has. The Certificate of the Collector of the Port of New York issued under his hand and official seal and by him endorsed upon the claimant’s bill of sale, and recorded with the bill of sale in the Collector’s office, is an official document issued from a _ Cus- tom House of the United States. It is a regular, document, not only because it was issued in pursuance of a regulation of the Treasury Department in force at the time, but also because the Statute Section 4226 con- templates and therefore authorizes the issue from a Cus- tom House to unregistered vessels owned by citizens of the United States of a document showing the fact to be that the vessel is owned by a citizen of the United Sthtes. The object of the document is to put it in} the power‘of the ship owner, at all times and everywhere, to claim the exemption from light money, which is declared in section 4226; and when the document contemplated by the statute is issued from a Custom House of the United States, it is regular, whether prescribed or forbidden by he Secretary of the Treasury. Furthermore the document proves the Miranda to be American property within the meaning of section 4226, The intent of the section is that the fact that the vessel is American property, shall exempt her from liability to pay light money. A ready method of ascertaining that fact is secured by the provision for a statement of the fact in a document regularly issued from a Custom House. The word “proving” is used in this section in the sense of showing, making public, By the certificate carried by the Miranda it is made to appear that the bill of sale, under which George H. B. Hill claims title to the Miranda, has been submitted to the collector of the port of New York, and has been found by him to be “in form and substance valid and effective in law.” Thatis to say is a genuine bill of sale, duly execnted by the English owners of the Miranda, by which the vessel is made the property of George H. B. Hill. By the same document it is made to appear that the citizenship of George H. B. Hill has been enquired into by the collector, and the said Hull has been found to be an American citizen. From these findings stated in the certificate, the conclusion fol- lows that the fact that the Miranda is American property has been proved to the satisfaction of the collector. Such a document in my opinion, fulfils the requirements of section 4226, It is true that it nowhere appears that the facts stated in the certificate were shown to the collector by the oath of the ship owner, but no statute has been referred to con- fining the collector to that mode of proof. or all that appears, the owners oath may have been before the col- lector, but the law is complied with, if the fact be shown to the collector by any competent evidence, Moreover the fact has been duly proved before the court in this case, and is not denied, How can this court be asked to condemn this vessel to pay light money, in face of the fact proved that she is an unregistered vessel, owned by a citizen of the United States, when the declar- ation of section 4226, is that such a vessel so owned is not liable to pay light money. It seems to have been said that the provision in the act of 1810, forbidding the issue of a document, “certifying or proving” any vessel to be the property of a citizen of the United States, unless the vessel was entitled to such a certificate on the 30th. of June 1810, is still in force, This cannot be. The substance of the act of 1810 appears in section 4190 of the Revised Statutes, but the limitation above mentioned, is omitted from the Reyised Statutes. and therefore is no longer in force. Section 4190 as it stands, is the law, and it authorizes such a document to be issued to any vessel entitled thereto, and forbids the issue of such a document, to any vessel unless she be Am- erican property. Again it has been argued that section 4190 forbids the issue of such a document to any vessel not owned by an American citizen on the day the Revised Statutes took effeect, viz., December 1, 1875. Butthere are no words in section 4190 from which the intent,to create such a limi- tation can be gathered. No such limitation was in the original act.. There the limitation was June 30, 181C. That limitation was omitted from the Revised Statutes, and no words were inserted indicating the intention to substitute any limitation of time whatever. * ial These considerations seem to me to compel a decision adyerse to the Government. and therefore, without pass- ing upon any other of the grounds of defence taken by the claimant, my conclusion is that upon the ground that Ihave stated the libel must be dismissed, and it is so ordered, 5 i August 5, 1891, we See a