THE SAEATOQA. 327 �provided for by title 34, to which this act expressly refers; and in using language equally applicable to both without distinction, it must necessarily be presumed to have intended to include both. Nor can it be held that because there are two different proceedings in which a seizure by different officers may be made under title 34, there is, therefore, any ambiguity in the use of the word "seizure," or in its application. It might as well be claimed that ambiguity arises from the fact that there are numerous forfeitures and numerous penalties under varions different sections of title 34, under which seizure or forfeiture might be had. The statute is expressly made tO apply, not merely to a part, but to all cases arising under title 34. In truth, it is not any ambiguity' in the word "seizure" itself that the libellant seeks to establish, but rather a restriction and a limitation of the stat- ute of 1881, by implication — an exclusion of the application of the statute to one of the classes oi cases in which a "seizure" is confess- edly made; i. e., to all cases of seizure under section 3088. But as this section is among "the provisions of title 34," the statutoof 1881 itself declares its application thereto; and to exclude that section from its' operation by implication or "construction" would, in my judgment, be to nullify the act to that estent. �2* Again, the act of 1881 is manifestly a statute for the relief of innocent owners, and theequity and general purpose of the aot apply as plainly to relief from penalties as to relief from forfeitures; There are many penalties enacted under title 34 for acts which could only be done with the full tnowledge of the master. The vessel remains liable for all penalties imposed for such acts precisely as before. It is different with clandestine smuggling on the great lines of travel. In these cases the vessel, by sections 2867, 2868, 2873, 3088, might be held and seized either for penalties or for forfeitures for acts which the owners and master were powerless to prevent. �In cases of seizure for forfeiture, moreover, when the innoceciie of owners and master subsequently appeared, a release was a matter of course; but the temporary private vexation and public incon- venience arising from the interruptions of traffic and travel through such seizures, which sometimes happened at the moment of de- parture, were palpable hardships. The same annoyances and pub- lic inconveniences are liable to arise upon a seizure for penalties; and in prohibiting all seizures of vessels where owners and master are innocent, congress may have designed, not merely to relieve in- nocent ship -owners themselves, but also to avoid the public ineonve- ��� �
