shall relate to registered vessels having on board merchandise of foreign growth or manufacture, &c. Such a provision is understood to be necessary as to foreign-going vessels, but if there is to be no distinction between them and others, it would be difficult to frame a statute upon the subject.

The same observations might be applied to section 2814, Revised Statutes, which relates to manifests of registered vessels from foreign ports. On such entries certain facts must be disclosed under oath, relative to the ownership of vessels. In the case of enrolled vessels the mode of getting at such facts is quite different, and governed by quite different laws. Further legislation in that respect would be necessary. The multifarious provisions of law relating to the manifests of enrolled and licensed vessels are radically different from those above mentioned (sections 4352 to 4360, Revised Statutes).

Sections 2779 and 2780, Revised Statutes, authorize a registered vessel to proceed in a certain manner. Entirely different legislation controls the movements of enrolled and licensed vessels. The legislation also differs in its requirements regarding the two classes of vessels, as to clearances, entries, reports, certificates, fees, &c. Confusion would result as regards the legislation relating to great coasting districts (sections 4348 to 4358, Revised Statutes). Registered vessels, under certain circumstances, can engage in the coasting trade but two months in any year. Enrolled vessels can engage therein during the whole year.

The regulations under sections 2510 and 2511, Revised Statutes (new numbers), relating to the admission free of duties of articles for vessels, are based upon the present system, and, together with a considerable part of the regulations of the Department and the statutes relating to navigation, would have to be rewritten. This applies not alone to the Federal statutes.

The statutes of the different States and municipalities of the United States, as regards taxation, pilotage and pilot dues, quarantine, harbor dues, &c., are based upon the distinction between registered vessels and others.

Thus, in Massachusetts the latter are taxed directly, while the regis tered vessels are exempt, the owner paying a tax upon the earnings of the vessel, if any.

In Maryland and other States the local laws compel vessels sailing under registers to pay pilotage, while enrolled vessels are exempt therefrom.

If all vessels were registered, their burdens from pilotage alone under the existing legislation would be heavy.

It would probably be a long period before all these laws would be harmonized with a new system, and still longer before the change would appear in the books and papers necessarily carried by masters as guides in the management of the complicated details of their business.

The distinction between registered and other vessels aids customs officers in detecting frauds and in collecting the tax on tonnage under section 14 of the act of June 26, 1884. A registered vessel can go abroad, and therefore may smuggle or be subject to tonnage tax, and her papers put the officers on their guard. Enrolled vessels need not be inspected or watched in the same manner.

The statute applicable requires each register to have thereon the seal of the Treasury, and the signature of the Commissioner of Navigation. Governments of the foreign nations visited by registered vessels are entitled to some such formality in the marine document presented to them to establish the character of the vessel. It would be burdensome

to require such formality as regards the large number of enrolled vessels. This number greatly exceeds that of the vessels in the foreign trade, and the owners might consider that a hardship was imposed on them if required to register their shipping.

Reports received from various ports show that the cost to the Gov. ernment would be about the same under the system proposed as at present. The clerks taken from the enrollment desk would have to be employed at the registry desk.

In regard to this the collector of customs at Philadelphia says "the same accounts would have to be kept"; that "but two clerks are engaged in the work of issuing papers and the preparation of the necessary records and data for the Department," and that this small force would be indispensable under any circumstances. He recommends "that the well-defined distinction now established by law between vessels in the foreign and those in the coastwise trades be not interfered with."

The collector of customs at Baltimore remarks "that the labor and expense attending the change of papers as now required, especially since the abolition of marine-hospital dues, is comparatively light," and that he "cannot concur in the recommendation" that all vessels shall be registered, believing that the present distinction should be preserved.

The collector of customs at New Bedford expresses the opinion that the change proposed would require so much legislation upon so many different points that it would be unwise to make it.

The collector of custoins at New York reports that the present system is probably worth to the Government all that it costs; that in his opinion "deep and widespread dissatisfaction on the part of the shipping interests would follow the change," and that the "Government should not begrudge the expense involved in giving reasonable facilities to the shipping interests."

The collector of customs at Norfolk says:

My idea is that Congress has been wise in the restrictions it exacts. I believe that the demand for customs inspectors and detectives, under a change of the laws, would far outweigh the expense now required for clerical force. and that it

is absolutely necessary, in granting special privileges to our own vessels, to maintain a distinction between such privileged vessels and those not enjoying them—that is, those engaged in the coasting trade and those going foreign.

The collector of customs at Boston, at whose port is the terminus of the line from Saint John, New Brunswick, via Eastport, reports as follows:

In my opinion, there is no actual necessity for à distinction in the marine papers between the vessels engaged in foreign commerce and those engaged in the coasting trade. It would simplify marine business to place all shipping under one kind of document. Masters and owners of vessels would be saved much time and trouble, and the clerical work would be much lessened if the change of employment of a vessel did not compel a change of the vessel's marine papers; but to secure this effect would necessitate a radical change in the United States navigation laws.

This question is not a new one. It has been mooted ever since the pas sage of the acts of 1789, 1792, and 1793 (see Parsons on Maritime Law), but the objections to any change have been so strong that the provisions upon the subject contained in the two acts last mentioned have remained substantially intact.

In view of the cogent reasons which appear against the change, of the facts above set forth, of the opinions that have been expressed, and especially of the uncertainty as to the difficulties which might arise in adjusting the existing legislation to the new order of things, I consider that the change should not be recommended to Congress until after

very careful study of the effect it would have upon the present system which has been in operation for nearly a hundred years.

This system is calculated to keep the ownership of vessels in the coasting trade, of which the tonnage amounts to 2,895,370.39 tons, in the hands of citizens of the United States.

It requires affidavits to be made each year in regard to the matter on the issue of the annual license,

The British law requires the registry of all vessels without regard to their employment. But the circumstances are different in Great Britain. Where the tariff is lower and the coasting trade is proportionally less, there is not the same object for the exclusion of foreign ownership, and there are no State laws to complicate the case.

Some distinction seems to be necessary between foreign and coasting vessels of the United States, and if that now prescribed by law has failed to make the classification clear (although it has given rise to no general objection), let the law be changed so as to make it binding on registered vessels to take out an enrollment on entering the coastwise trade; voyages between ports on the Atlantic and Pacific ports to be excepted.

It is probable that a bill or bills will be introduced in Congress during the winter relating to the matter.

BRITISH REGISTRY LAWS.

Let us now glance at the law relating to the registration and ownership of British merchant vessels.

It is only necessary here to briefly refer to the early statutes defining the requirements which are essential to the character of a "British ship." They are contained in the merchant shipping acts of 1854 and 1862, respectively. British ships have to belong wholly to natural-born Brit. ish subjects, or to naturalized persons or denizens, or to bodies corporate established under the laws of the United Kingdom or some British possession, and having their principal place of business there.

There is also a provision that, with certain exceptions, every British ship must be registered in a certain manner, and no ship, unless so registered, will be considered a British ship. The master must produce the certificate of registry when required, and ships may be detained in default of its production. The exceptions to registration in the early statutes referred to were

(1) Ships duly registered before the act came into operation.

(2) Vessels not exceeding 15 tons burden, employed solely in river or coasting navigation within the United Kingdom, or some British possession within which the managing owners are resident.

(3) Vessels not exceeding 30 tons burden and not having a whole or fixed deck, and employed in fishing or coasting on the shores of Newfoundland, or in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, or places bordering thereon. The character and nationality of the British ship are, therefore, after the execution of the prescribed formalities respecting registration, like the American vessel, dependent upon her ownership.

Section 32 of the act of 1854 provides that every registrar of shipping (or the chief officer of customs at the port) shal! keep a registerbook and enter therein certain particulars. By another section the port or place where any British ship is registered for the time being is to be considered her port of registry or the port to which she belongs; and by section 33 her name and port are to be painted on her stern in white or yellow letters not less than four inches long.

Section 36 provides that before registry the ship shall be surveyed by a person appointed under the act, who is to give a certificate in a prescribed form, specifying her tonnage, build, and other particulars descriptive of her identity, to be delivered to the registry.

Moreover, in section 37 the following rules are laid down with respect to entries in the register-book :

(1) The property in a ship shall be divided into 64 shares.

(2) Subject to certain provisions regarding joint owners, or owners by transmission, not more than 32 individuals shall be entitled to be regis tered at the same time as owners of any one ship. This rule does not affect the beneficial title of any number of persons or of any company claiming through any registered or joint owner.

(3) No person is entitled to be registered as owner of any fractional part of a share in a ship; but any number of persons, not exceeding five, may be registered as joint owners of a ship, or of any one or more shares therein.

(4) Joint owners are considered as constituting one person only as regards the foregoing rule relating to the number of persons entitled to be registered as owners, and are not entitled to dispose in severalty of any interest in any ship, or of any share or shares in respect of which they are registered.

(5) A body corporate may be registered as owner by its corporate

name.

These rules limit the number of owners entitled to have their names inscribed in the register-book, but do not affect the number of persons who may become interested in the ship, which still remains indefinite. Of course the admission of joint owners' names gives a great enlargement to the number of names which may actually appear on the certificate of registry.

The declaration required from a person before he is entitled to be registered as owner contains particulars stating his qualifications to be an owner of a British ship, also her build and name, the name of her master, the number of shares he (the declarant) is entitled to, and a denial that any unqualified person is entitled to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship. It is further provided that the registrar must enter in his register book: (1) The name of the ship and the port to which she belongs. (2) Details as to her tonnage, build, and description contained in the certificate of the Board of Trade surveyor. (3) Particulars as to her origin contained in the declaration of ownership. (4) The names and descriptions of her owners and the proportion in which they are interested in the ship.

Changes of ownership, as well as changes of master, have to be reported to the registrar at the port of registry, when an indorsement accordingly will be made. Officers of the Board of Trade or customs may refuse to allow any person to act as master whose name is not so indorsed as the last appointed master.

The transfer of ownership must always be by bill of sale. It may be mentioned, however, that any pledge of the certificate of registry is illegal and void, for it has been decided that the sole owner and captain of a ship, who has pledged it with a person who has a good bona fide claim against him as a security against his sailing before a particular day, may redemand it before the arrival of the day in question, and for the purposes of navigation; and if it is not delivered up, may maintain an action for the damage arising from its detention.

No clearance or transire is to be granted for any ship in Great Britain until the master has declared at the custom house the nation to which

the ship belongs. Any person wrongfully using the British flag or concealing the national character from the officers entitled to inquire into it is liable to have his vessel forfeited.

It may be mentioned in this connection that a bill is now before the British Parliament (the transfer of registry act) which enables the Board of Trade to have the work connected with the registration of ships heretofore controlled by the commissioners of customs transferred to its supervision. The new bill provides that ships being registered at the custom-house of the port of London shall hereafter be done by and before the registrar general of shipping and seamen.

THE CHANGE OF VESSELS' NAMES.

Any change in the name of a vessel was formerly contrary to law. Subsequently the act of March 2, 1881, provided that the names of vessels might be changed under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury when found seaworthy and free from debt, provided there was sufficient cause for so doing, and authorized him to establish "such rules and regulations and procure such evidence as to the age, condition, and pecuniary liability of the vessel as he might deem necassary to prevent injury to public and private interests."

There are doubtless many cases in which the application for change of a vessel's name might be an act of simple justice to an owner who had purchased a vessel with a name unsuited to her intended employment, or whose name was objectionable on account of its repetition in the same port, or where the vessel has been almost entirely rebuilt and made new in point of seaworthiness. But many applications for such change are made with a view to cover up some bad mark in the history of a vessel or merited prejudice against her, while others originate in a mere fancy of the owner with no possible benefit to be derived from the change. It is therefore proper that the privileges of the law in this regard should be granted with caution, for such changes often lead to mistakes in the examination of the records of vessels and confound one with another in the comparison of names.

In view of these considerations the following circular was issued after the administration of the recent act was assigned to this Bureau :

The owner of any vessel of the United States desiring to have her name changed under the provisions of these acts, must make sworn application to the Commissioner of Navigation, through the chief officer of customs at her home port, specifying, without abbreviation, the old name and the new name desired; giving in full the reasons for the proposed change, and submitting satisfactory evidence of the seaworthy condition of the vessel, of her freedom from debt, and of the time and place of her building.

A duplicate of the current certificate of inspection from the Local Inspectors of SteamVessels will be accepted as sufficient evidence of seaworthiness of a steam-vessel. In the case of a sailing-vessel, the owner must procure and present a certificate as to her seaworthiness from the Inspector of Hulls for the district in which she is at the time of the application, unless this requirement be specially waived by this Office. Inspectors of Hulls are authorized to make examinations of sailing vessels, and to certify as to their seaworthiness. All expenses incurred for this service are to be paid by the owners.

To satisfactorily establish the freedom of a vessel from debt, the owner must, in addition to his sworn statement, produce such a certificate as is provided for in section 4194, Revised Statutes, setting forth that the official records at the home port of the vessel show no mortgage, hypothecation, or other evidence of indebtedness outstanding against her.

The statements in regard to the time and place of building contained in the last marine documents of the vessel will be accepted as satisfactory evidence on those points.

In forwarding such application, chief officers of customs will take care that they are complete; that any repairs contemplated have been made; that the vessel has