the same mortgage, and it is a continual operation under the same circumstances. It is simply because to-morrow is not to-day. That is all there is of it. Mr. Holmes. We are perfectly agt'eed to that, your honor. The Court. You want something on record to show that this court retains the suits in this court. Then Mr. Forster had better dra.w an order of ,such a kind as he thinks proper, with reference to these suggestions of mine in regard to the stay of proceedings. Those are all the orders that are necessary, relieving the default; and then, making provision that the stay shall be without prejudice to defendant's right to move to answer in the lawsuits, or to file any bill for a stay. That disposes, I think, of everything.
UNITED STATES V. THE SLOOP THEOPHILE.
(District Oourt, W. D. 1'eJ:as. 1882.)
CuSTOMS DbT'IEB-SMUGGLING PRoHmITED.
The exception specified, in the Revised Statutes, § 3095, prohihiting the introduction of foreign products into the United States in vessels of less than 30 tons' burden, does not apply to Brazos de Santiago nor the district in which it is situated, and which runs up the Rio Grande on the boundary line Letween the United States and Mexico, and adjacent to l\lexico; and the prohibition of the statute applies to all such arriving by sea at the port of Brazos de Santiago from any foreign port, including the port of Tampico, Mexico. This section must be read in con'nection with section 3097 of the Hevised Statutes.
Libel in Admiralty. TURNER, 'D. J. The facts established in this case are substantially as follows: The sloop Theophile is an American vessel owned at Galveston, and engaged in the American coasting trade. She came from Corpus Christi, Texas, in January, 1882, to the port of Brazos de Santiago, Texas. When at Brazos the captain was asked to convey a surveying party who wished to get into the republic of Mexico, viz., Tampico, whereupon the master, Andrew Jackson, procured special register, and the sloop proceeded on her trip to Tampico. The master was notified and warned that he must not bring back to the port of Brazos de Santiago any dutiable merchandise, her tonnage being less than 30, that is to say 17, tons burden; that when in Tampico the master purchased 312 bunches of bananas, six gallons of rum in two demi· johns, and 900 cigars, all of said articles of foreign growth and man·
UNITED STATES V. THE SLOOP THEOPIlILE.
that she cleared from Tampico for Brazos de Santiago, Texas, with these articles on board, each of which was subject to duty; that when she arrived at Brazos de Santiago with this cargo on board she was seized by proper customs officers, as having become forfeit, together with tackle and said articles, to the United States, as provided in section 8095 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Whereupon this libel was, by the United States district attorney, filed to have the forfeiture declared by this court. The case came on for trial the eighth day of May, 1882. The defendant claims that no forfeiture was incnrred by said act, because the district of Brazos de Santiago embraces territory that reaches to and along the Rio Grande river, the boundary line between the United States and the republic of Mexico, and therefore adjacent to the said republic of Mexico, the port of Brazos de Santiago being .about 80 miles distant from any Mexican territory; but the district territorially reaches to and along up the Rio Grande river; and it is claime<1 that because the portion of the Brazos district is adjacent to Mexico that the act of bringing the goods to Brazos is and was protected by the section referred to, and no forfeiture was incurred. There is and can be no dispute that the vessel, in making the trip from Tampico, Mexico, to Brazos de Santiago, was by the open sea. The object of congress in providing that all foreign trade should be carried on by vessels of 80 tons burden and upwards, it is evident, was to prevent the landing of foreign goods in the United States except at regular ports of entry, where the custom-house officers could secure the duties due government without difficulty, and to prevent smuggling by small sloops that could run intorivers and small streams where no custom-houses are established, and to avoid patrolling the entire coast against smugglers. There are two other collection districts situated similarly to this, viz., the districts of Saluria and Corpus Christi; that is, each of these districts border upon the Gulf of Mexico and run back to the Rio Grande river. From the very nature of the case it would not be presumed that congress intended to open up to this vast territory the foreign trade to be carried on by vessels of less burden than 30 tons, unless clearly so stated in the act. It would be discriminating in favor of one region of country, and the results are more easily understood than described; and if any doubt could arise from the reading of section 3095 of the statute as to the proper construction of that section, by itself, all doubt, it seems to me, is removed when we read in connection therewith section 3097. After referring to the vessels, boats, rafts, and carriages
arriving in the districts to which the exception does apply, it says, "and the powers and duties of the officers of the customs shall be exercised and discharged in the districts last mentioned [that is, in the districts to'lllich the exception does apply] in like manner as is prescribed in: respect to merchandise imported in vessels from the sea. ,. Showing, I think, conclusively that the exception does not apply to vessels that do make their voyages by the open seas. The conclusion is that the penalty of forfeiture was incurred as claimed in the libel, and is adjudged accordingly.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D.
CoHMONCAnRIER-REPBElmNTATI()NS 01J' AGENT-THROUGH TrCKET-LoBEl Oll' LUGGAGE BY OTHER CARRIER OPERATING PAR'1' 01J' RoUTE. '
A steam-ship company, operating a line of ocean steam-ships from Europe to America, but selling through tickets from various points in Europe, is liable for the 108s of a passenger's luggage by an inder:endent carrier by whose vehicles it is the passenger from the point where he purchased his ticket to the port of embarkation, if the passen!!:er purchased his through ticket upon the faith of representations made by the steam-ship comt>any's local agent, who sold ticket, that the company undertook the safe carriage of such luggage over the whole route. 2. 8AHE-OONTRACT BY AGENT IN ExCESS 01J' AUTHORITY.
In such case it is no defence for the company to show that the agent in making SUch representations exceeded his instructions.
Motion for New Trial. This was an action at law brought to recover the value of a trunk. On the trial, before McKennan, C. J., the following facts appeared: Plaintiff purchased at Berlin, Prussia, from William Strecker, who advertised himself as agent of the American Steam-ship Company, a ticket from Hamburg to Philadelphia. Before paying his fare he received from Strecker a printed circular headed "American Mftil Steam-ship Company, (American line,) carrying passengers regularly to Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and Boston. Leaves Hamburg every Friday and every second Tuesday. Tickets for the passage are issued by the authorized general agent, W. Strecker, in Berlin." The circular also contained printed conditions stating that the passage money included "complete free transportation and maintenance from Hamburg
.Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.