THE FEDERAL REPORTER» �shall "apply to sail or steam-vessels engaged in the eoastwise- trade, except the eoastwise trade between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts." When it is considered that the well-known mischiefs aimed at by the act of 1874 had no relation what- ever to the provision in the act of 1872, reproduced in section 4536, the language of the act of 1874 alïords room to argue that it was not intended to affect the provision of section 4536. Section 4536 declares a privilege in favor of the sea- man as against his creditors, and, not being a provision of a character to be applicable to the vessel, may, perhaps, without much diffioulty, be held to be unaffected by the act of 1874. Certainly the language of the act of 1874 is ill adapted to- convey the idea that it was intended to create a discrimina- tion in the matter of exemption from attachment against sea- men who have eerved in the eoastwise trade. No foundation in reason for such a discrimination has been discovered, and it would be unjnst. The act of 1874 was, no doubt, passed without reference to its effect upon that provision eontained in section 4536. It had an entirely different purpose, and I am by no meana certain that it would be going beyond the bounds of proper construction to hold that it has no effect upon the provision of section 4536. "Statutes are to be eon- Btrued acoording to the intent of the makers, if this can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, although such con- struction may seem contrary to the ordinary meaning of the letter of the statute." Bigelow v. Maynard, 4 Cush. 316. �But if such a construction eannot be given to the act of 1874, at most the act has simply the effect of a repealing statute. The question then arises whether the exemption declared in the act of 1872 did not exist in the law of the United States prior to the passage of that act ? The answer to this inquiry seems to be indicated by what has been already said. If I am correct in the conclusion that such an exemp- tion has always existed upon the continent as well as in England, it is not hard to say that the law of the United States is the same. For while, as was observed by the supreme court of the United States in the case of The Lotta- îvana, 21 Wall. 672, the maritime law is only so far opera- ����
