,626 . FBDEKAL EEPOBTEB. �àvail themselves of the decr.ee as a defence in the state court, if it is in their favor, as in case of a discharge in bankruptcy. If the decision of this court is against the owner on the ground that the damage did not occur without his privity or knowledge, or without that kind and a measure of negligence mentioned in section 4493, then the decree of this court dis- missing the petition on the merits will be an equally conclu- sive determination of the question of negligence in favor of the passenger or shipper of cargo in his suit in the state court. But to argue that a passenger or shipper can main- tain a suit in the state court pending the proceeding in this court, because the complaint in the state court alleges a case of damage or loss oocurring with the privity or knowledge of the owner, or by his negligence, and therefore not a case within the protection of the statute, is to overlook the fact that the chief object of the statute was to submit that very question, whether the damage or loss was so incurred, once for ail, and as between the owners and ail the passengers and shippers, to the admiralty court ; and that it was to make the jurisdiction of this court to determine that question efifectual, that the statute provided that upon the institution of the pro- ceeding and the transfer of the vessel, ail claims and proceed- ings against the owner should cease. �It was argued that the arrangement of the statute into sections in the Eevised Statutes showed more clearly than the original statute an intention to except out of its operation injuries to the person, Such an inference as to the construc- tion fromi the arrangement of the statutes in sections is incon- sistent with Eev. St. § 5600; and, in general, in the con- struction of the Eevised Statutes an intention to change the existing laws, which this revision purports to re-enactor cod- ify, is not to be presumed from trifiing changes of phrase- ology. The preaumption is against an intended change of construction, unless that intention to change the law is clearly apparent. Eev. St. §§ 5595-5601. �But it is still insisted, as to the restraining order, that whatever may be the jurisdiction of this court it is prohibited by Eev. St. § 720. This section is a re-enactment, with some ����
