414 FEDERAIi REPORTER, �chianuisG," as the word is used in this section, which is copied •with slight verbal alterations from section- 1 of the limited liability aot of 1851. The original section extended the exemption to "any goods or merchandise ■whatsoever which shall be shipped, taken in, or put on board of any vesael," etc. ; but in the Eevision the -word "goods" is unfortunately omit- ted, probably under the impression that the word "merchan- dise" was sufficiently comprehensive to include ail personal property. �It is insisted by the respondent that the court ought to read this sectioh as if the word "goods" had been retained in it, and certain cases are cited which are supposed to counte- nance this method of construction : In re Long Island Trans- portation Co. 5 Fed. Eep. 625 ; V. S. v. Moore, 11 Chi. Legal News, 140; U. S. v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 548. �Upon a careful examination of these cases, however, I am of the opinion that none of them can be considered authority for holding that the court can iiiterpolate words omitted in the Eevision. �Section 5596 expressly declares that "ail acts of congress passed prior to said first day of December, A. J). 1873, any portion of which is embraced in any section of said Eevision, are hereby repealed, and the section applicable thereto shall be in force in lieu thereof." It should seem to follow from this that section 4282, having been enacted in place of section 1 of the act of 1851, must be treated as "in force in lieu thereof," and henee that the exemption of the owners can only apply to "merchandise" shipped, taken in, or put on board, though it is quite possible the commissioners who prepared the Eevision considered that the word "mer- chandise" embraced ail goods or other personal property. That the Eevision ought to be construed not simply as declar- ing what was the law on the first of December, 1873, but as changing the law in certain cases, was evidently the opinion of my learned predecessor in Gillett v. Pierce, 1 Brown's Adm. 653, in which he had occasion to hold that the Eevision expressly gave the right of trial by jury in certain admiralty cases arising upon the lakes, notwithstanding it had never ��� �
