SEAMEN
=1. Favored in Maritime Law.=--The general maritime law has always
endeavored to protect the rights of seamen and its solicitude for their
welfare has been expressed in the laws of all commercial countries. They
are, as Justice Story said in Brown _v._ Lull, 2 Sumner 449, "a class of
persons remarkable for their rashness, thoughtlessness and improvidence.
They are generally necessitous, ignorant of the nature and extent of
their own rights and privileges, and for the most part incapable of duly
appreciating their values. They combine in a singular manner, the
apparent anomalies of gallantry, extravagance, profusion in expenditure,
indifference to the future, credulity which is easily won, and
confidence which is readily surprised. Hence it is, that bargains
between them and shipowners, the latter being persons of great
intelligence and shrewdness in business, are deemed open to much
observation and scrutiny; for they involve great inequality of
knowledge, of forecast, of power, and of condition. Courts of Admiralty,
on this account, are accustomed to consider seamen as peculiarly
entitled to their protection; so that they have been, by a somewhat bold
figure, often said to be favorites of Courts of Admiralty. In a just
sense, they are so, so far as the maintenance of their rights, and the
protection of their interests against the effects of the superior skill
and shrewdness of masters and owners of ships are concerned."
Hence, from the ancient sea codes to the most recent legislation, there
is a constant provision for their welfare and protection. Their
occupation is an honorable one and has its privileges accordingly; it is
also one of great responsibility and has its duties and the law has both
in mind.
=2. Who Are Seamen?=--The word "seaman" includes every person
(apprentices excepted) who shall be employed or engaged to serve in any
capacity on board of any vessel belonging to any citizen of the United
States (R. S. 4612). A question sometimes arises whether a particular
person occupies the status of seaman. Some discussion of this will be
found in § 13 of this chapter, and in Chapter 4, § 2.
=3. Contract.=--Their relation to the shipowner is one of contract. The
contract is usually in the form of Shipping Articles and in writing. A
form for use in foreign trade (with some exception) is given in Rev. St.
§ 4511 as amended. For other voyages it is not always essential that the
contract be in writing. What its form and language, the law will
practically construe it as containing certain underlying engagements by
both parties;--on the part of the owner and master, that the wages shall
be paid; the voyage legal; the ship seaworthy and fully equipped and
supplied; the voyage definite and without deviation; the treatment by
the officers, decent and humane; the food sufficient; care and cure in
event of injury or sickness; and safe return to their own country;--and
on the part of the seamen, to exert themselves to the utmost in the
service of the ship; to have sufficient training and health for the
positions which they profess; to report on board at the proper time and
place and remain in the service until their engagements are performed;
to be obedient to all lawful commands of the master and their superior
officers; and to assist in maintaining good order and discipline
throughout the ship.
=4. Wages Secured.=--The payment of wages is amply secured. They have a
prior lien upon the ship and freight which will attach to her last
plank. The master and the owner are personally liable and there can be
no limitation of liability in this respect. Such wages are exempt from
garnishment or attachment by creditors of the sailor and he may sue for
them without giving security for costs. If wages are unlawfully
withheld, he may have double for each day's delay.
=5. Forfeitures and Punishments.=--On the other hand, the seamen must
perform their part of the contract. Refusal or neglect to work entails
loss of wages, and wages are not due during a period of lawful
imprisonment (Rev. St. § 4528). Desertion entails forfeiture of clothes
left on board and wages earned; absence without leave, not amounting to
desertion, forfeits two days' pay and expenses of a substitute; quitting
the ship before she is in security means a forfeiture of not more than
one month's pay; willful disobedience at sea will be punished by
confinement in irons and further imprisonment on shore with loss of 4
days' pay. If continued, 12 days' pay is forfeited for each offense
(Rev. St. § 4596); assaulting the master or mate and willfully damaging
the ship or cargo are punishable criminally by imprisonment and
forfeiture of wages.
Corporal punishment is no longer permitted; its infliction is a
misdemeanor punishable by the courts, and it also renders the owner and
master liable for damages. The master may, however, use a deadly weapon
when necessary to suppress mutiny but only when mutiny exists or is
threatened.
The laws of the United States on the subject of Merchant Seamen will be
found in detail in Title LIII of the Revised Statutes and are collected
with the modern amendments, including the La Follette Seamen's Act of
March 4, 1915, and with full annotations in Volume 7 U. S. Compiled
Statutes, 1916, pages 8772 to 8924. The Seaman's Act of March 4, 1915,
is also found in 38 St. at L. 11-64.
=6. Personal Injuries.=--Where a sailor is injured in the service of the
ship he is entitled to care and cure at the expense of the ship,
irrespective of any question of the negligence of any member of the
ship's company and irrespective of whether the seaman was guilty of
contributory negligence, but ordinarily, he can not recover damages
unless fault can be brought home to the owner. He will also be entitled
to his wages for the trip or voyage on which the injury occurred, unless
discharged by voluntary consent under § 4581 Rev. St. before the voyage
ends.
In very recent years repeated assaults have been made upon the long
established rule which prevented seamen from recovering on account of
injury or death in line of duty. In Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Jensen,
244 U. S. 205, an employee engaged in maritime work attempted to recover
damages for a maritime injury pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation law
of New York. The Supreme Court held, that "Congress has paramount power
to fix and determine the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the
country," and that in so far as the Workmen's Compensation law of a
state sought to confer upon seamen rights inconsistent with the general
maritime law, the state Workmen's Compensation law was unconstitutional.
Thereupon Congress by the act of October 6, 1917, undertook to confer
upon suitors in admiralty "the rights and remedies under the Workmen's
Compensation Law of any state." Thereafter in Knickerbocker Ice Co. _v._
Stewart, decided May 17, 1920, the Supreme Court of the United States
held that the act of Congress of 1917 was destructive of the uniformity
of the principles of admiralty law, which the Constitution sought to
preserve, and was therefore beyond the power of Congress to enact.
Therefore, up to May 17, 1920, the date of the decision of Knickerbocker
Ice Co. _v._ Stewart, the old rule of admiralty whereby sailors could
not ordinarily recover damages for injuries in the course of their
employment had successfully withstood all attacks by state legislatures
and by Congress and remained the law. However, three weeks after the
decision in Knickerbocker Ice Co. _v._ Stewart, Congress, by the
Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920 (see Appendix), enacted the
following:
That any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his
employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law,
with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the
United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in
cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case
of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the
personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for
damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all
statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of
action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable.
Jurisdiction in such action shall be under the court of the district in
which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office
is located.
This provision, which seeks to confer upon seamen the rights enjoyed by
railway employees under the Federal Compensation Act, has not yet been
construed by the courts.
The rights of railway employees thus conferred upon seamen are those
given by acts of Congress approved April 22, 1908, and April 5, 1910.
These acts gave to the employees of railroads engaged in interstate and
foreign commerce, a right of action against the employing carrier in
case of injury or death of the employee, notwithstanding that the
accident may have been caused by acts of a fellow servant or may have
been due to one of the risks naturally incident to the employment, and
notwithstanding that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory
negligence, although in the latter case the damages are to be diminished
in proportion to the amount of the employee's negligence. Suit may be
brought in the state or federal courts, which are given concurrent
jurisdiction in such cases.
It should be observed that under neither the Merchant Marine Act nor the
Railway Employers' Liability Acts is the jurisdiction to be exercised by
the court sitting in admiralty. The jurisdiction invoked is that of the
courts of common law.
Where, however, there is negligence on the part of the shipowner in
providing a seaworthy ship, or on the part of the officer in caring for
the injured man, the admiralty will award damages; if there has been
contributory negligence, it will not prevent recovery but the damages
will be apportioned or divided (The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1).
The principle on which vessels are held liable for injuries to seamen
due to unseaworthiness is simply an application of the rule of law that
every master is bound to provide his servant with a safe place to work;
that is to say, a place as safe as any prudent man would provide for the
performance of work of similar character, and that failure to provide
such a safe place is actionable negligence. In the Joseph B. Thomas, 86
Fed. 658, it was held that where an employee on a vessel placed an empty
keg on a pile of hatchway covers in such a position that an accidental
jar caused it to fall in the hatch and injure a stevedore, the master
and the owners were liable and the ship was held for violation of the
duty to provide a safe place to work.
=7. Duties in Disaster.=--In case of shipwreck or disaster a sailor is
bound to do all he can for the safety of the ship and cargo. This is in
the line of his duty and does not merit extra pay. His lien for wages
attaches to the last plank of the ship but he must do his share of the
work required to preserve it.
In the Shawnee, 45 Fed. 769, the ship had suffered greatly from a severe
storm and went under Mackinac Island for shelter. Much extra work was
required by the crew and when the time came to proceed on the voyage
they told the master that they would not go on unless an extra allowance
of $50 each was guaranteed. Under the stress of circumstances the master
was constrained to acquiesce in the demand, but on arrival the owners
refused to pay this extra amount although they tendered the regular
wages. The sailors thereupon libeled the ship, but the Court, in a very
emphatic opinion, declared that their conduct had amounted to mutiny and
that their wages should be entirely forfeited.
Numerous decisions illustrate these rules.
In the Troop, 118 Fed. 769, a sailor fell from a yardarm and fractured
his thigh shortly after the ship sailed; the captain might have put him
in the port hospital but instead applied splints himself and sent the
man to his bunk; he did nothing more for him until the vessel arrived at
her destination, thirty-six days after, and even then neglected him for
an additional five days before supplying proper medical care. The sailor
suffered greatly during the voyage and became permanently injured. The
Court held that the ship was liable for the master's failure to observe
the rule of care to an injured sailor and awarded him $4,000 with 6 per
cent interest.
In the Margharita, 140 Fed. 820, the ship sailed from a port in Chili
for Savannah. While off the west coast of South America and about to
round Cape Horn a sailor lost his footing aloft and was precipitated
into the sea. As he struck the water a shark, or some other marine
monster, bit off his leg at the knee, but he was rescued by another of
the crew who jumped after him. The ship was then about 7,000 miles from
her destination. The master gave the sailor all the attention which the
ship afforded and controlled the hemorrhage and inflammation by placing
the stump in tar; he continued to give him regular attention during the
voyage, detailed a man to supply his wants and provided him with a
suitable diet; on arrival at Savannah he was immediately sent to the
hospital. The Court held that there could be no further recovery
inasmuch as the master had fully discharged all the obligations of the
rule.
=8. Offenses of Seamen.=--Discipline being essential to the welfare of
the ship and all on board, the maritime law punishes offenses of seamen
against its code. Disobedience or misconduct in a sailor can not be
tolerated or the ship would be in constant peril and its business
frustrated. But the punishment must be reasonable and in proportion to
the offense. The law will not endure tyranny or cruelty in any form.
Flogging is abolished and prohibited by law and, generally, the only
forms of punishment which may now be employed are forfeiture of wages or
clothing, confinement on board, disrating and imprisonment on shore.
Where an emergency arises, instant obedience may be compelled by force
on the part of the officers and master, according to the necessity of
the case, even to the taking of life, but cases of this kind are rare.
In any event, the punishment must be according to the exigency and not
excessive or brutal. Unlawful orders may be disregarded and even the
master arrested and confined if he attempts to commit a felony; but, in
general, the sailor must not attempt to take the law into his own hands
and it will be more judicious to submit to harsh treatment and seek his
redress later in the courts.
The ordinary offenses of seamen are classed as mutiny, inciting revolt,
desertion, disobedience, assaults, theft, fighting, and tampering with
the cargo; but, in addition, they are liable for all crimes and offenses
which would be punishable as such if committed on shore.
=9. When Entitled to Leave Ship.=--The sailor is not bound to continue
in the ship when she becomes unseaworthy because his contract of service
is based upon the condition that the ship is and shall be seaworthy.
When such a condition exists, the crew is entitled to apply respectfully
to the officers and urge that the ship return to port; if in port, they
may request a survey and, if unseaworthiness is declared, the consul has
authority to give them their discharge.
=10. Desertion.=--In the maritime law, desertion consists in quitting
the ship and service by a sailor, without leave and against his duty,
without an intent to return. If not justified, it works a forfeiture of
wages. The mitigating circumstances must be such as amount to a
reasonable excuse, founded on gross misconduct of the master or hard
usage. Slight and transient causes will not answer, especially where the
desertion appears to have been deliberate and premeditated, and not the
result of sudden impulse. It was formerly the law that a deserting
seaman might be arrested and imprisoned on shore by local magistrates on
the complaint of the master and so compelled to return to his service
(Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275). Recent legislation, however,
has repealed the older statutes and there are now no laws of the United
States which authorize the imprisonment of seamen deserting from vessels
owned by citizens of the United States. This is probably true also in
the case of foreign-owned vessels within American ports (_Ex parte_
Larsen, 233 Fed. 708). Among the causes which have been held to justify
desertion are sickness, unwholesome food, cruel treatment, deviation and
unseaworthiness. But the justification must be clearly shown, for it is
a serious thing to quit the ship, and the law will not permit it unless
the reasons are sound and substantial. Of course, besides the forfeiture
of wages which desertion entails, the deserter will be liable to the
owner for such damages as his breach of contract may cause. The offense
may be committed by any member of the ship's company.
=11. Self-defense.=--Generally speaking, the remedy of the sailor for
violence inflicted upon him on shipboard is to be sought in the courts
of law alone. The exigencies of discipline require that, for the common
good, authority on shipboard should not be resisted. Nevertheless cases
occur where the right of self-defense may be lawfully claimed. Where the
master assaults a seaman, the latter may endeavor to escape; if pursued
and escape be impossible, and the assault continued, he may use
necessary and equivalent force for his own protection.
It should be remembered that the power of punishment on shipboard is
vested in the master personally and that the law does not permit his
delegating it to others. A mate has no legal right to enforce his orders
by beating one of the crew. Up to about seventy years ago corporal
punishment of seamen was permitted by law, owing to the nature and
supposed necessities of the service, and no doubt officers find it hard
to give it up. Courts of admiralty endeavor to deal with these cases in
a practical way. Altercations and assaults between master and crew have
never been treated by them like those redressed in the common law
courts, where the slightest blow may be treated as a trespass to one's
dignity and feelings of self-respect. The crew are to be protected from
injury and the maritime law will amply vindicate all beatings, woundings
and maltreatment, criminally and civilly. The right of self-defense is
only a last resort and will seldom need to be invoked.
=12. Lien for Wages.=--The seamen have a maritime lien for their wages
in preference over all other liens except for salvage. They are said to
be the wards of the admiralty and it endeavors to see them paid over all
other creditors of the ship. Thus the lien has priority over towage,
claims for supplies and repairs, breach of contract, and port dues. It
will not be superior to a lien for collision damage, if their negligence
contributed to the disaster, at least as far as prior wages are
concerned. Subsequent wages, earned in bringing the ship back to port,
stand on a different footing.
This lien is said to inhere in the last plank of the ship and will be
paid in preference to claims for penalties against the ship in behalf of
the United States and port dues.
The lien for wages exists in the home port of the vessel as well as in
foreign ports.
Where as sometimes in the case of a fishing voyage the crew has an
interest in the result of the venture this does not affect the right to
liens.
The weight of authority in the more recent decisions, reversing the
older rule, is to give a lien to stevedores, longshoremen, watchmen and
ship carpenters against foreign vessels (that is to say vessels not in
the home port) while the authorities are in conflict as to whether such
liens lie against domestic vessels.
The Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, which is printed in full in the
Appendix, § 30, Subsection M, expressly confers a lien for wages of
stevedores, "when employed directly by the owner, operator, master,
ship's husband, or agent of the vessel", and makes no distinction
between the home port and any other.
In the Ole Olson, 20 Fed. 384, a schooner was libeled for seamen's wages
and two men intervened and sought to recover who had been employed as
stone-pickers by the master, who was also managing owner, to gather
stone on the shores of Lake Michigan and assist in loading the stone on
board as cargo to be carried to Chicago. While engaged in this service
they lived and slept on the vessel as she lay off shore and when the
weather was such that stone could not be gathered, the schooner would
run into port and on such occasions these men would lend a hand in
hoisting sail. They did not accompany the vessel on her voyages as she
had a full crew without them. The only question was whether they
rendered maritime services and were therefore entitled to the seaman's
lien for wages. The Court held that they were not, distinguishing the
Ole Olson from the case of the Ocean Spray, 4 Sawy. 105, and several
others. In the case of the Spray the libellants were shipped as sealers
and were hired to take seal for the vessel at a stipulated sum per
month. Their contract also bound them "lend a hand on board whither they
were wanted." On the voyage they helped make and reef sail, heave the
anchor and clear decks, but did not stand watch. They also procured
driftwood and water for the use of the vessel. They thus aided in the
navigation and preservation of the vessel and were colaborers in the
leading purpose of the voyage. "Upon the principle applicable to
surgeons, stewards, cooks and cabin boys (all of whom are entitled to
the lien) they were to be considered as mariners." They were accordingly
entitled to their maritime lien on the vessel.
=13. Shipping Articles.=--The law provides (U. S. Comp. St. § 8300-8314)
that the master of every vessel bound from a port in the United States
to any foreign port overseas, or vice versa, shall make an agreement, in
writing or in print, with each of the crew, containing particulars of
the nature and duration of the voyage; the number and description of the
crew; the time at which each is to be on board; the capacity in which
each is to serve; the amount of wages which each is to receive; the
scale of provisions which are to be furnished to each; any regulations
as to conduct on board, fines, short allowances and other lawful
punishments which may be agreed to; and any stipulations as to advances
and allotments of wages, or other matters not contrary to law.
Sections 8287-8297 provide for the appointment of shipping-commissioners
in such ports of entry and ports of ocean navigation as require them;
where no commissioners are appointed, the collector of customs or his
deputy may so act; the duties of such commissioners are to afford
facilities for engaging seamen by keeping a register of their names and
characters; to superintend their engagements and discharge according to
law; to provide means for securing their presence on shipboard according
to their engagements; to facilitate the making of apprenticeships to sea
service and to perform such other duties relating to merchant seamen and
merchant ships as may be required by law. Section 4554 amended by the
Act of August 19, 1890, provides that the commissioners shall arbitrate
disputes between owners or masters and the crew on mutual application.
Shipping articles should be in the printed form required by the statute
and in common use; they should be signed by each seaman in the presence
of a shipping commissioner, in duplicate, and one part retained by him;
they should be acknowledged and certified under the commissioner's seal,
to the effect that each understands what he has subscribed and, while
sober, and not in a state of intoxication, acknowledges it as his free
and voluntary act; the other duplicate should be delivered to the master
and seamen subsequently engaging on the voyage should place their
signatures thereon. The ship and also its officers are liable to
penalties for shipping seamen without articles, but the requirement is
excepted in the case of vessels engaged in the coasting trade and on the
Great Lakes. When seamen are shipped in foreign ports where there is a
consular officer of the United States or commercial agent, the master
must obtain his sanction to the engagement, in substantially the same
manner as in the case of a shipping commissioner at home. A copy of the
articles, with the signatures omitted, must be posted on the vessel so
as to be accessible to the crew, under penalty of one hundred dollars.
Shipping articles for vessels in the coasting trade, in less detailed
forms, are required by § 8311 and the master is made liable to a penalty
of twenty dollars and the highest rate of wages for every seaman or
apprentice carried without such an agreement. All shipments of seamen
contrary to law are declared void; any seaman so shipped may leave the
service at any time and recover either the highest rate of wages of the
port from which he shipped or the sum agreed to be paid him when he went
on board.
=14. Wages and Effects.=--Sections 8315-8337a of the Compiled Statutes
of 1916 and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (see Appendix) codify the
law in these respects. The right to wages and provisions commences
when the sailor begins work or at the time specified in the
shipping-articles, whichever happens first; the right is in no way
dependent on the earning of freight; where the term of the hiring is cut
short by loss or wreck of the vessel, the sailor is entitled to his
wages up to that time but no longer; he is to be ranked as a destitute
seaman and given transportation to the port of shipment according to
law; in case of improper discharge before the commencement of the voyage
or before one month's wages are earned, the sailor may have a sum equal
in amount to one month's wages as extra compensation over what he may
have earned; the right to wages is suspended during the time a seaman
unlawfully refuses to work; on coasting voyages, wages must be paid
within two days after the termination of the articles or upon discharge,
whichever first happens; on foreign voyages, or between Atlantic and
Pacific ports, within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been
discharged, or within four days after the sailor has been laid off,
whichever happens first; and in all cases he may have at least one-third
of the balance due him when he is discharged. Every master and owner who
neglects to pay the sailor as required by law, without sufficient cause,
must pay him double wages for every day during which payment is delayed
beyond the periods mentioned.
Every sailor on an American vessel is entitled to receive from the
master, at every port where the vessel loads or delivers cargo during
the voyage, one-half his wages then earned; the demand, however, may not
be made oftener than once in five days. Failure to so pay wages releases
the seaman from his contract and foreign sailors in harbors of the
United States may have the benefits of this provision.
It is unlawful to pay wages in advance, either to the sailor or to any
other person on account of advances;[12] such payments constitute no
defense to a subsequent suit. But a sailor may stipulate in the articles
for an allotment to his grandparents, parents, wife, sister, or
children, such allotment to be in writing and signed and approved by the
commissioner.
Sailors' wages are not subject to an attachment or garnishment from any
court and no prior assignment of wages or claim for salvage is valid.
The effects of deceased seamen must be taken in charge by the master; if
he thinks fit, he may cause them to be sold at auction at the mast or
other public auction; if so, an entry must be made in the log book,
signed by the master and attested by the mate and one of the crew,
showing the amount of money belonging to the party in question; a
description of each article sold and the sum received for each; and a
statement of the balance of wages due. If the vessel proceeds to a port
of the United States, the master must account to a shipping commissioner
within forty-eight hours. If she touches at a foreign port first, he
must report the case to the United States consular officer there and
conform to his instructions. Failure to observe these requirements may
subject the master to a treble liability for the value of the effects
involved. Unclaimed proceeds of such effects, after six years, are
converted into the Treasury of the United States and become a part of a
fund for the relief of disabled seamen of the merchant marine.
=15. Protection and Relief.=--Sections 8343-8376 of the Compiled
Statutes of 1916 contain numerous provisions for the protection and
relief of sailors. Shipping commissioners are authorized to act as
arbitrators on any question whatsoever between a master, consignee,
agent or owner and any of the crew, if both parties agree in writing to
submit it to him; his award is binding on both parties and any document
under his hand and official seal purporting to be such, submission and
award is _prima facie_ evidence thereof; in any proceedings relating to
wages, claims of discharge of sailors, the shipping commissioner has
many of the powers of a court in regard to the examination of witnesses
and production of documents.
Where complaint is made that a vessel is unseaworthy, the master must
forthwith apply to the judge of the district court for the district in
which the ship may be, or if such a judge is not available, to some
justice of the peace, for the appointment of surveyors; three surveyors
may be then appointed whose duty it will be to carefully examine the
ship and report their findings to the judge, or justice; he shall
thereupon decide whether the vessel is fit to proceed, or, if not,
whether the necessary repairs should be made where she is lying or
whether it is necessary for her to proceed to a port of repair; the
master and the crew are bound to conform to the decision. The master
must pay all the costs of such survey unless it is decided that the
complaint was without foundation; if so, the costs, to be ascertained by
the judge or justice, and reasonable damages for the detention, are
payable out of the wages of the parties who complain; if it be adjudged
that the vessel is fit to proceed on her intended voyage, or if after
the required repairs are made the sailors or any of them refuse to
continue on board, their wages may be forfeited. Similar provisions
obtain when the ship is in a foreign port; there the consul is
authorized to appoint surveyors or inspectors; such inspectors in their
report shall also state whether in their opinion the vessel was sent to
sea in an unseaworthy condition by neglect or design, or through mistake
or accident; if by neglect or design, and the consular officer approves
such finding, he shall discharge such of the crew as requested and
require payment by the master of one month's extra wages or sufficient
money for the return of the crew to the nearest and most convenient port
of the United States; if the defects are found to be the result of
mistake or accident, and the master shall in a reasonable time remove or
remedy the cause of complaint, then the crew must remain on board and
discharge their duty. Sending or attempting to send an American ship to
sea in such an unseaworthy state as to make it likely that the life of
any person will be in danger is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both.
Should any master or owner neglect to provide a sufficient quantity of
supplies for a voyage of ordinary duration to a port of destination, and
thereby cause the crew to accept a reduced scale, he will be liable to
penalties from fifty cents to one dollar a day to each sailor prejudiced
thereby; any three or more of the crew of a vessel in deep-sea service
may complain of the bad quality of the provisions or water and have a
due examination made thereof, and if deficiency is found a master must
remedy the same under a penalty of not more than $100; every American
vessel in ocean trade shall be provided with medicines and
antiscorbutics; must keep on board appropriate weights and measures and
be provided with at least one suit of woolen clothing for each seaman,
and a safe and warm room for the use of seamen in cold weather; they
must also be provided with a slop-chest containing a complement of
clothing for the intended voyage for each seaman employed, including
everything necessary for the wear of the sailor and a fair supply of
tobacco and blankets; the contents of the chest shall be sold from time
to time to any and every sailor applying therefor for his own use at a
profit not exceeding 10 per cent. of the reasonable wholesale value at
the port of shipment.
The statutes also contain detailed provisions as to the numbers and
qualifications of the crew for vessels of various sizes and waters; also
as to ratings, examinations and certificates of service; also as to
wages at sea and against undue or unnecessary labor on board; while
vessels are in safe harbors no sailor can be required to do any
unnecessary work on Sundays or holidays, and while in port nine hours
constitute a day's work.
REFERENCES FOR READING
_Rights and Duties of Merchant Seamen_, George Ticknor Curtis, Boston,
1841; Little & Brown.
_Commentaries_, Kent, III, Lecture XLVI.
_Shipping and Admiralty_, Parsons, Vol. II, Chapter XV.
_Master and Servant_, Labbatt, I; § 243-247; § 251c; § 416: II; § 489;
504; 678-682: V; § 2006-2012.
Ixion, 237 Fed. 142.
Catalonia, 236 Fed. 554.
Strathearn, 239 Fed. 583.
Imberhorne, 240 Fed. 830.
Chicago, 233 Fed. 538.
S. S. Co. _v._ Schmidt, 241 U. S. 245.
Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275.
Ross _v._ McIntyre, 140 U. S. 453.
Endora, 190 U. S. 169.
Dallemagne _v._ Moison, 197 U. S. 169.
Osceola, 187 U. S. 190.
[12] In Sandberg _v._ McDonald, 248 U. S. 185, the Supreme Court by a
five to four decision, held that an advance made to a sailor before
shipping on a British vessel, being lawful under British law, was
properly deducted by the master in an American port from the one-half of
earned wages demandable by the seaman in such port, notwithstanding such
advance was unlawful under the American statute.
Going further at the same term of court and with the same dissent, the
court held in Neilson _et al_ _v._ Rhine Shipping Co., 248 U. S. 205,
that advances to seamen shipped on an American vessel in a foreign port
were not prohibited by the statute. The effect of these two decisions
was that the prohibition of advances to seamen upon their wages was
confined to American ports, but the Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920
(see Appendix) provides that if an advance be made to a seaman in any
port, whether foreign or domestic, he may nevertheless, recover the full
wages earned by him, including any sum that may have been advanced to
him. In other words he may recover the amount advanced over again. Such
advances are prohibited in American ports whatever the nationality of
the ship. On the other hand, the act is applicable to a vessel in an
American port no matter what her nationality. Thus in a recent case of
Strathearn S. S. Co. _v._ Dillon, decided March 29, 1920, the Supreme
Court unanimously held that foreign seamen on foreign vessels in
American ports are entitled to the benefits of the act and may demand
one-half of the wages earned, notwithstanding contractual provisions to
the contrary, and that the vessel need not have been in an American port
five days before the seamen may make the wage demand. To entitle the
seaman to make the demand it is only necessary that the vessel shall
load or deliver cargo before the voyage is ended, and in the port where
the demand is made; that the voyage shall have been commenced at least
five days previously; that five days shall have lapsed since the last
previous demand.