To no other class of citizens, save in uncivilized countries, does the
consul stand in such immediate relationship as to seamen. This would
seem to be because as a class, since their occupation takes them to all
parts of the world and away from the protection of their own country,
and, moreover, because they are laborers and not men of means, they are
more at the mercy of circumstances as well as of unscrupulous masters in
foreign lands. On the other hand, justice to the masters also requires
national authority to enforce contracts and assist in securing harmony
often-times on shipboard. Fully 57 pages of the Regulations are taken up
with this subject under the following heads:
1. Shipment of seamen.
2. Discharge of seamen.
3. Wages and effects of seamen.
4. Relief of seamen.
5. Transportation of seamen.
6. Desertion of seamen.
7. Disputes between masters, officers and crews.
A master of an American merchant vessel who engages any seamen in a
foreign port must do so under penalty in the presence of the American
consul and only with his sanction. The engagement must be signed in
duplicate by both master and men in the presence of the consul, who must
see to it that the seamen understand clearly the terms of the contract.
Seamen may be engaged for a definite time, for a round trip, for a
single voyage or “by the lay”, and the terms of the agreement are called
the “shipping articles”. In case of desertion or casualty the master may
engage a number of seamen equal to the number lost and report to the
first consul he sees. In case a vessel is purchased abroad and the
seamen “have not character of American seamen” (subsequently defined),
they do not come within the jurisdiction of the consul.
An American seaman is (1) an American citizen or (2) a foreigner shipped
in an American vessel in an American port or (3) a foreign seaman
shipped in an American vessel in either an American or a foreign port,
who has declared his intention in a competent court to become a citizen
of the United States and has served three years thereafter on American
merchant vessels. For purposes of protection the filing of the
declaration is sufficient.
A consular officer may discharge a seaman upon his own or his master’s
application, provided the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled. He
is also to give a certificate to that effect to the seaman. Other cases
where American seamen are discharged abroad are for sickness,
misconduct, on the sale of American vessel, on account of ill treatment,
when vessel is wrecked or condemned as unseaworthy, etc. The general
policy of the government is to “discountenance the discharge of seamen
in a foreign port”, and any master who knowingly abandons a seaman
abroad is subject to fine and imprisonment. “Cases have occurred in
which the consular officers have, with the subsequent approval of the
Department of State, removed masters of vessels and appointed others in
their places to complete the voyage”, but this was only when the “gross
incompetency” of the masters endangered the lives of passengers and
crew.
A consul in discharging a seaman, must see to it that his wages are
paid, otherwise “he shall be held accountable to the United States for
the full amount thereof”.
It is the duty of the consul to provide for destitute seamen, to secure
their transportation to the United States at government expense, subject
always to certain conditions, and to take charge of their effects upon
their death at sea or in port.
The consular officers must help to reclaim deserters and call in the
assistance of the local authorities for this purpose if necessary, which
they are authorized to do by treaty with several countries and by comity
or usage with others.
One of the many interesting points in international law is that of
“mixed jurisdiction”, as it is called, or jurisdiction within a harbor.
A dispute on shipboard on the high seas is clearly within the
jurisdiction of the country under whose flag the vessel is sailing, but
when the vessel comes into the harbor of another country it is just as
clear that the jurisdiction of that country is superior. As a matter of
practice, however, it has long been found best to allow all such
controversies occurring on shipboard within a harbor to be tried by the
law and authorities to which the vessel is subject, provided, of course,
that “it does not involve the peace or dignity of the country, or the
tranquility of the port” where it occurs. In all such cases the consul,
as the representative of his government, acts as an officer of justice.
Where he is authorized by treaty to call for local aid he is cautioned
not to do so if it can be avoided. If such aid is refused, he should lay
claim to his treaty rights and then report at once to the diplomatic
officers in the country and to the State Department.
This hurried review of the consul’s relations to seamen leaves a great
deal unsaid, but the main points, at least, have been touched upon. Let
us now turn to