of which shall be paid them such compensation as the Secretary of the Treasury shall allow.1 Shipment 200. In General.-As a general rule, seamen are competent to bind themselves by a contract of employment with the master and owners. of a ship. In ordinary cases, such a contract will be upheld, if executed as required by law, except on clear and satisfactory proof of fraud or mistake. Courts of admiralty proceed on principles of liberal equity when called on to enforce bargains made by seamen, and hold that the party who sets up an agreement tending to the disadvantage of a seaman is bound to produce satisfactory proofs outside of the contract showing it to have been well understood by the mariner, and to be reasonable and just in itself. The general policy of the law seems not to countenance new contracts made on the voyage, or at intermediate ports, between the master and seaman, variant from the shipping articles signed at the port of departure. A person shipping as a seaman on a foreign vessel becomes subject to the law of its flag, although it is chartered to a domestic corporation.5 Shipments of seamen made contrary to the provisions of any act of Congress are void; and any seaman so shipped may leave the service at any time, and recover the highest rate of wages of the port from which he was shipped, or the sum agreed to be given him at his shipment. Furthermore, penalties are imposed on the vessel and its officers for knowingly shipping or receiving on board seamen otherwise than in the prescribed way. A scaman is a member of the crew from the time he signs the shipping articles.8 201. Necessity, Form and Execution of Shipping Articles.-by statute in the United States, masters of vessels bound on specified voyages are required to enter into a formal agreement, called "shipping articles," with every member of their crews, except when replacing seamen of whose services they have been deprived by desertion or casualty. This agreement is with the master, or whosoever shall go 1. United States v. Gunnison, 155 U. S. 389, 15 S. Ct. 152, 39 U. S. (L. ed.) 195; United States v. Reed, 167 U. S. 664, 17 S. Ct. 919, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 317. 2. Horlock v. Beal [1916] 1 A. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670. C. 509, L.R.A.1916A 1149. 6. Note: 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 365, 366. 7. United States v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; U. S. v. Smith, 95 U. S. 536, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 517. 8. Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424, 22 S. Ct. 195, 46 U. S. (L. ed.) 3. Note: 7 Am. Dec. 390. 4. Johnson V. Dalton, 1 Cow. 264. (N. Y.) 546, 13 Am. Dec. 564. 9. United States v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; United States v. Smith, 95 U. S. 536, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 517. 5. In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 U. S. (L. ed.) 581; Rainey v. Grace, 216 Fed. 449, 132 C. C. A. for master, and the crew agree to be obedient to the lawful commands of the master, or of any person who shall lawfully succeed him.10 Though signed by all the seamen, the shipping articles constitute in law a several contract with each seaman, on which he can maintain his separate suit.11 They must be in writing or print, and as nearly as may be in the form given in a schedule annexed to the statute.12 The articles must contain detailed particulars as to the voyage, service, number and description of the crew, wages, provisions, regulations as to conduct, and the like.18 The master has no right to insert any stipulation or agreement repugnant to or inconsistent with the laws of the United States, but he may add any provision harmonizing with them.14 The shipping articles, in all cases in which they are required, must be executed in duplicate in the presence of and certified by a United States shipping commissioner, who is to retain one copy and deliver the other to the master of the vessel.15 It is not necessary to resort to a shipping commissioner in the shipment and discharge of seamen for coastwise and other excepted voyages.16 The articles must be executed with each seaman before the master proceeds on the voyage.17 They should be dated at the time of the first signature, and signed by the master before any seaman signs it.18 A seaman who has signed the articles is not bound until the master has also signed them.19 202. Description of Voyage or Service. In order to prevent seamen from being shipped for a voyage or a term of service to which they have not consented, the law requires that the nature of the intended voyage be clearly stated in the shipping articles, 20 but they need not specify all the ports at which the vessel may touch, nor will 10. Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 451, 55 Am. Rep. 487. 11. Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143, 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 349. 12. United States V. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; United States v. Smith, 95 U. S. 536, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 517; Gabrielson v. Waydell, 135 N. Y. 1, 31 N. E. 969, 31 A. S. R. 793, 17 L.R.A. 228. 13. United States v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; Young v. American Steamship Co., 105 U. S. 41, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 966. 14. Webb v. Duckingfield, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 390, 7 Am. Dec. 388. 15. United States V. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; United States v. Smith, R. C. L. Vol. XXIV.—73. 1153 95 U. S. 536, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 517; Young v. American Steamship Co., 105 U. S. 41, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 966. 16. United States v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; United States v. Smith, 95 U. S. 536, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 517. 17. United States V. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514; Young v. American Steamship Co., 105 U. S. 41, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 966. Note: 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 366. 18. United States V. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 514. 19. Note: 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 366. 20. Caine v. Palace Steam Shipping Co. [1907], 1 K. B. (Eng.) 670, 7 Ann. Cas. 343. Note: 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 366. they be permitted to deprive the master of a reasonable discretion in touching at other convenient ports and availing himself of the opportunities afforded by the exigencies of trade. It is sufficient if the description fairly apprises the parties of the general scope of the voyage and service, though the exact duration and details are not given.1 Seamen may be engaged for a vessel in the foreign trade to serve on a voyage to any port, or for the round trip from and to the port of departure, or for a definite time, whatever the destination. Where a seaman ships on a general trading and freighting voyage without any limitation of time, and without any certain destination or fixed terminus of the voyage, the contract may be terminated at the will of either party. The term of service commences with the signing of the shipping articles.4 203. Construction of Shipping Articles.-It is a general and well established principle, affecting the rights and responsibilities of seamen, that the shipping contract, excepting as it may be modified by express stipulation, includes the provisions of the law maritime; made to be performed on the highway of the seas, it must be read in the light of that peculiar system of law, which particularly relates to the affairs of the sea. In courts of law, shipping articles are construed with all the strictness of other agreements, even as against sailors.6 Admiralty is liberal in interpreting shipping articles for the seaman's interests in the presence of unfair or inadequate provisions. 8 Wages 204. In General.-The amount of wages which each seaman is to receive, and the mode of payment, should be stated in the shipping articles, which furnish the only legal evidence of the contract and limit the amount of recovery; and no action will lie at the suit of a mariner on the master's promise to pay him extra wages in consideration of his doing more than his ordinary share in navigating the ship. Payments to a seaman are properly applied to the earliest wages earned, though under a prior master.10 Seamen are sometimes engaged under an agreement providing for a proportional division 1. Board of Trade v. Baxter, [1907] A. C. (Eng.) 373, 9 Ann. Cas. 501 and note. 2. Board of Trade v. Baxter, [1907] A. C. (Eng.) 373, 9 Ann. Cas. 501 and note. 3. Note: 9 Ann. Cas. 507. 4. Tucker v. Alexandrof, 183 U. S. 424, 22 S. Ct. 195, 46 U. S. (L. ed.) 264. Note: 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 366. 5. Holt v. Cummings, 102 Pa. 212, 48 Am. Rep. 199. 6. Johnson v. Dalton, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 543, 13 Am. Dec. 564. Note: 7 Am. Dec. 390. 7. Gabrielson v. Waydell, 135 N. Y. 1, 31 N. E. 969, 31 A. S. R. 835, 17 L.R.A. 228. 8. Johnson v. Dalton, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 543, 13 Am. Dec. 564. 9. Note: 26 Am. Rep. 5. 10. Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 451, St. 5 N. E. 824, 55 Am. Rep. 487. of the vessel's earnings among the owners, officers and crew. This mode of compensation is frequently seen in shipments for fishing and whaling voyages, and contracts to that effect, if properly executed, are generally lawful and bind the seamen to the agreed terms.11 Seamen are usually entitled to full wages from the day their service. begins until the day of their return and discharge,12 and in certain cases they receive from one to three months' extra wages when improperly discharged.18 Seamen have been allowed wages for part or all of the time that their vessel was detained by embargo or belligerent capture; 14 and in case of condemnation, up to the time of their discharge for that reason. 15 Apart from statute, however, the seizure and detention of a vessel in an enemy port at the outbreak of war, and the imprisonment of the crew, terminate the seaman's right to wages thereafter, on the ground of the impossibility of performing his contract of service due to the cessation of conditions going to the Toot of it.16 Seamen who were carried, against their will, on an illicit voyage which caused the seizure and forfeiture of the ship and their own imprisonment in a foreign country have been held entitled to full wages from the time of their shipping to the time of their return to the United States.17 205. Effect of Loss of Freight or Vessel.-The ancient rule of the maritime law which made the seamen's right to wages depend on the earning of freight by the vessel 18 has been abolished by statute both in the United States and in England; and seamen or apprentices otherwise entitled may recover wages of the master or owner in personam although freight is not earned.19 It is further provided by statute in both countries that where the service of any seaman terminates before the period contemplated in the agreement, by reason of the loss or wreck of the vessel, such seaman shall be entitled to wages for the time of service prior to such termination, but not for any further period.20 Stipulations by seamen to abandon their right to wages in such cases are inoperative and void. But proof that a seaman or 11. Note: 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1031. 12. Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 262. Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 1183. 13. See infra, par. 213. 14. Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. C. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670. Note: 6 Ann. Cas. 68. 15. Notes: 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 457; 6 Ann. Cas. 68. C. 16. Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670. 17. Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 269. 18. Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 269; Van Beuren v. 19. Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. C. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670. 20. Sivewright v. Allen, [1906] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 81, 6 Ann. Cas. 65 and note; Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. C. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670 and apprentice has not exerted himself to the utmost to save the vessel, cargo and stores shall bar his claim, and he is not entitled to salvage for such efforts unless his connection with the ship is dissolved. The seamen are bound to continue their services as long as the master determines that there is any hope of saving the ship, and until he gives it up the owners cannot object to paying wages on the ground that the effort at rescue was hopeless.1 206. Meaning of Loss or Wreck.-The terms of the statutes providing for the payment of wages up to the time the vessel is lost or wrecked refer to physical loss or destruction, not merely the deprivation of her use by embargo, or by seizure or detention by a belligerent, nor even (as some authorities intimate) by condemnation as prize. The capture of a neutral vessel by a belligerent, coupled with her subsequent destruction by the captor, constitutes a loss within such statute, though it is doubtful whether capture alone would be sufficient. A vessel may be lost or wrecked without complete destruction, as where she has suffered such damage by a casualty in the nature of a wreck that she could not be repaired except at an expense that no reasonable owner would incur, or that she has ceased to be in a seaworthy condition to continue within a reasonable time the particular voyage commenced as a commercial adventure. In such cases, the seamen receive all they can legally claim when they are paid wages at the contract rate for the time of actual service. Under the general maritime law, loss of freight by wreck or capture of the vessel through the fraud or fault of master or owner did not occasion a loss of wages, but it has been held that the stranding of a vessel is none the less a case of termination of the seamen's service by "wreck" within the act of Congress though caused by the master's intoxication. In case of wreck it must be left to the discretion of the master to fix the day of the actual termination of the services, and his decision will be supported unless wrong or injustice is practiced on the seamen,10 207. Payment of Wages; Advances and Allotments.-It is provided by statute that seamen shall be paid their wages within a certain time after their discharge or after the discharge of the cargo, with a penalty 2. Rev. St. § 4525, 9 Fed. Stat. Ann. (2d ed.) 162. 7. Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. C. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670 and 3. Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, note. 9 U. S. (L. ed.) 363. 4. Note: 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 76. 5. Horlock v. Beal, [1916] A. C. (Eng.) 486, Ann. Cas. 1916D 670 and note. Note: 6 Ann. Cas. 68. 6. Sivewright v. Allen, [1906] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 81, 6 Ann. Cas. 65 and note. Notes: 6 Ann. Cas. 68; Ann. Cas. 1916D 688. 8. Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 269; Van Beuren v. Wilson, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 158, 18 Am. Dec. 491. 9. Note: 6 Ann. Cas. 68. |