each other in suits for wages, although they may have a common interest in sustaining each other's claims, and defeating the defences made against them.1 It is always in the power of courts of admiralty at least to determine what weight shall be given to their testimony, and to make due allowance for all the circumstances which weaken its value. But the master has been held (on what seems to us questionable reasons) to be incompetent as a witness for the owner, in a suit against him or the ship for wages, because of his own direct responsibility and interest.2 How

1 As the contract of seamen is several and not joint, they may be witnesses for each other where they are interested in the same question, if they are not directly interested in the event of the suit. Spurr v. Pearson, 1 Mason, 104; Hoyt v. Wildfire, 3 Johns. 518; Powell v. The Betsey, U. S. D. C. Penn., 2 Browne, 335, 350; The Cypress, Blatchf. & H. Adm. 83. Such evidence is, however, received with great caution and scrutiny. The Steamboat Swallow, Olcott, Adm. 4; Graham v. Hoskins, id. 224. It is said in a case in Pennsylvania that where the question is the loss of the ship, embezzlement, equally affecting the whole crew, negligence, misfeasance or malfeasance to which all must contribute in damages, one seaman cannot be a witness for another. Thompson v. Ship Philadelphia, 1 Pet. Adm. 210. In a simple case of embezzlement, however, where the seamen not in fault are not bound to contribute, this rule does not apply. Spurr v. Pearson, 1 Mason, 104. The general rule is the same both at common law and in admiralty, respecting the competency of witnesses. The Schooner Boston, 1 Sumner, 328, 343.

2

Judge Peters constantly refused to admit the captain to testify in suits for seamen's wages. Malone . The Mary, 1 Pet. Adm. 139, 141; Jones v. The Brig Phoenix, id. 201; Atkyns v. Burrows, id. 244. The reason he gave was his interest in the result of the suit, he being responsible for the mariner's wages. This appears to have been the practice in Massachusetts, Dunlap's Adm. Practice, 245. But if the mariners have obtained their wages, even by the help of his testimony, from either the owners or the ship, that extinguishes their claim; and neither the ship nor the owners can have any claim against him, for he is not liable for seamen's wages except to seamen, and if they have got them from some one else, they cannot get them from him. And if it be said that he has an interest in preventing their recovering against the owners, because, if their judgment is unsatisfied they may turn on him, this seems to us too remote an interest to disqualify the master. This seems to be the view taken of it in The Lady Ann, Edw. Adm. 235, where Sir Wm. Scott says: "The mariner has his election whether he will proceed against the owners, the master, or the ship; and in this case, the proceedings being instituted against the owners, the master has no immediate interest in the suit, and therefore is not an incompetent witness by any rule with which I am acquainted." In New York the master is admitted as a witness on behalf of the owners. The Steamboat Swallow, Olcott, Adm. 4; The Steamboat Hudson, id. 396. In Calloway v. Morris, 3 Yeates, 445, the point was only

ever this may be, it would seem clear that where he is a party to the suit, or where he has intervened, put in a claim, and filed an answer to the libel, he is incompetent.1 So he cannot testify to any matter of defence which originates in his own acts, for which he is himself responsible.2 The master is, however, a competent witness on behalf of the seamen. And charges made against seamen on the shipping papers require to be verified by the suppletory oath of the master.1 Interest does not now, however, disqualify

a witness.5

On a whaling voyage the owners of the vessel have no right to charge the seamen with commissions for disposing of the oil and bone, and settling the voyage, where this duty is assumed by the owners in the shipping contract. Nor can the seamen be charged with money expended for labor in preparing the vessel for sea, unless it be shown that the seamen ought to have performed it, and being called on neglected to do so.7 Nor are they liable for money paid an agent in the nature of a bounty for hiring them." And where, before sailing on a whaling voyage, a seaman obtained certain outfits on credit, and gave to the outfitter an order on the owner, which the latter accepted and paid, and besides the personal liability of the seaman, held the proceeds of the voyage as security, and charged insurance on the amount paid, it was held that such raised in the argument. It was not decided. But a release from the owners was required. A release was procured from one, which the court ruled to be sufficient, declaring the point open to further discussion. In Arnold v. Anderson, 2 Yeates, 93, which was a suit for damages for the unskilful stowage of the cargo, the captain was admitted, on a release being given; the mate and mariners were admitted without any release.

1 The Exchange, Blatchf. & H. Adm. 366.

The William Harris, Ware, 367, 371. It was also held in this case that a master is not a proper person to prove the sufficiency of a medicine chest. The master under the general rule stated in the text is not competent to prove that a discharge of a seaman was justifiable. Robinett v. The Ship Exeter, 2 Rob. Adm. 261; Atkyns v. Burrows, 1 Pet. Adm. 244. In The Hope, 2 Gallis. 48, it was held that the master is not a competent witness in case of an information in rem for a forfeiture occasioned by his alleged misconduct.

Lovrein v. Thompson, 1 Sprague, 355; Hazard v. Howland, 2 Sprague, 68. 'Lovrein v. Thompson, 1 Sprague, 355.

Lovrein v. Thompson, 1 Sprague, 355.

a charge was not proper. And the seamen are not liable for a charge of two and a half per cent guarantee commission on sales of oil, or for the charges for fitting and discharging the ship.2 And if a seaman on a whaling voyage is discharged abroad, he is entitled to a settlement at home prices, and is not obliged to take it at consular prices.3 The seamen are entitled to a settlement on a cash and not on a credit basis. If, therefore, the oil is sold on credit, the owner is not obliged to account to them for this, but only for the sum it would have brought if sold for cash. By usage the owner cannot charge the seamen for the casks.5

If a part-owner sue for his lay as master, the other owners are entitled to deduct payments made to him and to his wife, when done with his consent, and are not obliged to wait until he has a settlement with them of his account as part-owner.6

If a seaman on a whaling voyage gives an order for the balance that may be due him on settlement of his voyage, intended as security for future advances by the payee, this constitutes an assignment of his wages although it is not accepted by the person on whom it is drawn. It is also irrevocable if advances are made upon it, and the assignor cannot maintain an action against the owners of the vessel for his wages.7

The subject of forfeiture of wages by desertion or other gross misconduct, will be considered hereafter.8

The legal tender act has given rise to several important and difficult questions. We give in our note the adjudications upon this subject relating to seamen's wages.9

In The Ship Rochambeau, U. S. D. C. Maine, Ware, J., 26 Law Rep. 564, the libellant shipped at St. John, N..B., for a voyage to London and back, not to exceed nine months in time, at the rate of twenty-five dollars a month, in New Brunswick currency. This voyage was made before the nine months expired, and the libellant continued in the vessel without any new agreement, and went on another voyage to London, which was to terminate in the United States. Payments were made from time to time during the voyage in specie. Held, that on the termination of the voyage in the United States the libellant

SECTION IV.

OF PROVISIONS.

Provisions of due quality and quantity are to be furnished by the owner under the general principles of law as applied to this particular contract. It is also provided by statute in this country that every ship or vessel belonging to a citizen of the United States,

was entitled to recover the balance due in New Brunswick dollars, and a decree was entered for such a sum in United States currency as would make the payment equal to a payment in specie.

In The Quintero, U. S. D. C., Mass., 1866, Lowell, J., seamen shipped at Valparaiso, Chili, for a voyage to Boston. They were to be paid in dollars. Lowell, J., said: The contract was made in Chili, and an inference is said to arise from that circumstance that the crew were to be paid in Chilian dollars. But the contract is merely for dollars, and upon the aspect the case has assumed it is for dollars payable here, and the presumption must be that the place of performance of the contract is to be looked to in this particular. And whether the decree be strictly for wages or for damages in the nature of wages, it should be made up in our money."

In The Nonpareil, Brow. & L. Adm. 355, a seaman signed articles at New York to serve on board a British ship, on a voyage to terminate either in the United States or in the United Kingdom. The rate of wages was expressed in dollars. The voyage was terminated in Liverpool. At the time of making the contract the exchange value of the paper dollar was 2s. 83d. It afterwards depreciated in value. The shipowners contended that they were only liable for the value at the time the contract was made. But upon evidence that for twentyfive years seamen discharged from American ships in London or Liverpool, had received their wages at the rate of 4s. 2d. a dollar, the court held that the parties contracted according to this usage, and the value of the dollar was held to be 4s. 2d. In The Annie Sherwood, before Dr. Lushington, in 1865, 12 Law Times, N. s. 582, the voyage was from New York to Cuba, thence to Liverpool and back to Cuba or the West Indies, and thence to a port of discharge in the United States, the time not to exceed eight months. The articles provided that the seamen should be paid so many dollars a month, and contained a clause that the wages should be paid in United States currency or its equivalent. At the expiration of the eight months the vessel was in Liverpool. The court held that the seamen were entitled to have the dollar reckoned at 4s. 2d. The court was not satisfied that the condition in regard to United States currency had been explained to the men, and said, even if it had been, it was in clear violation of the custom to pay 48. 2d., and would not receive any countenance or support.

This has been the custom among maritime nations from the earliest times. Pothier on Maritime Contracts, n. 215 (Cushing's ed.) 131; Consolato del Mare, c. 100. See also 1 Pardes. 335, 381, 483; 2 id. 510; The Madonna D'Idra, 1 Dods. 37; Dixon v. The Cyrus, 2 Pet. Adm. 407, 411.

bound on a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean,1 shall, at the time of leaving the last port from which she sails,2 have on board, well secured under deck, at least sixty gallons of water, one hundred pounds of salted flesh meat, and one hundred pounds of wholesome ship-bread for every person on board such vessel, besides such other provisions as may be put on board by the master or passengers, and in like proportion for shorter or longer voyages, and in case the crew of any vessel which shall not have been so provided shall be put on short allowance in water, flesh, or bread, during the voyage, the master or owner shall pay to each of the crew one day's wages beyond the wages agreed on, for every day they are so put on short allowance, to be recovered in the same manner as their stipulated wages.3

The seamen are also entitled, in addition to the statute allowance, to such subsistence as is usually furnished on voyages similar to that they are engaged in.1

If, however, the necessity of short allowance springs from a peril of the sea, or any accident of the voyage, or the delivery of a part of the provisions to another vessel in distress, the extra wages are not given.5

1 Act of 1790, c. 29, § 9, 1 U. S. Stats. at Large, 131, 135. In Gardner v. The Ship New Jersey, 1 Pet. Adm. 223, the voyage was an entire one from Philadelphia to Canton, with liberty to go to other intermediate ports, and back to Philadelphia. It was contended that as some of the mariners shipped at foreign ports, they did not come within the statute. But the objection was overruled. See The Mary Paulina, 1 Sprague, 45.

Under this statute it has been held that if less than the statute quantity of all the three articles be put on board, and there be a short allowance of all, triple extra wages are to be given for each day. Collins v. Wheeler, 1 Sprague, 188. Foster v. Sampson, 1 Sprague, 182; Collins v. Wheeler, 1 Sprague, 188. Though we are not aware of any case where this point has been expressly decided, yet it follows as a necessary deduction from the fact, that to enable the seaman to recover the extra wages, not only must he be put on short allowance, but it must be shown also that the vessel sailed without having on board the stores prescribed in the act. The Ship Elizabeth v. Rickers, 2 Paine, C. C. 291; Ferrara v. The Barque Talent, Crabbe, 216; The Bark Childe Harold, Olcott, Adm. 275. If the vessel sailed with the requisite quantity on board in good condition, but part was spoiled afterwards, so that the crew were put on short allowance, their remedy is by an action for the special damage done them, but they cannot claim extra wages. The Bark Childe Harold, Olcott, Adm. 275. If it is clearly proved that the crew were put upon short allowance, the burden is on the shipowner to show that the vessel had the requisite provisions on board at the time of