The act of July 20, 1840, did not authorize any distinction to be made, in the payment of extra wages to American seamen discharged abroad, between a seaman shipped in a foreign port and one shipped in the United States.

Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, to Mr. Don, consul at Valparaiso, Feb. 26, 1845, 11 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 344.

Section 3, act of June 19, 1886, permitting a seaman to stipulate in his shipping agreement before a shipping commissioner for an allotment of wages to a creditor, was by implication repealed by the act of February 18, 1895.

Grossett r. Townsend, 86 Fed. Rep. 908.

As to shipping commissioners' expenditures, see United States v. Reed, 9
C. C. A. 563.

The act of August 19, 1890, having been by the act of February 18, 1895, so amended as to exempt vessels in the coastwise trade (except between ports on the Atlantic and ports on the Pacific), and vessels engaged in trade between the United States and Canada, from the requirements of the act of 1872 as to keeping official log books, the wages of seamen deserting from such vessels may be adjudged forfeited without proof that they were ever noted in the log books as deserters.

The Victorian (1898), 88 Fed. Rep. 797.

The act of Feb. 18, 1895, in providing for the omission of item No. 8 of section 4511 of the Revised Statutes, relating to the allotment of wages, in its application to the form and contents of shipping articles in the coastwise trade, did not repeal, by implication, the positive enactments of the acts of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat. 55), and June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 80), permitting allotments.

Hogan v. The J. D. Peters (1897), 78 Fed. Rep. 368.

The act of December 21, 1898, makes many changes in the laws relating to American seamen, and consequently alters the Consular Regulations of 1896 in various particulars in respect of such matters. Under these changes, while a consular officer is still required to see that all arrears of wages and extra wages that are due to a seaman on his discharge are paid by the master, either directly to the seaman or to the consul for the seaman's use, the consul is no longer required to use these wages in the maintenance and transportation of the seaman.

Circular to consular officers of the United States, Feb. 6, 1900, transmitting a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, dated Jan. 11, 1900, as to the effect of the act of Dec. 21, 1898, on the accounts of consular officers in connection with American seamen. (State Dept. Circulars.)

Where a seaman was shipped by the owners for a voyage on a vessel which was afterwards wrongfully taken possession of by the master and diverted from her voyage, in a distant port, where there was no court accessible through which the seaman could collect the wages due him, it was held that he was justified in staying with the vessel and was entitled to wages until returned to the port of discharge. The Gen. McPherson, 100 Fed. Rep. 860.

Seamen who go on board a vessel as mariners, voluntarily but without any valid contract, may be required by the master to perform such services as are necessary to the navigation of the vessel while at sea, but they are not bound to continue with the vessel through the voyage, and may leave it at any port without forfeiting the wages earned, although they can not in such case require the owner to return them to the port of shipment.

The Occidental, 101 Fed. Rep. 997.

Shipping articles described the voyage as "from the port of San Francisco, Cal., to Port Blakeley, thence to San Francisco, for final discharge, either direct or via one or more ports of the Pacific coast, either north or south of the port of discharge. Voyage to be repeated one or more times." The vessel proceeded to Port Blakeley, and thence with a cargo to San Pedro, where, after unloading, the master announced his intention of returning to Port Blakeley. The crew thereupon demanded their pay, claiming that the voyage ended at San Pedro. Held, that the shipping articles did not permit a return from San Pedro to Port Blakeley before going to San Francisco, and that the seamen were entitled to their wages upon the master's announcement of his intention to return direct to Port Blakeley, and did not forfeit them by leaving the ship upon his refusal of their demand.

Heinrici v. The Laura Madsen (1897), 84 Fed. Rep. 362.

Shipping articles described the voyage as follows: "From port of San Francisco, Cal., to any port or ports on Puget Sound or British Columbia for orders. At Puget Sound or British Columbia, vessel may be ordered to load cargo for any port or ports in Alaska, as the master may direct. If the vessel is ordered to Alaska, the trips between Puget Sound or British Columbia and Alaska to be repeated one or more times; thence to San Francisco for final discharge, either direct or via one or more ports on the Pacific coast, for a term of time not exceeding six months." Held, that the articles set forth the nature, duration, and termination of the voyage with sufficient certainty to satisfy Revised Statutes, section 4511.

Diochet v. The Occidental (1898), 87 Fed. Rep. 485.

Seamen who have signed shipping articles for a foreign voyage on a steamship, and, in pursuance of the articles, have presented themselves for the service of the ship several times and are finally discharged, before the commencement of the voyage, in consequence of an accident to the steam pipe which renders their discharge proper, may recover compensation in rem, under section 4527 of the Revised Statutes, for the period of the voyage, not exceeding the one month specified in the statute.

Clark . The St. Paul (1897), 77 Fed. Rep. 998.

Fishermen are seamen and, except as modified by their peculiar contracts, express or implied, are protected by the law as other seamen are, and for their wages may look to the vessel, her master, and ordinarily her owners.

The Carrier Dove, 97 Fed. Rep. 111, 38 C. C. A. 73; Rich v. Williams, id.

The fact that the master, who is part owner of a fishing vessel, charters it from his coowners for a voyage on the "quarter clear lay," and afterwards engages a crew, agreeing to give them the same share of the catch as though they had together chartered the vessel, does not render the members of the crew cocharterers, but they have all the rights of seamen, including the right to a lien on the vessel, as for wages, for the value of their share of the catch.

The Carrier Dove, 97 Fed. Rep. 111, 38 C. C A. 73; Rich v. Williams, id.

Seamen shipped for a whaling voyage who are required to perform extra labor in connection with trading ventures carried on without their previous knowledge were held to be entitled to share in the profits of the trading, in the same proportions as their lay in the catch.

Lopes v. Luce (1897), 84 Fed. Rep. 465.

Persons employed as seal hunters, after purchasing interests in the vessel from the master and giving mortgages thereon for unpaid balances, may, as against the master and other part owners, maintain a suit in rem for their wages.

White . The M. M. Morrill (1897), 78 Fed. Rep. 509.

Persons employed as hunters for a sealing voyage, although they have purchased an interest in the vessel from the master and have agreed that half their wages might be applied in payment, are within the protection of Revised Statutes, § 4536, forbidding the assignment of seamen's wages.

White v. The M. M. Morrill, 78 Fed. Rep. 509.

Members of the crew of a fishing vessel who leave her without permission in order to carouse on shore and are in consequence left behind by the vessel, should be subjected to the loss resulting from their failure to perform duty, but a member of the crew who is left behind while trying, in the vessel's interest, to induce his associates to return, is entitled to recover his share of the catch, his expenses, and the value of his outfit carried away.

Flynn . The Nereid, 67 Fed. Rep. 602.

Where the shipping articles provide that the members of the crew shall not be entitled to wages until return to the home port, their refusal, in a foreign port, to proceed with the voyage, no excuse for such refusal appearing, works a forfeiture of their right to wages.

The H. C. Wahlberg (1898), 87 Fed. Rep. 361; Lorentzen v. Schlehen, id.

There is no custom exempting the crew from the duty of handling cargo when it consists of ice, in the absence of an express stipulation in the shipping articles.

O'Brien v. The Cramp (1898), 84 Fed. Rep. 696.

Seamen are not justified in leaving the ship by reason of abusive words from the master, nor is their subsequent statement to him that they desire to leave the vessel, coupled with a demand for their wages, such insolence as will justify him in discharging them and claiming forfeiture of their wages. And where, in such case, he tells them they may leave, but that he will not pay their wages, they are entitled to recover, not full wages, but wages to the time of leaving.

Richards v. The Topgallant (1898), 84 Fed. Rep. 356.

Seamen are not entitled to extra wages for services rendered in unloading cargo in a harbor of refuge, in order to free the vessel from water; and a promise by the master to pay extra compensation, upon their refusal to work without it, is void.

The Potomac, 72 Fed. Rep. 535, 19 C. C. A. 151; Niagara Falls Paper
Co. r. Crouckett, id.

The Potomac, 66 Fed. Rep. 348, reversed.

A seaman who quits ship without legal cause, before expiration of time for which he shipped, is not entitled to recover as upon a quantum meruit for services rendered in part performance of his contract.

The Leiderhorn, 99 Fed. Rep. 1001.

A seaman one day refused to work on the ground of sickness, which proved to be intoxication, and the next day again refused to work,

being unable to do so in consequence of illness caused by his previous drunkenness. For these offences the master deducted from his wages four days' pay and eight days' pay, respectively, amounting in all to $14. Advised that, although section 4528, Revised Statutes, provides that a seaman is not entitled to wages for any period during which he unlawfully refuses or neglects to work when required, the circumstances stated did not amount to such unlawful refusal or neglect, and that the master had no authority to impose and collect the " fines " mentioned.

Griggs, At. Gen., Sept. 20, 1898, 22 Op. 212.

The negligence of a seaman, contributing to an injury, which made it necessary to put into a port and leave him, does not debar him from recovering his full wages, which include all that would have accrued upon the completion of the voyage.

The Robert C. McQuillen, 91 Fed. Rep. 688.

Where the answer admits that wages have been earned, but claims deductions for payments on account and other offsets, the burden is on the master to show such payments.

Hogan v. The J. D. Peters, 78 Fed. Rep. 308.

Pending a suit for seamen's wages, one of the libelants, needing money, wrote to the master, offering to accept a certain sum in payment, and saying that if such sum was paid into court the suit, so far as concerned his claim, might be dismissed. The sum was accordingly paid into court, but libelant never called for it, and subsequently pressed the suit for the full amount. Held, that this conduct did not prejudice his right to recover the larger sum.

Hogan v. The J. D. Peters, 78 Fed. Rep. 368.

Conviction and imprisonment of a seaman in a foreign country for an assault on the master, committed on board ship, within the territorial jurisdiction of such country, will bar a suit for wages.

Hindsgaul. The Lyman D. Foster, 85 Fed. Rep. 987.

In this case the wages due at the time of the assault were paid into the hands of the American consul, who paid therefrom the costs of prosecution and turned the remainder over to the seaman. It was held that the ship was not liable for the misapplication, if there was any, of the money by the consul.

The mere fact that the master suspended seamen from duty and imprisoned them, in good faith, on suspicion of an intent to burn the vessel, is not ground for forfeiting their wages if they in fact were not guilty.

Krueger . The John and Winthrop (1897), 84 Fed. Rep. 503.