252 CASES RELATING TO FORFEITURE OF WAGES. Ogden v. Orr; ibid. 324, Wetmore v. Henshaw; 3 ibid. 518, Hoyt v. Wildfire; 3 Greenl. 1, Blanchard v. Bucknam; Abb. Sh. 473 and authorities cited; 1 Pet. C. C. 182, Thompson v. Faussatt; 1 Bro. P. C. 137, Buck v. Rawlinson; 9 Cowen, 158, Van Beuren v. Wilson; 2 Dods. 403, The Elizabeth; ibid. 501, The Juliana; 2 Ch. Rob., Robinett v. The Ship Exeter; 3 ibid. 92, The Beaver; 1 Sprague, 97, The Massasoit; ibid. 199, The Bark Rajah; 1 W. Rob. 88, The City of London; 2 Peters, 264, Hindman v. Shaw; Abb. Sh. 733; Newb. 5, Emily Segeman v. Schr. Brandywine; Olc. 232, The Schr. Eagle; ibid. 71, Coalboat The D. C. Salisbury; 2 Dall. 170, Marshall v. Montgomery; ibid. 420, The Polly; ibid. 428, The St. Oloff; Gilp. 193, The Juniata; 3 Hagg. 100, The Hoghton; Swab. 81, The Araminta ; ibid. 152, The Josephine; ibid. 256, The Mobile; ibid. 310, The Ringdove; Lush. 509, The Annie Childs; ibid. 509, The Salacia; ibid. 190, The Princess Helena; Brown & Lush. 104-212, The Chieftain; 1 Eng. Adm. & Eccl. 8, The Mary Ann; ibid. 49, The Fleur de Lis. As to the forfeiture of wages by the mariner, the following cases may be cited: Edwards, 91, The Baltic Merchant; 1 Pet. Adm. 128, The Elizabeth; ibid. 160, The Commerce; ibid. 201, The Phenix; ibid. 210, The Philadelphia; 2 ibid. 407, The Cyrus; Ware, 307, The Rovena; ibid. 367, The William Harris; Flanders, M. L. 414, and citations; Gilp. 140, The Independence; ibid. 207, Knagg v. Goldsmith; 1 Mason, 114, Spurr v. Pearson; 4 ibid. 95, The Mentor; 1 Sum. 373, Cloutman v. Tunison; 1 Hall, 238, Austin v. Dewey; 12 Serg. & Rawle, 266, Buck v. Lane; 1 Pet. Adm. 139, The Mary; ibid. 165, The Susan; 4 Mass. 664, Cotel v. Hilliard; 3 Esp. R. 269, Lunland v. Stevens; 3 Story, 108, Coffin v. Jenkins; 3 Hagg. 307-315, The Test; 1 W. Rob. 73, The Blake; 1 Sprague, 88, The Cynosure; 1 Abb. Rep. 564, Miller v. Kelly; Olc. 4, The Steamboat Swallow; 2 Sprague, 56, Hathaway v. Jones; Swab. 312. The Camilla. In the cited cases, if carefully examined in the original reports, in reference to the mariner's contract, its construction, and the penal consequences attaching to the mariner, there are three things quite observable. First. Mariners, as the wards and favorites of admiralty, are not to be permitted to be overreached in making their contract to proceed on a voyage. Second. They shall not be defrauded of their wages if justly and fairly earned by performance of their stipulated service; and Third. Should they prove to be indisposed or incompetent to completely perform that service, mariners thereupon become liable to forfeit all or any portion of their stipulated compensation. The protective principles of maritime law assure the sailor that he shall be fairly dealt with, in courts exercising admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. As to the contract, it shall consist of only the ordinary stipulations of the shipping articles of seamen. No novel, unusual, or unfair clauses shall be imported into these articles, unless they be generally consistent with the seaman's maritime immunities and recognized privileges, are fully explained to him in advance, and cannot, upon any contingency, derogate from his conceded rights under the general maritime law. Any interpolation of extraordinary clauses into the shipping articles would necessarily subject the whole to suspicion and scrutiny. If, therefore, upon any occasion, it should 254 MARINERS NOT TO BE OVERREACHED. appear that such clauses had been introduced, either inadvertently or designedly, the legal effect of such introduction would operate more to the prejudice of the owner and master than of the mariner. Accordingly, all special agreements made with the mariner should be fully disclosed to him at the time of making them, either by the merchant himself, shippingmaster, or other agent employed. If this be not done, all unusual clauses will be deemed fraudulent interpolations; and, as such, adjudged nugatory and void upon general principles, as well as contrary to public policy; and merchants or others, who indiscreetly attempt such things, should not be surprised to find themselves visited with the penal consequences which ordinarily attach to such a course of conduct, either under the law of the land or by the general maritime law of the commercial world. See the early case of Buck v. Rawlinson, supra; The Juliana, decided in 1822; The Eliza, 1823; The Minerva, 1825; The Prince Frederick, 1832; Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason, 557; Brown v. Lull, 3 Sum. 443; The Brookline, 1845, 1 Sprague, 104; The George Home, 1 Hagg. 370; and the Westmoreland, 1 W. Rob. 227. If, then, an effort be made to entrap a mariner, unwarily, into a bargain for a voyage which was not previously explained to him, by surreptitiously introducing into the shipping articles any unusual clause; or by otherwise changing their character; or by loosely describing the termini of a voyage; or by adding some indefinite expression which would obscure rather than render clear and distinct the course, character, and conclusion of a voyage, any such effort, by whomsoever attempted, would be deemed in admiralty as the act of THEIR WAGES AND VOYAGE TO BE SPECIFIED. 255 an unscrupulous owner or shipping agent; and the shipping articles would be likely to be set aside, at least pro tanto, as derogating from that good faith which ought ever to subsist between merchant and mariner, or master and mariner. By the statute law of England and the United States, a foreign voyage must be specifically described and distinctly defined. Nothing should be left to conjecture. The port of departure should be set forth as one of the termini: the port of destination as another; and if any intermediate or other ports are intended to be visited in the course of the voyage, it is imperative that they should be precisely designated, and not loosely, vaguely and indefinitely hinted at or implied, under such generality of expression as the term "elsewhere;" which term may mean something or nothing according to the course of trade, the custom of merchants engaged in a particular traffic, or the arbitrary will, discretion, or caprice of an enterprising ship-master or interested ship-owner. Many of the cited authorities will be found to have special application to this branch of the inquiry. All the authorities concur in stating that there are but two particular obligations which need be described in the engagement of the contracting parties: one the extent of the voyage; the other, the rate of wages to be paid during its continuance. Lord Stowell, in the Juliana, supra, had occasion to give an exposition upon this matter of the contract of seamen in the year 1822. The case of Buck v. Rawlinson had been previously decided and probably presented the earliest instance of an open attempt to deprive by law a mariner of his wages, under a special agreement of an unusual char 256 UNUSUAL STIPULATIONS DISCOUNTENANCED acter. The agreement was, that wages should be forfeited if the vessel did not return to the home port or port of departure. At first this was attempted to be effected by means of a collateral bond, to be executed by the seaman on signing the shipping articles; but afterwards that stipulation was incorporated into the articles themselves, as part and parcel thereof. Both attempts signally failed; and the judicial exposition, given by Lord Stowell, of these abortive attempts, is both interesting and instructive, as tracing the history and progress of the admiralty practice in this behalf. In the Juliana, William Lattimore shipped as a seaman in August, 1820, on a voyage from Portsmouth to New South Wales; thence to Batavia; thence to Bengal and back to the port of London. In the shipping articles was a clause to this effect: "that no officer or seaman should demand or be entitled to his wages, or any part thereof, until the arrival of the ship at London, and her cargo delivered." This was alleged in the pleadings for the defense. The Juliana returned to the Downs, 19th December, 1821; and on December 24th struck on the Kentish Knock, was wrecked, and all on board, except Lattimore and one other mariner, were lost. It was then, as Lord Stowell (p. 508) said, "a divided voyage, in which cargoes successively taken in, and delivered at different ports, earned freight for the owners at each port of delivery by the known general law; and, by the same general law, wages were earned by the mariners;" and (p. 511) he said, "where a voyage is divided by various ports of delivery, a proportional claim attaches at each of such ports; and the courts have upheld that title against all attempts to evade or invade it. The attempts have usually appear |