Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-12-06

that rule as it relates to the case before MS p
Inc answer is, that seaman who regularly
signs contract is by the law bound 10 specific
performance, and may not elect TO pay DANA
yes for nOn-performance as in ordinary per-
sonal covenants nor is this effect of AN en-
SaSement for personal services unknown to
the statute laws of Virginia the law is under
stood to be the same in respect 10 apprentices,
To servants under the act of 1855, and to To-
reign seamen under the act of 1905, as well
as TO soldiers belonging tn the army and sail
ors belonging To the navy. These are all men
toned together, because we know no differ
ence between the effect of AN engagement con
stltutlonally defined by act of congress and one
defined by tine laws ofthis state. In any OF the
cases above supposed, as well rs the very ease
before the court, the master or commander as
the case may be, may by himself or with 9th
ers, ms assistants, pursue and by force bring
back his deserted apprentice, servant, sailor or
soldier. The particular provisions of the act
of Congress which authorized the interference
OF the justice of the peace, may be said in
some sort to be a restriction upon the rights of
the captain, since implicitly, at least, it would
seem TO deny the right of using the house of
correction or common jail for the purpose of
sale keeping his deserted sailor, without having
the case examined by the person authorised
by the act of Congress but perhaps the bet
ter opinion is that the act of Congress design
cd to give the lailOr who might act as an as
sis:ant TO the captain of the vessel, "A protcc-
ton against the charge for false Imprisonment.
should the sailor in truth aud in fact not be
under the obligation charged upon him. The
Imprisonment directed by the act of Congress.
IS for no dctcrminate period, is not inflicted as
punishment, and is not directed with view
10 any trial, for any offence whatsoever We
cannot therefore regard the execution of this
part oil the act OF Congress as the prosecution
OF public offence. And while the powers
exercised by the magistrates, are at first view
| OF a seeming judicial character, and would per-
haps be 50 defined by the common law, we
are Justified in saying that the case did not
present such Judicial question as was neces-
sary or proper to be carried into court by for
mai process using the term court, in the SENSE
we have before stated it 10 have been used i'm
| the constitution of the United States. If the
nature ofthe duty required to be performed.
rendered 1t doubtful in the minds of some,
whether it were necessary to carry it into a
regular court or to be tried by jury, the le-
glslature OF the state of Virginia in the act of
1910, answers the question almost if not en-
tlreiy In the words of the act of Congress, and
directs the same proceedings; it is true, that
the act OF 1905 provides forthe case of foreign
seamen only; this is explained by the fact
that the language of the act of Congress does
not apply to contracts made without the iuris-
dictlon the United States, as to which the
lex loci would give the rule. But both laws
ameorate the condition of the sailor, first by
requiring the contract TO be reduced to writing,
and secondly, by requiring the consent of the
justice OF the peace before he shall be thus re-
strained of his liberty. We understand the ma
ture OF sailors engagement to bind him TO
specific performance, by the commercial laws
OF the civilized world. BY the laws of Yves
bury sailor who received part of his wages
and deserted, was to he hanged and when a
sailor engaged himself To two captains, the
first had right TO take him from the second.
and compel him TO go the voyage. These
laws with those of Oleron, now form the ba-
SIS OF the maritime codes Of Europe, and in
some degree are supposed to be adopted by
the constitution of the United States, as they
were certainly to be resorted To by our courts
OF admiralty previous to the adoption of the
federal government; and it has been again and
again determined by the courts of admiralty
in this country, that the act of Congress alters
J the general maritime law only SO far as it gives
a new rule, and the rights as well as the obi
SatOns OF the mariner are clearly subjects re-
gulated by these maritime laws, and acted on
every day, in the courts of admiralty.-Ths
act therefore which has been done in this case
! might well be done by individuals appointed
: by law, or persons designated by general DIES
: crlptlon Ii therefore, Joseph III. Mayo, (bein,
: one OF the persons designated,) has pursue,
MS authority, his act must he effectual TO ever,
5 legal intent and purpose. The commitment
IS made IN precise conformity with the act O
: Congress, and the petitioners have not sug
gested that the facts on which it was ground
| ISt ft,ar L.
handed TO the Jail of the county of Henrico
; there to remain until the vessel to which the
I belong, and named in the proceedings, sha
be ready to proceed on her voyage, or tn,
C captain shall demand their discharge Which
is ordered to be certified to the superior cour
!, OF law for the county of Henrico.
+ Judges Semple and r. f. Parker dissente,
from that part of the foregoing OPINIoN
: which determined that persons exercising
I functions under law of the U. States, wer
!, not officers of that Government and to he an
l pointed as such and Judge Daniel concur
; red In the Courts Opinion for reasons some
what different from those assigned.
5 -
/ VIRGLNL4 LEGISLATURE.
EXTRACTS FROM THE JOURNALS OF TN
:, HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
i Monday, Dec. Sit should have been state
/ as part of this days proceedings, that o
motion of Mr.. Archer, writ of election wa
ordered to issue to the sheriff of Powhatan, {
f supply the vacancy occasioned by the deaf
, of William A. Cooke, Delegate returned t
. this Assembly.
e 1t was Mr.. Swift, who moved for the wr
: of election for Norfolk county, to supply tn
\ place of the deceased Edward ID. Wilson
e Tuesday, Dec. 1.-The Chair proceeded [
: appoint the standing committees of the Hous
Q as follows =