The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-09-01
The Bark ssOrestes.''


1t is not often that a vessel visits our port,
which in every respect is so unfortunate as this
one. She first visited us last fall, and lay in our
harbor some six weeks repairing. After dis.
charging her captain and taking another, and
quieting in a measure the dissatisfaction of her
passengers, she went on to her port of destina-
ton. There she had hardly time to land her
passengers and discharge her freight, before We
hear of her as threatened with various suits for
ill-treatment by her passengers, to escape which
she hastily sailed for an American port and pro-
cured a cargo of lumber. She arrived here i'm a
leaking condition on the 18th July, with her
crew nearly worn out with exhaustion from in
cessant work at pumping. From the day of her
arrival to this has been but a series of contention
and disputes between her officers and men. The
seamen believed that they had rights, that the
bark was unseaworthy. and that they could not
be compelled to go on in her.
The proper course for the vessel, when she ar
rived in port, was to discharge her cargo and re-
pair without delay, raising funds to pay the ex-
penses either by ~bottomry on the vessel or on the
cargo, or by sale of 50 much of the latter as
might be necessary to meet the outlay-for the
cargo of Il ship is always liable in such cases.
Had this course been promptly resorted to, the
vessel might have been repaired and by this time
half way to Australia. Instead of that, we have
her still in port and no better off than the day she
came in, although she has tardily commenced
what should have been done in the first place.
When a vessel comes to our port and receives
great dispatch in her repairs and recruiting,
it rebounds to the interest and character of the
port; so, when n vessel meets such unnecessary
delays as the OreStes has on both her visits, it
must fix n stigma on us, so far as the facts be-
come known. Had the proper course been taken
in the first place, the cause of dissatisfaction be-
tween the officers and crew would have been
removed, and all gone on prosperously, instead of
resulting in the death of one of the crew and the
arrest and trial of the captain on a charge for a
capital offense.
As bearing Immediately on this subject, and
being from the highest authority in England,
we copy the following from an American Ex-
change, showing clearly that in principle, the
seamen were right in refusing to proceed to sea
with the vessel liable to sink in twelve hours:
UNsEAwoRrHY AND ILL-MANSEp SHIPs.-A late
number of the London Times contains an article in
reference to unseaworthy ships, and the rights of
mariners who may have shipped on such vessels.
Many complaints were made by seamen Of having
DcS Cotiptlicu ny magistrates III EuRllSn ports 10 90
to sea in unsafe ships or be treated as deserters and
committed to prison. The subject has been brought
to the notice of the Board Of Trade by a petition to
the Queen, signed by seamen belonging to twenty
seven ports The Board submitted a case to the
government law officers, asking their opinion on six
points. AS the subject is one of considerable inter-
est in mercantile and shipping quarters. we publish
the questions propounded by the Board of Trade and
the replies furnished thereto.
The opinion of the Queens Advocate, the Attorney
and Solicitor General, was requested upon the follow
ing points:
l. Whether. when a seaman is engaged. there is or
is not an implied condition on the part Of the ship
owner that the ship shall be seaworthy?
2 Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the
seaman refused to 60 to sea in her on that ground, he
can be treated as a deserter, or punished under the
enactments above referred to, or otherwise.
3. Whether. if a seaman is apprehended on the
ground of d~esertion, and alleges in his defense that
the ship is unseaworthy. it is the duty Of the Court
which hears the case TO examine into the question.
and to receive such evidence as it may be possible to
procure of the ~truthAof the allegations.
4. Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the
seaman refuses to go to sea in her on that ground,
and the master and owner refuse to deliver any
seaman can bring an action to recover them, or to
recover damages for their detention ,
b. Whether, if a seaman serves in q ship which is
sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, and the shin is
lost in consequence, and the seaman thereby suffers
damage by loss of his clothes, or by injury to his per-
son or otherwise, he has any remedy against the
owner2
g. Whether, when a seaman is engaged, there is
or is not an implied condition on the part of the
owner that the ship shall be adequately manned
q. e., manned in such a manner as would under
ordinary circumstances be sufficient for the safety and
proper navigation Ct the ship on the voyage ON which
she is to be employed; y and, il so. whether or not the
non-performance of this condition is attended by
similar to those which would attend the
non-performance Of the implied condition that the
ship shall be seaworthy, assuming such last-mention-
ofcondition to exist ?
g ee .aw ofncers returned, the following answer:
~ We IRE o. opinion that there is an implied con-
e on the part q the shipowner that the chip shall
= {e2vorthy.
ARd that, T. the 1hip i not seaworthy. and the
refuse 70 30 to sA il her on that erounl, he
treated a. n deserter, or pen1hed under 4
0e fKsfTTe3 70 Bot TIC hnF| - os proof