Polynesian., 1860-12-22
No. "a.


officers and crew OF the foreign ship, while within the
Kingdom The criminal jurisdiction Of Courts
never did, either before since the adoption Of the
Treaty, extend to the trial of parties fr crimes mis-
demeanOrs committed on board Of foreign ships upon
the high seas, because penal laws do not cover
them Except in of piracy) The Trely, therefore,
does not apply to those But previous to the
adoption OF the Treaty, criminal jurisdiction EXTEND
ed TO the punishment of all crimes and misdemeanors
committed board of foreign merchant vessels while
being in Hawaiian waters To this branch Of jurisdc-
ton the Treaty does apply, by rendering its exercise
dependent the COnsus consent, the existence Of
particular circumstances. But the language Of the
Treaty includes matters Of difference between the
master, officers and in relation TO the internal or
der of the ship, giving the Article extended ap-
plication. Matters of difference must include matters
of cr controversy. Previous to the adoption of the
Treaty, our Courts were in the habit Of taking cognz
ance OF civil controversies between foreigners, arriving
here whether arising cOatrucM dcto, at
shore The exercise of this branch of jurisdiction is
unquestiOnaby affected to extent, by the Treaty.
We conceive that Courts cannot take cognzance
of any civil suit arising Of controversy superven-
ing between the master, officers and crew Of foreign
ship, in relation to the internal order the high
or IN our own waters if the cOntendng parties
clusyey of the vessels nationality, without the
Of the Consul, If there be here. But conceive
that in order to give the Consul cognzince of the
troversy to render it necessary have his consent
to the Courts taking cognzance Of both the conten
ding parties must still be attached the vessel If the
complaining party has been discharged from the ship,
if he has been wronsfuly forced leave her. having
just cause Of action for any wrong done to him while
attached TO the ship for wages due and unpaid, he
may maintain SUIT for the same in Courts, if they
willing entertain it. unless he has bound himself
by his contract Of shipment no tribunals but
those of the home forum.
The unlike the rect nt cases Of Enos vs.
Sowle and Vieira SOwe, in this respect that there
the belants not American citizens but here both
the libellant and respondent American citizens
g. IL uRsl.
sui in the present But if view of the 2ls
Article Of the Treaty with France is sound the same
Of nationality In the contendng parties is not Of
itself sufficient to sustain the protest. if either Of the
other concOmtants prescribed by the Treaty is wanting
SO far as the presented by the libel it does not
appear that the cause Of action out Of matters per-
tanng to the internal order of the ship and it is aeg-
ell that the libellant wrOngfuly compelled quit
the vessel, thereby terminating his relation to her.
1t was argued by counsel for the bellan, and there
great weight in the argument that he is here now in
the attitude of an American citizen, not attached any
ship claiming to have right of civil action against the
respondent, who also here when the suit was
menced and that under the provisions of the Treaty
between this Kingdom and the United States the libel
liant has the right to seek redress in the Courts Of
| this country, as if he were Hawaiian subject
AS the case appears at present. we do not think We
precuded from entertaining it, by the 2lst Article
of the Treaty with France and we will now consider
whether not we ought to entertain it without the
consent of the Consul under the circumstances Of the
case and without reference TO the Treaty That rests
has repeatedly been held in this Court BEFORE the
sound discretion of the Court. That this Court, in
common with Admiralty Courts in the United States
and Great Britain, may exercise jurisdiction in cases
like the present, think is clear and this point
will ply refer to the adjudged cases
and the authorities, cited in the recent suit Of Enos
SOwle, (reported in the POyHeSiGf and to the udg-
of the late Chief Justice LEE in the case of Will
liams Lawrence et aLs Hawaiian Reports D. 295,
a case much in point in the present instance
1t appears that Young made his contract for service
on the Aycfic HONOLULU for one cruise only and to
be discharged at Honolulu when the closed His
contract with the ship had its inception here and was
to have terminated here not in the United States where
the ship is owned The arrival of the ship at Honolulu
was to terminate the voyage SO far as he was con-
cerned. Honolulu became TO him the home port.
But, unfortunately, Honolulu is not the home port
of the Ship that is the Atlantic coast of the Uni
ted States and the time when the ship will arrive
there wholly uncertain. From the fact that wha-
ling voyage from thence lasts several years. during
which the ships often employ fresh hands at
ports, from season to season, voyage becomes in
fact series of voyages, the end of each being
in effect to those who engaged for that season. the
end of the voyage, when they entitled to set
| tement and the payment of any clams they NAV
have against the ship or master. Such being the
case IL follows that the Court of Admiralty here must
either in many cases assume to exercise its jursdc-
ton suits between foreigners turn complaining
parties away with the knowledge that their claims
Court of justice. The Court of Admiralty here has,
for the last fourteen years. frequently exercised this
jurisdiction, in the interests of mmerce and human
ity, and, until within few weeks past, protest
against its doing so has ever, believe been placed
on its files by any foreign Consul resident here.
The ibellant in this is, understand, resi-
dent here; he is poor that the Court allowed him
to institute his suit without giving security for
upon his uratOry caution If the allegations of
his libel are true, he has followed the respondent
from the Ladrone Islands TO this Kingdom to seek
redress and refuse entertain his complaint
and tell him he must resume his pursuit of the ship
until he finds her in New Bedford, would, to say the
least, be extremely hard, and not consonant with
justice or equity.
The protest is. therefore overrued, and the
remanded for hearing by the Justice before whom the
libel originally fled and the libel yem. against
| the ship, will follow :he same course.
Honolulu. December 18th, 1860.
Mr.. Harris for the Lbellant.
Mr.. Bates for the Respondent.