The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-12-20
SgPPLlMENII' THURSDAY. DIC. III. 1850.

commerce, all persons in time Of peace. have the right
to resort TO the tribunal OF the nation where they may
happen TO be, for the protection Of their rights. The
jurisdiction Of the courts over them Is complete, except
when IT l. excluded by treaty"
Judge Belts says. ia the case Of Booker rs. Kiosk
getu, Abbott's Al. Rep. 4OS, 81 In one respect, indeed,
the American courts show a greater favor to seamen, IN
these cases. than DO the courts Of Great Britain, FOR the
former proceed, irrespective Of any interference on be-
half Of the seaman by his consul or other national rep
resentative, whilst the English courts would seem still
TO insist that the sanction of such an officer shall Ge
procured unless the nature Of the case forbIds." He
further says that this precautionary condition / not re-
quirel in the courts Of the United States and that ju-
~risiIction viii ordinarily be exercised if the voyage i
terminated. In this case the parties belong 10 different
countries, but the country ofthe libellant has no repre-
sentative at this Court. If there was. there would
doubtless be as strong a request for the Court to exer-
else jurisdiction as there i objection by the Representa-
tive II the American Government.
Mr.. Justice Grier, in Gonzales vs.. Minor, , Wallace
c. c. 34o, says, When the court does entertain such
cases without the request Of the representative Of the
Government they will require the lbeIlant to exhibit
such a case of peculiar hardship. injustice, or injury,
likely TO be suffered without such interference, as would
raise the presumption Of a request, because il Is in fact
comforting a favor on such foreign State"
in the case of the " Golubchack,' l W. Rob. l43,
the master appeared under protest, stating that the suit
had been commence without the consent of the Rus
sian Consul, or any other accredited agent Of that Gov
ernment in the country, DR.. Lushington held that the
Court must possess original jurisdiction over the sub
ject matter, or 1t could hold none at all, for the consent
of a foreign consul or minister never could confer juris-
dction upon a British court of judicature. In Hay VS..
Brig - Bloomer, L. ;. D.. c. Mass, March, 1859,
I Judge Sprague said, "The usual course in the case OF
q libel by a foreign seaman against his vessel, is TO di-
rect the clerk to inform the consul of the Government
of the tendency of the suit. that he may take such no.
tice Of II as he thinks proper, and unless there were
strong circumstances in the case, the court would not
proceed in rem against a foreign vessel, without the as
sent Of the commercial representative here of the for
elgn Government OF the country where she belonged
Mr.. Justice Curtiss, of the Supreme Court of tue
United States, oyerruled a protest of an English consul
to the jurisdiction Of the court, in q case where the Ii
ha1an a N ~ citizen hal Iaan Is-a1 - R-=-.-
for n voyage In an English registered vessel, with an
English master, from Boston to St. Jago and back to a
port in the United States. The voyage was performed,
and the men discharged IN Boston. An action was
commenced in a cause of personal damage, and the
English Consul filed IA protest TO the jurisdiction, setting
forth that the vessel was n British vessel and the COM
mandec q British Subject also, 81 that an Investigation
cf some of the alleged causes of damage must call in
question official acts and conduct of a British function
AIRY in regard to British subjects, for which he is respon-
sible only 10 his Government.
II appears from ali the authorities that Courts will
insist, in some cases, on the approval OF The foreign re-
preventative before they will entertain jurisdiction. and
in other cases direct notice to be given him of the pen
deBcy of the suit, unless it is apparent from the state
ment of the parties that he is cognizant of the suit
pending, or unless the defendant acquiesces in or desires
the exercise OF jurisdiction. In cases where 1t Is appa-
rent from the allegations in the libel that the Consul
his not the power to give the party redress, it has not
been deemed necessary TO insist on his approval or con-
sent. or when 1t is maniestly necessary to prevent q
failure of justice. In this case that effect would be in
eyitabe for reasons alrei dy gwen. If the allegations in
the libel are true, the contract of hiring is dissolved by
the wrongful act OF the master. Should not the party
have an opportunity of seeking for redress before an
Admiralty Court here, or should he be put on board the
vessel NJ the risk of being subjected to the same inhu-
man wrongs and injuries many months more Is it q
usual case? Is it not more imperative in its claims for
jurisdiction than any other case which can be present.
ed, for there is the alleged wrong and injury u~nredress-
ed for the past, and exposure to the same wrong and
injury for the future: For illustration, it may be well
TO reverse the case. Suppose there was an American
youth on board u Portuguese vessel, and he filed his
"a III, l. z,,a arosSc o~l H. T-,~.-
say to him We can't hear your case, You must seek your
remedy ut the home forum, which is Portugal there
fore 90 aboard of your vessel, although you may be sub
iected TO n repetition of the same disgusting life, and
when you arrive in Portugal, p~ennyless and f~rendless.
You can prosecute your case there. The responsibility
Of exercising the jurisdiction rests finally upon the
Court. 1t must be apparent that all Courts would much
prefer to avoid the responsibility and labor, if they
could remit the parties to their home forum, when there
is a reasonable probability that the case can be fully
presented there, and that the accused party would not
be left with the facilities to perpetrate again the same
acts as those complained of.
In this case the Court regards it an imperative Judi
cal duty to entertain the jurisdiction, and therefore the
protest Of the Consul is oyerruled.
MANUEL Exos UGxAcIo) vs.. NATHANIEL W. SowLE.
The following Is the Judgment
Robertson, JUSTfCE.-The evidence introduced liz
support OF the allegations in the libel is very lengthy,
and much Of il of a character which renders il inexpe.
dent for US to recapitulate it, even briefly, in giving a
decision which must be made public. But il is not ne
cessary that we should do so. for the testimony is quite
fresh in the recollecti n Of those who heard it, and it
has been referred TO in detail and commented upon in
the fullest manner by the learned counsel on both sides.
who have argued the case with great ability. The tes-
timouy not having been given in the form Of dispositions,
but rira roce, in presence of the court, We have had the
advantage of watching the demeanor and appearance Of
the several witnesses on the stand, and OF hearing their
statements as given in their own words, an advantage
which Is Of great value in a case of this nature. The
libellant's witnesses have been subjected to 4 searching
cross-eXaminatiOn on the part of counsel, and several
of them have been interrOgate1 by the Court, as to
points calculated to test their credibility. \ small
amount of testimony has been presented on behalf of
the respondent, but it IS very melgre and of little weight,
while the respondent himselfhas been content with fling
his written answer, denying in general terms the ale
cations Of the libel. and has not availei himself Of the
opportunity freely offered him 70 come upon the stand
and contradict or explain, if he could, the testimony of
any or AL Of the witnesses produced against him.
After mature consideration Of the evidence before US,
and weighing all the facts and circumstances Of the case,
we are Of the opinion that the theory Of defence so inge-
niOu>lv urged by counsel that this Is a plot or cOnspira-
cy gotten up for the purpose of running the respondent,
Is without foundation in fact and we are driven 10 the
unwelcOme conclusion that the allegations oil the libel are
clearly proved. We have no reason to doubt that the
hbellant, who l. still a youth of tender years and fragile
frame, has at various times, since he left New Bedford
on board Of the " Montreal three years ago, been
subjected 20 treatment the most tou! and unnatural, at
the hands Of the respondent. \ more glazing violation
OF the duty which the respondent owed 20 the lbellant
cannot b imagined. y grOSser instance Of oppression
persistent abuse never came TO our cognizance and
the annals Of criminal jurisprudence scarce contain .
which in the exhibition OF moral deprayity surpass-
es the present.
Il becomes our duty. therefore. as = court exercising
benetceut jurisdiction, vested in Us b. the Consttu-
Of this Kingdom, and by the general maritime law
Of the world. to declare the contract entered into by the
ibel!aut p serve on board OF the ship - Noutre9l,' IS
no longer binding upon him and 10 me,e out To the
such a measure Of justice as shall secure a
amount Of Tecuuiary rep2rltion to the libel
for the injury be mas sustained, and serve To mark