The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1861-03-07

article. was convinced Of the futliiy and injustice OF
the grounds assumed by Consul Pratt, in 1907
q. that the flag protects and proriieS for the man.
whether born in Ola England or New. Cape de Verde
Islands or Rhode Island, Africa or America, Polyhe-
sa or District Of Columbia. and considered II n
rfgrflbl, lodge. or rather a little pTeaa-sGStt-'S"
in the grant court Or poPglGrIy, IN endorsing 'hS
FrisaE's hatter!ug JUNCTION as TO his Consul Pratt ,
liberal and enlightened views, for your correSpoh-
denr, when he iudited his letter 10 the Bulletin, well
knew that Consul Pratt was not speaking from the
record, but was guilty Of uuwarrautable duPlicity IN
even admitting that his consular instructions confer
red upon him the right II So falsely constituting them,
that he a. an officer Of the United States Government
could with impunity feed and clothe the PaupsTS q
foreign lands, when not entitled to the relief as pro
yideI by the laws Of Congress. | reiterate that he
was guilty Of duplicity and violated his oath, rs he
could not have been honest in his Interpretation Of
his Instructions, rs he was At the time in possession Of
3 gentle reminder from the Hon. Lewis Cass, then
Secretary OF State, which clearly and explicitly de-
fined the course which should govern him in the ad-
mission Of destitute and sick seamen into the United
States Hospital At this port. Your correspondent
knows that Consul Pratt was in receipt Of said letter,
wherein he, Consul Pratt, is requested to inform the
State Department - whether any seamen have been
rcIicrel, by being provided with board and clothing
or sent TO the Hospital under medical attendance,
Save those uhO shipped IN the United States on board
. an .1MeTIcdH reSSei, LChettsT -ImeTicdH or Foreign.
or those shipped abroad, and bearing projections Us
american SeamcR,' and that Consul Pratt did, on
the 10th day of January, 1860, answer that he had
not admitted seamen into the Hospital contrary to
law and his consular instructions, but on the list Of
June the Vice Consul answered, that foreigners who
had shipped abroad on American vessels, had been
admitted and received relief
The writer, therefore, deemed himself justified in
arraigning the Consuls of Honolulu and Lahaina,
(for a similar correspondence was received by the late
Consul Ut the latter port before the public of the
United States as violators of the laws of Congress
and their consular instructions, and therefore l beg
leave to differ from the writer of the Friend. that the
+ Consuls of Honolulu and Lahaina, to whom my letter
referred, " have done no more than their duty, and
what they were bound TO do under their oaths OF
Office as the fact is too well established 10 admit of
contradiction, that seamen have been admitted into
the Hospitals of these Islands, who were not entitled
to the relief provided by Congress.
But the Rev. gentleman contends 'that the Ameri-
can flag still protestant prOrideS for the man whether
born in Old England or New" &c, &c. With all due
courtesy TO the Rev. gentleman, permit me to say that
it Is not a question of birth as to who are entitled
to relief, but WHERE the man shipped. For if a for
eignsr and he shipped in ports Of the United STATES,
then he is entitled TO the benefcence of Congress,
otherwise not. But as to protection, 1t Is solely Il
matter of birth, for if shipped in an American yes
sci, the flag VIII protect him from impreSSmeRt-but
the seaman is only entitled to relief, according TO the
laws of the United States. as | have above noted. The
writer says that his reasons for u%pholdlng his views
of the subject are twofold
e Firstly, Equity and justice. Secondly, Laws of
the United States as interpreted by the aolest states
men,"
In defence of his equity doctrine, he says, g the
ship employs the services of the man, and by 1t he IS
taken away from his home and country volun-
tary contract on the part of the seaman, [ presume,
to depart from home and. country-and the writer
asks, 50 who shall provide Ir the man Urten SICK, or
protect him when UnJUSHy treated 90
In answer thereto, suffice il to say, that the courts
of the United States have decided that the ship shall
IrO-iJc for him when sick and disabled. if such indis-
position is occasioned while in the employ of such
ship. And if the representatives of our government
do not, then again our country's laws and the adj
miralty laws of all civilized countries will protect
him when uajuStiy treated. 1t is unnecessary to re-
fer to authorities on this point, as the Sowle case is
fresh in the memories of us all, and the doctrine
therein most ably and deliberately defined, is the law
of all civilized nations.
To the writer's second proposition, | am willing to
concede that the laws of the United States, as inter
preted by our ablest statesmen, extend protection and
jurisdiction to all sailing under the American Flag;
but in extending protection, it does not thereby grant
relief to sick and destitute seamen except as | have
cited. In this connection he has referred to a volume
with which | am quite familiar, viz " Consular In
structions of 1885, and in return, l beg leave to call
the attention of the editor of the Friend to Sec. 296 of
said Instructions, wherein the rule is laid down as TO
what class of sick and destitute seamen sailing under
the Stars and Stripes are entitled TO relief " Sec 296.
In order that Consuls may understand what seamen
are embraced within the provisions of the several acts
OF Congress relative to the relief of destitute sesmen,
AhN pay LICB vi NhG tAAlh Wages III GtS VI &c
from vessels, and the passage of destitute seamen to
the United States, they are instructed, that all sea-
men Who are citizens of the United States, Except
such as are regularly shipped in foreign vessels and
all foreigners regularly shipped in American vessels
at any port IN the United STATES, are to be regarded
as American seamen and citizens within the provi-
siOns of the said Acts Such is the rule of action
for Consuls, and to my mind it is clear and unmistak-
able.
Again, the writer with great foresight anticipated a reply to
his quotation of Sec. 1873, probably not being aware of the Ian
guage Of Sec. go. 1t is, therefore, admitted that the language
OF Sec. 1913, refers to the very words Of the Hon. Daniel Webster
"IGrrsSed 70 LonA shourton, on the oh day OF August, loi2,
and that the correspondence Of those great men was based on
His words were, The American government. then, is
prepared to say that the practice OF 'mpressing seamen from
That practice Is founded on principles which it does not recog-
nize, and is invariably attended by consequences 90 unjust. SO
injurious, and Of such formidable magnitude. as cannot be sub
mitted TO-" And further says, - In the early disputes between
but protection from inpressnent1 the distinguished person to
Whose hands were first entrusted the seals Of this department,
ISlr jefferson! declared that the simplest rule will be, that the
vessel being American shall he evidence that the seamen on
announces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle main
tanned 10y his government. In every rc=uiarly-documentei
American merchant vessel. the crew who navigate it, will find
rr"tectio" in the flag which is over them"
ieman would have Us believe isiutended, can be put upon words
4, % embrace the Te"C that the writer iniers 1t should; and,
though 1t may be charitable to put his construction upon them,
by the greatest statesmen Of the United States, I
neither is it right or just to provide for the pauPers Of foreign +
relief under the laws Of Con-ress, which are 50 clear, direct
md unmis.akable, aud | ann 10Th to believe that the trainers Of
,ec'. 10 anu 5%5 ever intended such miS-interpretiuon, and
nat they never did 50 intend Is sclf-eviienJ from the words O. '
zen. tass to the Consuls Of Honolulu and Lihaina, before re-
erred TO.
IN authority At Washington and Paris in the celebrated
french case, in lS5S.' 1 take issue with him--as either he is =
or Is going a biiHf-fr the question there was l
"t a 10 TeHsf afforded, but a. to whether the Consul Of France !
ouId claim a subject of France. who had shigpcd on an Ameri- ,
an vessel at this port as "A drs2rter from the French Marine. or
a "A Few words, whether "a French Sailor, Whose contract with Z
IS vessel had eNprei- i-hsbeiug wrrcseIo and who huf slhSe '
'uenuy shipped IN an American vessel, could be reclaimed by q
~ Consul as a ieserter from the French Navy, ne being by the r
"l MS country liable 1t any moment 70 be- called into The
AuouHI service % his country. u was decided that he could
"t DE held as a tcserteT-and in that case. the flag under
'hich he shipped was his pr ,tectiOH from mTeSt-aud it
lt-ht Doe t7tpTTSSm'Ht And the authorities at Washington
'Heurfei. m the course, taken by Consul Pratt, in yr0tcctiug
ne seaman. and hr was To- the letter yTOtsctsd y the Govern 1
ent 90 the jut-t States, and 10y its right arm. the navy also. y
but the authorities did not decide tiat the said French sub 70