The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1866-12-15
COurt-In 4 admiralty
ELLIS YONG vs.. w;LLItH PHILLIPS.

t Supreme Court-In Admiralty.
ELIAS YONG V. WILLIAM PHILLIPS.
: Is a question Of jurisdiction by the coar- OF this Kingdom
/ under the -lst Article o.: the Treaty Sith France, tie right OF
E the Court 20 take Jurisdiction At It's discretion, Is cove ned Is
vel hy The general principles Of maritime law as BY the pro-
: The approval o The foreign Consul does not confer jurisdiction,
ciciion which Is IfUae'SH iu our Courts
The jurisdiction q the Courts to take cpgnizance OF civil con,ro-
FreDrb Trs,,v I.- K, 49, - - - - ~ .e
senior approval q Tie Consul. that the Cour: may take cog
ing Parties should t~ exclusively of tire same nationality, hut
they must sta be attached TO the vessel by tie ems q tie
contract q Shipment.
II the complaining party has been discharged or forced to leave
the -, md ii' psr : g a5, nls Z, aeon NV "4 Ga a ai' Sa. to
this hinsi1m. Il my are willing to entertain IT. unless he
tribunals but those Of TIE home forum.
The Courts 4 ths Kinci9m, sitting as Courts Of Admiralty in
common with Admiralty Courts IN the United states aud
Grrai britain, nag exercise jurisdiction in c-ses Ike the
contract j. At tie port, o. these Stands, and ~h.re an entire
failure Of justice would ensue, should the complaints be dir
Protest Of tn Consul Of the United States oyerralel, and cause
Justice Robertson delivered the decision on the
question Of jurisdiction, as follows:
Elias Young filed two hbe!s in Admiralty, before
one of the Justices of this Court; the first being a
libel iR PsrsoHGm, against William Phillips, master
OF the whaleship -7rettc. in a cause Of damage; and
the other. a libel IN rem against the ship .4rctic, for
wages.
Counsel for the respondent moved the Court to dis
HIS a"S AA1t"I "a Ah1 6AbGLG NAAl a NOuIE ul5 u o
Jurisdiction over either case, without the approval or
consent OF the Consul OF the United States at this
port, by reason OF the provisions of the Dist Article
of the Treaty with France. and the 10Th Article of
the Treaty with the United States of America. The
----.THE Ii
Justice overruled the motion, holding that the Court
does possess. and may exercise jurisdiction in suits
like the present. Whereupon an appeal was taken
TO the full Court.
Before the case came up for argument on the ap-
peal, the Consul of the United States for Honolulu,
. Efa , -.,,aZ ON tho E.,rr --1aaa1S.. ~ ,ba
cause, which protest il was understood should be
held applicable to the suit in pers0adm, as if it
should be overruled in that case, it could not prevail
in the other. The substance of the protest may be
comprehended in two grounds Of objection, viz
Firstly, that the ship .4rctic is IN American vessel,
owned by citizens of the United States; that both the
parties Iitigant are citizens of the United States; that
the alleged cause of action arose on said vessel while
on the high seas; and that it is not usual for Courts
of Admiralty, i'll cases OF this kind and under SINH
lar circumstances, to entertain jurisdiction without
the consent OF the representative of the country to
which the parties belong, which in this case is ex-
pressly refused Secondly. that by the Dist Article
of the recent Treaty with France, ii is provided that
Consuls shall have the erciuSire charge of the in
ternal order on board OF the merchant vessels Of
their nations, and they are alone authorized to take
cognizance of all crimes. misdemeanors, and other
matters of difference which may supervene in rela-
ton 10 said Internal order, aud the local authorities
are not to interfere therein, unless by consent OF the
Consul; and that by virtue of the ID and 10Th Arti-
Giles of the Treaty with the United States, the juris-
dictlOn and privileges guaranteed 10 the tOnSuiS ana
subjects OF France belongs by parity to the Consuls
and citizens Of the United States.
The COnsul's protes; means, then. IN few words,
that under the general maritime law. as usSSTt ad
ministered. the Court ought b exercise jurisdic-
ton in this cese-g.it1nout his consent; and that in
view v gyie 2lst Article of the Treaty with France,
) we cannot exercise jurisdiction without such consent,
which i. refused.
In examining and Ieciiing upon the question
which is thus raised, we must take the case as pre-
sented by the allegations Of the libel. no answer hav-
ing been put in by the respondent, nor evidence given
before the Court. We note this position because,
while the libel may show a prima facie case for our
jurisdiction, the evidence might subsequently, show
that The case is in fact one in which We ought TO de-
cline, or do not possess, jurisdiction.
The libellant alleges that in the spring of 1909 he
shipped at Honolulu on board of the -7rctie, as
ships carpenter, for one whaling season to the North,
and to be discharged ut Honolulu at the end of the
season; that, n short time after sailing from Homo
lulu, being at the Island OF Saypan, one of the La
drone Islands, the respondent obliged him to leave
the ship and go on shore, the Hbeliant being at the
time unwell, but not III a manner dangerous TO him
self or others; that the respondent caused him to be
placed on shore without clothes other than those ut
the time upon his person, although he had q sufh-
cheney Of clothes on board of the ship, which he was
not allowed TO take away; that he was purposeiy
landed at a distance from the inhabited parts of the
island; that he was unacquainted with the manners
or language of the inhabitants; that Saypan is not a
place of frequent resort for vessels, and that he was
2 obliged to remain there for about a year, during
which time he suffered great hardship.
We will first examine the proposition that the
Court cannot, in view of treaty stipulations, enter
E tain this suit without the consent of the Consul Of
the United States, because, if that position is sound,
; the libel must be dismissed. The twenty first article
Of the treaty with France reads as follows " In
everything that concerns the police OF the port, the
| lading and discharging of vessels, the safety Of mer-
chaudise. property and goods. the subjects of the two
countries shall be respectively subject to the laws
and statutes Of the territory. Nevertheless, the re-
spective CUnsuls shall be exclusively charged with
D the internal order on board OF the merchant vessels
of their nation, and shall alone take cognizance of all
D the crimes, misdemeanOrs, and other matters OF diff
ference in relation TO said Internal order, which may
supervene between the master, the officers, and the
crew, provided the cOntending parties be exclusively
E French or Hawaiian subjects, and the local authori-
p ties shall not be allowed therein to interfere, unless
by the approval or consent OF the COnsu!s, or IN cases
where the public peace and tranquility are disturbed
and endangered.
D Now, the question is, to what extent has his Maj
j esty, by asserting to the provisions of this article,
| limited the exercise of the Jurisdiction possessed by
his Courts Of Justice at the time the treaty was ratl-
0 fed We say limited, because this article OF the
3 treaty has not, in fact, either augmented or dimin-
e ished the jurisdiction which our Courts might have
r rightfully exercised previous to its adoption, but has
| simply made the exercise of Jurisdiction IN certain
cases, 10 depend upon the approval or consent OF the
Consul, if there is one here, or upon the occurrence
Of a case which disturbs and endangers the public
e peace. 1t is equally true, then, in any case where
\ our right to take jurisdiction is affected by the provi-
d sions Of this article, as it would be in any case gov
y erned by general maritime law in which the Couri
s might take jurisdiction at its discretion, that the ap
proyal of the foreign Consul does not confer jurisdIc
. ton, but simply iarokes, or assents 10, the exercise
of the jurisdiction which is inherent in our Courts
e (The .Golubchuck," 1 W. Rob, 143) That this il
true, is proved by the provision OF the treaty itself
: which guarantees the right of the local authorities Il
interfere in cases of disturbance Of the public peace
without the Consul's consent.
At the time Of the ratification of the treaty will
France, the jurisdiction possessed by this Court. as
Court Of Admiralty. extended 1" to all cases of Ad
miralty and maritime jurisdiction Constitution
Article S4), and the jurisdiction of our Courts gene
rally extended, like that of other independent States
L to oil persons and property, for the time being, with
l.. L. torritnrial limits Of the kinglnm. Mhethe