The New York herald., 1869-05-13

she,r ,pt,es and IN rurxue business attended with
80 much or peru and hardship Inc ssIniueS so, o nd
cargo as these of the captain and crew. His
COMPENSATION comes from the same source
as theirs Like them ne ebere setSes pe suy Default on
his part the owner has the same reheuies agaamst
him as against other delnauents on poaro. me me
difference between his relations and those OF the
master Is one rather OF form than substance II Is
the duty OF the master interfere IN cases OF the
pilots lntoxicarion or manifest ncapacity, IN cases
of danger which he not fOresee and IN all cases
OF great necessity. lThe Argo, Swabey, 4o4; inc
sas nawer to dispace the pilot that he has to re-
move any subordinate officer of the vessel. lie may
exercise il or not, according TO hs discretion Ihe
maritime law as to the position and powers OF tue
master and the responsibility OF the vessel Is not de-
rived from the civil law o! master and servant nor
FROM the common law. IL had its source In the COM
mercal usages and jurisprudence OF the middle
ages. Originally the primary liability was upon the
vessel and that OF the owner was not personal but
merely incidental to his ownership, from when he
was discharged either by the loss OF the vessel or
by abandoning II to the creditors. But while the
law limited the creditor to this part OF the owners
property gave him lien privilege against 1t in
preference to other creditors. (The Phoebe ware
273; The Creole, Wall, Jr, 5ls.) The maxim OF
the civil aw---sic Mere tuO at non LPddS diienuin-
may. however be fifty applied In such cases as the
one before u.s. The remedy OF the damaged vessel
be mere deluslon. He would often be unable to
respond by payment, especially If the amount re-
covered were large. Thus, where the INJURY was we
failure of justice. According TO the admiralty law
the collision lmpresses upon the wrong doing vessel
q maritime lien. This the vessel carries with
II into whosesoever hands IL may come. IL
Is nchoate at the moment OF the wrong and
must be perfected by subsequent proceedings.
Unlike common law lien possession Is not neces-
sary its validity II rather i'll the nature OF the
hypothecation OF The civil law. Ii Is not ndeble,
but may be lost by locks other circumstances.
crhe Bold Bucceugh, Moore p. c.. 2S4 Edwards vs..
The K. F. stockton. Crabbe $50; the America, 16
Law Reps, 264; the Lion. Law Reps, November
1851 The proposition OF the appellants would blot
out this important feature OF the maritime code ana
greatly impair the efficacy OF the system. The ap
pelees are seeking the fruit OF their lien. All port
regulations are compulsory. The provisions OF the
statute OF New York are part OF the series within
that category. damaging vesse! is no more en-
cused because she was compelled to obey one than
another. The only question in all such cases Is,
'Was she In fault." The appellants were bound 10
know the law. They cannot plead ignorance. The
law OF the place makes them liable. Ths
ship was brought voluntarily within the sphere OF
its operation, and they cannot complain because IL
throws a loss upon them rather than upon the own
ers OF the innocent vessel We think the rule which
works this result is wise and sanitary one, and we
feel no disposition to disturb it. The steamship is
foreign vessel. We have therefore considered the
learned and able argument or the counsel for the
appellants with more care than We should otherwise
have deemed necessary. Maritime Jurisprudence il
a part OF the law of nations. We have been i'm
pressed with the Importance Of its right admnstra
ton In this case The decree OF the Circuit Court Is
atfrmel.