The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-04-07

MS arises from the principle lnat IL Is their
duty TO their owners to prosecute the voyage
for its legitimate purpose as well as to pre-
serve their property.
n the case at bar, the first duty imposed
on them after the masters object was de-
clared to them, was TO themselves. They
must either then join in the crime and aid
its accomplishment, or resist the master and
overpOwer him, and restore the vessel to the
owners; so that in doing the first duty, the
second followed. / hold that when a crime
is being committed on board, il is the duty
of seamen and all others to stop it, although
il is being done BY the master. The conduct
of master does not discharge a seaman, but
rather imposes higher than ordinary duties
upon him.
The case of the Governor RqtFdes, . bod, IA,
is more analogous TO the case ut bar than any
other cited. II was case of salvage brought
by the carpenter and Others of the crew, for
having rescued the ship and cargo from some
Malay mutineers, who had risen on the mas
ter and taken possession of the property
The ship was on voyage from Batavia to
London, with crew consisting of four Eu-
ropeans, twenty-five native Portuguese, In
dams, Lascars and nineteen Malays. After
being out about six weeks, the Malays rose
upon the rest of the crew, and having killed
the gunner and Portuguese at the helm, and
one other Portuguese and four Lascars and
severely woundiDg the mate and several of
the crew, drove the rest below and kept pos
session of the ship for about one day and
half, when the libellants succeeded In getting
on deck, and attacked the Malays, knocked
three of them overheard, and drove the rest
below and fastened down the matches upon
them There was further serious difficulty
with the Malays, but the libellants succeeded
in gaining possession of the ship and cargo
and afterwards brought the ship to the port
of her destination.
Sir William Scott, in giving judgment in
the case, said: 'That he was not aware of
any case in which the Court had taken upon
Itself to assign a reward for services precisely
of this description. 1t has been said that no
eXac: definition of salvage is given in any of
the books. do not know that it has, and l
should be sorry to limit it by any definition
now. But it appears 10 me, that it is the
bounden duty Of the crew to give any as
sistance in their power TO prevent and quell
a mutiny and to use their utmost eXertions
to preserve or recover the possession of the
vessel and goods of their employers"
The learned Judge held the case under adj
visement, to see if any precedents could be
produced, and as none were found, the suit
was dismissed.
This case was tried more than a half-cen-
tury ago, and although the commerce and nav
igation OF the world has very largely increas-
ed, yet case analogous to the present, can
not be found in the books to sustain the
principles commended for by counsel for the
ibellauts; a mere performance of duty gives
no claim for salvage.
This was not certainly a case of mutiny,
but II was an effort of the master to cause
the lbellants TO aid him in running away
with vessel, and convert her to his own
use.
1t was a criminal offense and it forced the
men either to resist the master, and take the
vessel or cooperate with him. Having stat
ed his intentions and being engaged at the
time in carrying them into effect by putting
the vessel on q course for the port to which
be told them he was bound, and in direc-
ton opposite to her legitimate destination,
they must either acquiesce and aid him in
his wrong doing, and thereby become paT-
ticipeS cTiH,iaiS or resist his wicked PURPOSE
and take the vessel from him and restore her
TO her owners. No man is entitled to salv-
age for not joining in crime, and if he aids
the master directly or Indirectly in carving
out his criminal purpose he becomes impli-
Gated in the same crime.
Under the circumstances, this crew were
bound to disobey the masters orders to rem
der aid in taking the vessel to Manila. or
become criminals themselves Salvage is
awarded for hazardous service in saving YES
sci and cargo, performed by seamen not con-
nected with the vessel but an omission TO rem
case at bar an aequiescence with the masters
views, unless overDowered by superior force, is |
in fact cooperation in the crime itself To |
resist the efforts of Others to make one commit
a crime is not matter of reward 1t NAV
have merit, but not such as entities to com
pensation as salvage But is said that the
Libcllants not only did not cooperate but |
they by, the exercise of energy and courage,
Oyerpowered the master and took the vessel |
from his command and delivered her to the |
owners. One course or the other they must |
take, either to aid the master in his criminal |
purpose or to resist him. The situation was |
a trying one but still their course was plain. |
from the fact that the master had declared TO |
them his purpose to runaway with the vessel, |
and demanded their cooperation by threats |
stimulated by the offer of money, and in pur-
suance of his declared purpose had put his |
vessel on the course of his proposed voyage. |
Hence the course and duty of the seamen |
was clear They incurred no hazard in resis- |
ting the master, for his criminal purpose was
manifested by his own declarations and more /
conclusiyely by his acts in accordance with
them. 1t was not q case of doubt. The |
Libellants must either take the course they
did or be involved in the crime. They had
not the apology that a portion of the crew
had Joined the master and that resistance
was useless or uncertain in its result They
certainly had the physical power to confine
the master without much personal hazard
and take the control of the vessel A court
Of Admiralty would not justify seamen in
deposlng the master by assuming control of |
the vessel unless in case, like the present,
where the purposes of the master both by
declarations and acts were manifest In a
doubtful case the court would not hold them
responsible for the acts of the master. for
they could not be implicated in criminal
cooperation. But in this case there was
threat and a bride offered for their assistance
in the crime. So in my view, the argument
of the counsel that the seamen incurred great
responsibility in resisting the master utterly
fails. 1t was far greater responsibility to
unite with the master in his effort to run
away with the vessel.
Reference has been made to the Mdry Ann.
Abbotts l, Adm. Rep. go. This was a libel
by the seamen to recover wages 1t appears
that the crew shipped for a voyage to the
coast OF Africa, and after arriving there they
became suspicious that the master intended
to employ the vessel in the slave trade.
Whereupon they took possession of the yes
sci, and after navigating her along the coast
to ind an American cruiser, but without
success, under whose authority they propos-
ed to place her, they brought her back to the
port of New York The court say "that
the crew had right to withdraw themselves
from connection with such a criminal enter
prise, and did no more nor less their duty in
saving to the owner his vessel by putting it
out of the power of the master TO employ
her in that felonious pursuit"
is only in extreme cases that the seamen
can interfere. 1t must be very clear to his
mind from palpable facts that the master In
tends to commit a crime, or the Interference
on his part will be Illegal II is danperous
By the maratime law man is
permitted to interfere by force to restrain or
prevent an officer from committing a crime
in his presence or through his agency. 1t
will not be commended that a man is entitled