The New York herald., 1873-10-21
SHIPPING TROUBLES.
The Controversy Between Ship-owners
and the Com m missiOners-COllectOr iss Ar
thurs Construction OF the Law.

The Controversy Between ship-owners
and the Com ommissioncrs-Collector Ar
thurs Construction or the Law.
For some time past controversy existed be-
tween ship-owners and masters OF vessels and
United States Shipping Commissioner Duncan and
General c. A. Arthur, Collector OF the Port, IN re-
gard to the certifcation Of shipping actices and
the working OF the new shipping law.
The shipping law as passed by act OF Congress,
June Z, 1872, in sections II ana 13, makes it
obligatory on masters OF vessels bound from
any port OF the United States to any
foreign port, or of vessels OF the
burthen of seventy-five tons and upwards, bound
from an Atlantic port In the United States to
Pacific port in the United States the converse,
to ship their crews before United States shipping
commissioner, according to articles prescribed
therein One OF the provisions of section OF the
same act says that this act shall not prevent the
owner, consignee or master of any vessel, except
those described in section u, from performing
himself the duties OF shipping commissioner"
An amendment, passed January l5 1873, provides
that 'ths section shall not Apply to masters Of
vessels when engaged in trade between the United
States and the North American British Possessions,
Mexico.n
This section or amendment is exactly the bone OF
contention between the shipowners and Captain
! Duncan, and 1t is direct question whether the
law as amended is defective or not and whether its
wording can be construed so as not to except YES
sells evidently not intended to be affected thereby
The Collectors action in deciding what shipping
articles to certify Is, In view OF this case, very deli
cate and requisite OF the incest discrimination In
asmuch as under the act OF July 90 1S40. section
owners OF vessels are required to obtain from the
Collector OF the Port certified copy of the snip
ping articles.
decision Of Judge Benedict, upon which the
Shipping Commissioner claims to act, is in refer
ence to the steamer City OF Mexico. charged with
shipping crew for voyage to the West Indies
and Mexico by written shipping articles, executed
by the crew on board the.vessel. before q notary,
as in violation OF section 13, and under penalty OF
$500 by section IA. In the argument Of the case
1t was urged by the defence that the act Of 1890
sttuted and that the act OF 1873, by its amend
ment OF section IL, excepted vessels on voyages
such as the voyage In question by the City OF
Mexico and that The vessel was not
bound to have the shipping articles The
Court held that no such effect could be
given to the act OF 1872 as to repeal that Of $780,
The defendants did not give the practical construc-
tion, for they shipped in accordance with the act
OF 1890. Section l3 requires all contracts with
it does not limit the requirement to those de-
nominated under section IL, and Judge Benedict
held that section 13 applicable to every agree
ment made by sailor for his services in any vessel
The Collector has nothing to do with the law
being accountable only to the secretary of the
Treasury for the proper administration Of his
office, and as such ne does not recognize the de-
cision of Judge Benedict as governing his ac: ion
concerning the certlfcati0n OF shipping articles
law is equivOca and doubtful.
General Arthur states that the case with all its
bearings, has been referred to Secretary Richard
son Tor his decision