The New York herald., 1873-10-04
BROOKLYN COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

The Shipping Act-important Decisions.
Judge Benedict rendered decision yesterday IN
the case of the United States against the Steam
ship City OF Mexico, which was virtually decision
on the shipping Act OF 1872, by which Shipping
Commissioners were appointed to superintend the
shipping and discharge OF steamers.
The case was argued some months ago, District
Cowing for the steamer.
The following is the decision
United states vs. steamship City OF Mexico
The present Is a proceeding TO condemn the steam
ship City of Mexico IN penalty Tor an alleged ship
ment OF seamen contrary 10 the provisions OF the
act OF June !, 1872 entitled IAN act to authorize
the appointment OF Shipping Commissioners by
the several Circuit Courts OF the United States to
superlntend the shipping and discharge OF seameu
engaged IN merchant ships belonging TO the
United states, and for the further protection oil
men, The facts are conceded to be that the owners
OF the steamship City OF Mexico caused a crew
to be shipped on board that vessel Tor voyage
the Republic of Mexico, bv written shipping
articles, executed by the crew on board their
vessel before notary public and not before the
Shipping Commissioner. such shipment OF the
crew, tile government contends, is IN violation OF
the thirteenth section OF the Shipping act referred
to above, and renders the ship liable to penalty
OF 5000 as prescribed In the fourteenth section OF
that act The argument on the part OF the vessel
is tnat the original act OF $780, which requires an
agreement in writing or in print in certain
form, with any mariner on any vessel bound from
port OF the United states to any foreign port is
City OF Mexico, repealed By the passage OF The Ship
ping act OF June L 1872 the latter act being IN
tended TO be substitute in such cases, for the act
OF $780, and that by the amendment OF the Shipping
act OF January TO- 1873 vessels In voyages like that
oil the City Of Mexico are excepted from the effect
Of the substitute, consequently 1t is claimed all
vessels bound to the West indies and the repub-
lie OF Mexico are exempted from any legal
obligation TO nave any shipping articles and there
fore are not liable 70 any penalty Tor Shipment IN
violation OF the act OF 1872 Upon this question
Judge Benedct's opinion is that in present con-
given to the Shipping Act or l512 aS to wo ork a
repeal by implication OF the original act OF 1870.
IL IL dlttcult 10 suppose that 1t was the inten-
ton OF Congress by any provision in the act
OF 1872 an act declared TO be intended Tor the
from the uniform practice OF this
Government from It's foundation, as OF
ment OF seamen, and to have all seanen engaged
in tue extensive commerce included within the
language Of section II OF the act without any
statutory protection as to the mode Of hiring them
Such has not been the construction given to the
act in practice OF the merchants, nor was such the
construction put upon 1t by the claimants in the
present instance, for they caused the crew TO
be shipped IN accordance with the act Of
$780, The act oi 1872, as ais the act OF
1890, recognizes and should be construed as In
harmony WITH the rule OF the general maritime
law upon this subject. .Tne maritime law, as a
general principle, requires seamen's contracts TO
be evinced W writing (Ware, j., The Crusader,
Ware, r. D. 457.) BY the general maritime law
then well by act oil 1890, a written contract
with this crew was doubtless required: certainly
such an agreement was not forbidden. But by
section l3 OF the act or 1872, certain rules are
prescribed which TO be observed in re-
| spect TO all written agreements procured to
be executed by seamen, one of which ls that
the agreement shall be signed by each seaman
| in presence Of Shipping Commissioner.
| There Is much reason for the application OF the
rule in all cases, for searnen are children. They
sign anything placed before them, and such rule
IL calculated 70 prevent the obtaining OF their sig
natures as evidence OF their agreement. except IN
the presence OF duly authorized officer charged
with the duty oil protecting them against
imposition and fraud 1t was for this
reason no doubt that the thirteenth sec
ton OF the act winch forbids the
execution OF a written contract with seaman,
except in the presence OF tie Shipping Commls-
sioner was made generally applicable 70 all writ
ten agreements with seamen. 30 words III the
section Indicate intention TO limit the effect TO
the cases Of agreements provided Tor ia section H.
and Judge Benedict considers 1t applicable TO
every agreement made in writing by a sailor for
MS services on any vessel. The provision
OF the law dsregarded in the snip
ment OF the crew OF this steamer, and by
virtue OF the fourteenth section OF the act
OF 1872, which PROVIDES "a penalty OF $500 for
'.receiving or accepting on board any merchant
ship who has been engaged or supplied contrary 10
tine provisions OF this act,n the steamer became
ble to the penalty. decree must accordingly he
entered condemning the steamer in the sum OF 800
and cost. Ii is understood there viii be appeal
from the decision.