The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-09-17

|
| spoiled, were utterly unfit for food and were
only used by the crew because of their necessi.
tous condition.
The latter part of the voyage there was q
denciency OF water, but the master took on
| board at Gibraltar, more than was required by
| the Swedish law for the contemplated voyage.
| The sugar and molasses also fell short, but 115
| pounds OF sugar were purchased at Alexandria
and % pounds OF molasses at Gibraltar, which
| were T. ore than were requisite for the crews
| allowance--protracted as was the voyage-f
these articles had not been wasted or other
| wise wrongfully disposed OF. After leaving
| Alexandria there was neither butter nor oil.
| AT that port the master purchased a small
quantity OF oil, which tie men would not use
ON account of its alleged poor quality. The
master therefore sailed from that port without
| obtaining either of these articles. In this re-
| spect he was in fault, as he should have COM
| piled with the laws of his country and OBJ
| tanned either oil or butter that the crew might
| have the same, if they should afterwards re-
| quire 1t.
At Alexandria 1,1O0 pounds of shipbrea
| were procured, 600 or 700 pounds OF which, as
the master states, were on hand when they left
| Gibraltar. The latter part of the voyage the
| crew were allowed one to two biscuit per day.
| less tha half the quantity to which they were
| entitled by the Swedish law. BY the laws of
! this country go pounds of bread for each man.
| is required TO be slowed under deck before
sailing upon an ocean VOYAGE and the amount
on board the Amalia was in excess of the re-
quirements of our law. Her voyage was much
protracted, and 700 pounds of bread would Or
dinarily afford crew of nine men allow
ance OF pounds per week on a voyage from
Gibraltar to Portland Such a voyage, at this
season of the year usually takes from As to 80
days. but with so foul a ship think the master
OF the Amalia had no right to expect passage
| OF less than 10 days, or about two months. On
her voyage to New York the crew consumed
two barrels OF beef or pork per month, and this
master undertook to make his passage from
Gibraltar to Portland with not more than one
and half barrels on board, having no reason
to suppose that his passage would be less than
o0 days, in which time, If the crew were sup
Piled as on the voyage to New York, 800 pounds
OF salted meat would have been consumed by
them, or, il the requirements Of the Swedish
law were to be observed, about 500 pounds
would have been requisite.
1t thus appears that there was great and
inexcusable deficiency in the supply of salt
provisions wheE this vessel left Gibraltar
This was something more than an accidental
mistake or error of judgment on the masters
part in thus setting sail on this voyage with
short supply, endangering the safety of his
ship and his crew, intending to speak some
vessel and obtain provisions from her II In
need.
1t is urged that the true test for the Court to
adopt, in deciding upon the question Of the
discharge OF the crew from their obligations to
this ship, is whether there is reason to appre-
hend that they may again be subjected to a
like condition of things II they remain in her
service. But in the opinion of the Court, such
is not the sole or princiDal question upon
which the rights of these men must depend.
There can be but little doubt that hereafter
the master will provide all that is requisite
for such voyage, and that his crews will es-
cape the sufferings these men have been sub
jected to; but the matter here for consideration
is not the future conduct of the master, but
what are the legal rights of the libellants, and
whether on the present voyage they have been
so treated by the master as to require the
Court to discharge them from further service.
When this vessel sailed from Gibraltar with
so inadequate supply of provisions, the mas
ter knew that he was acting both in violation
OF the laws of his country and in breach of his
contract with the libellants. From some cause
he was willing thus to act, and in so doing was
seriously endangering the safety of the ship
and cargo, as we'll as the lives Of all on board.
AT that season of the year, in the condition in
which his ship then was, the chances were all
against their reaching their port of destination
before their provisions were exhausted, and to
this risk be voluntarily subjected all on board,
trusting that some passing vessel might supply
their needs. The result of ais conduct has
been that, to prolong their lives, the crew, on
some days have been compeledto to subsist ON
decayed fish, while on other days they have
been wholly deprived of every kind of meat,
or it has been doled out to them in so small q
quantity as to be almost an aggravation of
their miseries. Some of the crew have been,
and still are, afflicted with one Of the worst
diseases that seamen can be subjected to, sour
Wy, their physician testifying that they are not
now, AMI will not b. for some time, in condi-
tion to do duty on an ocean voyage, and all
must have be en- necessarily much reduced in
strength by their sufferings occasioned by the
masters neglect. This, therefore, is no ordi-
nary breach of contract with his crew, by
the master of a ship, but is of a most fragrant
character, without the slightest justification,
occasioning the crew very great suffering and
l.rn - hi
stances Court of Admiralty would be justi-
lied in generating q crew from further service
under their contract, it is difficult to imagine
a case where more cogent reasons could be
found for such action of the Court than are
here presented.
1t is claimed that the master treated his
crew with cruelty and harshness and that he
assaulted one or more of them 1t is sufficient
to remark that the court does not find, that
the evidence sustains this charge.
Another allegation is, that the first mate
abused the men and that were they to remain
on board. in all probability, they would again
be subject to like treatment from that officer.
The evidence discloses that on one occasion
the mate did strike with a Delaying pin, one
of the seamen on his head, infiicting seriou
wound on the mans scalp, and tnat at anoth-
er time another Of the crew was struck by
him, with bucket upon the shoulders. On
both OF these occasions, the Seamen were in
fault and merited moderate chastisement but
struments as the mate employed for this pur-
pose. On both occasions the master was on
board, and he does not appear to have taken
any measures to restrain the mates violence,
although he was aware of the quarrels
From all the testimony, conclude, that the
mate is passionate, inclined to quarrel with
his men, and ready to infiict punishment up
on them, without much regard for the danger
GUS nature of the instrument employed by
him, and that the master did not discharge his
duty to his crew, by protecting them from
such assaults. fear the crew may well ex-
pect such treatment hereafter from the mate,
in case of any misunderstanding between
them, and that it is desirable, that they should
no longer be exposed to danger at his hands.
but have grave doubts, whether, from all
that appears in evidence as to the mates mis-
conduct L should for that cause be justified
in dscharging the entire crew, even il / should
release those who have suffered from his as
saults. l prefer to rest my decision upon
the misconduct of the master in sailing from
Gibraltar with such great lack Of the provi-
sions required by the laws of his country for
the support of his men, For this cause, they
be paid the balance of their wages due to
them at the time they left the ship.
1t is further claimed in the libel, that they
are entitled to recover damages for having
been put upon short allowance. The master
having broken his contract with the libelants,
and they having been injured thereby, they
should be indemnifed. In such cases seamen
have always received some compensation, and
an allowance of one months extra pay is for
this cause decreed to each of the libellants.
Bird & Thomas for libell ants.
Webb & Haskell for claimants.