Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-10-07
OPINION OF JUDGE CREME IN TEE
FANoTs CaAIIEyGER CASE.

4
/
ny opinion, expressed with difidenca
IN passing upon the exceptions 10 tn.
ntsi, remains unchanged. Had the I'D
verse case of The Guiding Star"
FED hep. yi1, which Is precisely IL
polnt, been then before me. might. il
difference TO Its Authority. have tier
made II the guiding star of my decision
but that case seems to stand absolutely
alone
| Were it net for R1le l6. there could
De no question as 20 the law. The
very simplicity and eonciseness of that
| RUE Is q source of obscarIfy. Ii says
that In ali suits for an assault or
/ beating on the high seas, or elsewhere
within the admiralty and maritime ju-
/ risuIctIon, the suit shall be "a perSoHdFa
only. This il a brief sentence. IN
which everything depends upon the
sense OF the proposition for" Does
ms particle mean because Of or or ac-
count 81, or does IL mean trifh regard 90 :
Does II point TO the very eaass of action
Itself, On account Of which the action Is
waged, or does II merely indicate a fact,
which may exist subordinate to the i'm
mediate reason of the action, but to
which regard Is had because IL is part of
| the bedy of facts detsrminatIve of the
amount of the recovery Mr.. Benedict
tBenedlcs's Adm. Sec. 3J9) thinks that
the rule applies only 10 suits technically
for assault and battery, Jas a mere tort,
aud that on principle, II the action be
brought on the contract, as for not
treating with proper kindness seaman
or passenger, an assault or beating be-
ing the graeameH of the breach, the &C
ton may be ia rem against the vessel.
My opinion coincides with that of Mr..
Benedict.
The learned judge who heard the case
of The Guiding Star advances but
two reasons why he decides differently:
list. Because the books give no case TO
support that opinion; and md. Because
ns precedent for such a suit appears.
But, on principle, il might. nevertheless,
be that tae suit would lie; for mistake,
caution or expedlency might explain
the failure to bring 1t. A misapprehen-
sion of RUle 10, like that which has eX-
listed respecting Rule Il. may have early
prevailed among the bar, and later there
may have been fear that no suit could
live IN a vacuum of precedent. Besides,
IL Is TO be noted that in the vast major
ity of actual and possible cases a suit
IA lpersoEdnt, with arrest of the master
or owners, or attachment of the vessel
as of the goods and ehattels of the own
ers, would answer every purpose of an
action iH rem.
Several reasons occur to me why this
suit should be allowed.
LIST. The construction of Rule l6 Is
doubtful. But, in doubtful case, that
construction should be favored which
favors jurisdiction and amplitied RENE
dies B0ni jstiicis anpiidre .juTisdicti0Eent
i. c. jHstitidm.
I'd. Where the suit is upon contract
for humane treatment, the breach or
breaches may consist of mixed matter,
part battery, part false imprisonment,
part SANDER, part deprivation of food,
drink or clothing, or shelter, and all
these SO related as to be iInbedded in
separately IN the same res gestde. Adj |
miralty loves cheap justice and hates
multiplicity of suits.
Sd. In admiralty the ship is regarded |
as person. With her the sailors are |
deemed to have made their contract of |
shipment. Now the only sort of suit |
that can be brought against ship is |
the action ia rem. This Rule 10 were |
a strange law if it shoald be under |
btpOd w hOooAfO VIZ oAiP AiOlh lAaOhAey
on her personal contract by taking |
away the right to sue her personally |
and shutting the sutton up to pgevi- |
ously possessed, but, quite likely, less |
valuable right of suing somebody else.
4th. The ship is sailors security |
for performance of the contract of |
shipment; and if he be disabled by per-
sonal injuries, and he at u distance of |
thousands of miles from the owners, |
aud a shipmaster or others who caused |
his injury are pecuniarily irresponsible, |
and the practice requires & stipulation |
or bond that he, because of poverty, |
cannot give, and he has no recourse |
against the ship, he is practically rene |
diless, and the more grievous his bodily |
and peouniary, the more hopeless his |
legal disability. Yet admiralty is |
equity.
9th. The case of the Panama CT w. L. |
5lS, IL Otto, 453) proceeded and was
sustained as contract and IN rem, hav- |
ing for its grdednieH bodily injury suf |
fered by the llbellant from falling |
through a hatc.; and, although the in |
Jury was negligent and not voluntary, |
vet in principle the case would not have |
been materially different had the libel |
liant been cafelessly permitted to be |
pushed down the hatch instead of hav- |
ing been allowed by gross negligence to |
fall through IL. So slight a change |
could hardly be supposed to take away |
her rights ia rem.
Sammarily stated, the salient facts in |
this case are these: The Challenger ar
rived in Puget Sound after FIVE months
voyage from Philadelphia. At the time |
of her arrival almost every one of her /
crew, from the third mate to cabin boys |
inclusive, was in a sick, bruised and |
crippled condition, attributed by them |
to maltreatment by the first and second |
mates. Three of the crew showed re-
cent fractures of the arm. one other a |
still unhealed fracture of the jaw. of |
all of which fractures the officers one |
and all professed utter Ignorance. In |
the course of the voyage there was a
death inviting attempt to escape from
the ship by one sailor, an unsuccessful |
attempt to commit suicide by another,
and what i am constrained to believe
was q successful suicide by a third. |
Both mates we're indicted and convicted |
fer criminal abuse of the seamen.
These are the main thoroughly estab-
lished facts, and they harmonic we'll |
with the personal narrative of each sea-
man as TO tne particular treatment |
which he himself and others received.
Respondents testimony completely |
fails, in my judgment, TO meat and |
falsify the testimony of libeilants. l |
can but conclHde that the master was
culpahiy negligent in not looking after
the discipline Of the ship more carefully |
than be did, and not controlling his
mates in their treatment of the men.
His negligence, in my opinion, has oc-
casioned the personal injuries for which
that the libellants are respectively enti-
tied to recover the amounts following,
that is to say; Seraghi MARROW, for in
jaries to the person $l5O0, for wages
<3T SO; Robert Olsnder, for personal in
juries $500. for wages $29 rs; August
Anderson, for personal injuries S6c0, fer
suacras xal 81. EranE IL Gehaatf.. e.