The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-26
THE RIGHTS OF sEAMEN
Judge Morrow Will Consider
the Case of the Arago
MutineerS.
THEY REFUSED TO WORK.
The Whole Matter Rests Upon the
ConStitutionality of the Law
Involved.

Judge Morrow of the United States Dis
trict Court was called upon yesterday to
wrestle with a serious legal proposition,
involving the constitutionality of the Fed
eral shipping laws. 1t was the case of the
four alleged mutineers of the bark Arago-
Philip Olsen, Morris Hansen, John Brad
ley and Robert Robertson. These four
men claimed that they are being restrained
of their liberty by the United States Mar
shall under an old maritime law, which is
in every feature opposed to the constltu-
tional laws of the United States.
They shipped from San Francisco origi-
nally for a voyage to the Columbia River
and from there to Valparaiso and return.
At Astoria the men deserted the ship and
refused to go any further. They were
arrested by the United States Marshal and
detained under orders of the Justice OF the
Peace there until the ship sailed. Then
they were placed on board the vessel, but
they refused to do any work, and the cap
tain arrested them for mutiny, in having
violated their contracts.
The point involved in the matter is one
which is of deep interest to seamen, and
there were many seafarlng men ana repre-
sentatives of the Coast Seamen's Union
among the spectators in court. Among
them were Andrew Furuseth, Macarthur,
J. Finnerty and others.
The case of the mutineers had already
come up before Uuited States Commits
sioner Heacock under preliminary pro-
ceedings and the men were held to await
the action Of the Federal Grand Jury. The
DELAY which this would cause was not sat
isfactory to either side, as the captain of
the Arago had put into this port to have
the matter determined one way or the
other 1t was in this way that Counsel ID.
w. Hutton, acting for the defendants,
asked for a writ of habeas corpus.
Preliminary to the argument yesterday
Commissioner Heacock was called as
witness and he related the evidence that
had been taken before him. He openly
stated that the men, by the testimony, Lad
been placed on the vessel against their
will, but that he had not taken that point
into consideration when he held them.
In holding them he had simply gone on
the proposition of refusing to perform
their work on the high seas.
Attorney II. w. Hutton represented the,
sailors, and in contending for their release
upon habeas corpus proceedings stated
that the law under which they were ar
rested is invalid, and that the men had
right to desert the ship ifthey wanted to
also, that having left the vessel no officer
had the right to put them back again un-
less they desired TO go.
Mr.. Hutton claimed that Congress had
no more right to make laws to punish sail
ors for violating their civil contracts than it
has to punish tradesmen who refuse to carry
out their agreements. If one of the latter
does not stay with his contracts he can be
sued civilly, but he cannot be punished as
a criminal If the sailors wanted to break
their contracts, he contended. they had
right to do so. The law which says they
- l<a 1oo nh nd n
prives men of their liberty. In that re-
spect it is not an American law and should
not be recognized in American courts.
In support of his statements Mr.. Hutton
quoted many decisions having bearing
on similar cases.
On behalf of the Government, District
Attorney Foote responded by saying that
a marine contract differed materially from
an ordinary one between two parties on
land. In order to insure ship-oWners pro-
lection it was really necessary to compel
sailor to live up to his voyage agreement.
If this was not the law ships would not
now be blowing the seas.
In the afternoon Judge Morrow ex-
pressed his views rather broadly, although
reserving his decision until later day.
He went over the various points that had
been brought out by the attorneys, and
added that the question presented was
complex one. The men, he said, were sup
posed to be American citizens, and, as
such, they had certain rights.
1.-THE fact remains, though" he added.
shat there is vast difference between
land laws and sea laws. The latter have
never been properly defined, and they may
never be-"
He went into a classical dissertation
about the days of ancient Greece and
Rome to carry out his points.
In conclusion, he said he would take all
the points involved under consideration,
and would render decision next Monday,
if not before.