The herald., 1897-02-09
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY o, 1907.
SAILORS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

The decision of the federal supreme
court in the ship Argo case is attracting
general attention and agitating labor
circles not little. The court holds that
under the existing law the master of a
coastwise vessel may causi a seaman to
be arrested and imprisoned if he at
tempts to quit the service of the vessel
before the expiration of the time which
he had contracted to serVe-the sailor
to be held in confinement until the ship
is ready to go to sea, when he shall b.
put aboard.
1t is no doubt true that less progress in
the direction of advancing labor to
higher levels of personal rights has been
made in the marine than in any other
line of employment, but there has been
some reason for it. A ship cannot put
to sea short handed without endanger-
ing life and property; besides, when
ship starts upon a voyage its owner,
the owner of the cargo and the master of
the vessel have the right to be insured
against any conduct on the part of the
seamen that would jeSardize life or
property, or seriously delay the delivery
of the cargo at the point Of destination.
The maritime laws of the country give
a ship tl.e character of public carrier
and define its rights and privileges as
well as its obiga tions to the public, and
the law not only presumes that the car
rier and its employees will serve the pub
lie well and faithfully, but it assumes
the right to oblige them to.
The public is apt to lose sight of court
decisions which bear directly upon the
relation a common carrier and its en-
ployes sustains to the community. The
fact il the United States courts have
held time and again that an employe has
no right to abruptly quit the service of
public carrier if his quitting would in
any way cripple the efficiency of the
carrier to supply the public with needed
facilities of intercommunity communi-
cation and transportation. That is to
say, after railway employe has re-
ported for duty he cannot lawfully quit
the service of the carrier until he has
completed the trip which the train is
advertised to make. The opinion of tho
courts has been that the public has in
terest in the conduct of common car
rier, and that it has the right to expect
TO find ell the conveniences which the
carriers charter requires it to furnish
and that its trains will be dispatched
on schedule time.
But there should be point somewhere
in the economy Of government beyond
which the public may not invade per-
sonal liberty and individual rights. and
surely that point should be reached be-
fore the authority is conceded to en-
ployer to arrest and imp1son his en-
ploye for breach of contract of work.
Unless it could be esta ablished beyond a
doubt that an employe broke his con-
tract from hatred, malice or a desire for
revenge, and to jeopaydize life and prop
erty, it would be more in harmony with
the spirit of our system of government
to inconvenience the public than to strip
a sovereign of his personal liberty. In
no event, however, would the spirit or
the purpose of the government confer
authority upon the employer to admin
lister punishment upon the body of his
employe for breach of contract OF infrac-
ton of rules. Injustice cannot be legal
ized in this country. While the govern
ment always reserves the night TO sac
rifice the life and property of the indi-
vidual for the public good without pro-