The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-04-05
Honolulu Troubles Of 1895 Re-
told In New York.
JUDGMENT FOR THE SHIP
Determined Efforts f the Men to
Escape the Voyage Around the
Horn-U. s. Consul Here

| In recent hearing at New York of
the case Of Thomas Graves, Christian
Bauer, James Bradley and Peter Don
nelley against the ship "W F. Bah
cock" before the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals, for the Second Cir
cult, Judge Shipman rendered an
opinion reversing the decree of the
District Court, and remanding the case
to that Court to be proceeded with
as follows: to enter a decree dismiss
ing the libel SO far as it relates to Don
nelley, Graves and Bradley with costs
of both courts and to enter a decree
in favor of Christian Bauer for S67. 62
and interest from June 20, 1898, with
his costs in both Courts.
The libelants, Graves ct al. joined
the ship ''W. F. Babcock'' at San Fran
cisco on January 4, 1896, and, having
signed regular shipping articles as
sailors, sailed upon a voyage to Homo
lulu and thence to New York. The
Hbellants reached Honolulu in debt to
the ship and subsequently deserted in
that port. They were arrested and de-
tanned in the station house until the
vessel was ready to sail, when they
were taken on board by the police
Their previous debts to the ship and
the expenses incurred by the captain
for their arrest and the wages of
labOrers in their place and for the
Wilful breakage of a shop window by
three of them, exceeded the amount of
their wages, and the owners of the yes
sci refuse payment except in the case
Of Bauer, to whom it was admitted
that $7.65 was due. The IibelIants filed
a libel against the ship to recover the
entire amount of their monthly wages,
less the 'adYancements made before the
arrival at Honolulu. The testimony
of the United States ConsuI-General
at Honolulu showed that the men in
tentionaily deserted and that at least
two of them intended to desert before
arriving in the port and that the
charges made by them of i'll usage
were unfOunded. The United States
Revised Statutes bearing upon the ar
rest and detention of seamen in cases
of desertion and the COnsuPs action
relating thereto are literally quoted.
The Opinion states: 'In consequence !
of their (Graves, Donneley and Brad |
ley) persistent refusal to return to |
duty on board the ship and their |
threats of violence there is no room |
to contend that the proper charges for |
their arrest and detention the wages |
of their substitutes and the amount |
which was necessarily paid by the !
ship to the authorities as a penalty |
for the wilful sud malicious breakage |
of a shop window should not |
be deducted from their wages"
These men when here gave to their !
ship, the United States Consul-General !
and the police no end of trouble. They |
were determined to escape the trip |
around the Horn if possible. Their |
final Iawless act was to deliberately |
break windows while being taken in |
care of police from the station to the |
water front.
In commenting on this case the New !
York Maritime Journal says:
There can be no doubt about the |
business of this opinion of Judge Ship |
man. In this connection it may be /
stated that it is claimed that actions !
based on grounds equally untenable /
as the foregoing are freqeuntly begun /
at the instance Of the Sailors Union /
whose agents it is further claimed /
board vessels on their arrival in port /
for the purpose of ferreting out sup /
posed or imagined grievances Of sailors
which are put into the hands Of its
lawyers to prosecute-ostensibl in the
interest of the sailor, but in reality /
for its own profit and age-with /
the result that our ship owners are /
caused a very great deal of annoyance /
and expense thereby. Whether this |
be true or not, it would be we'll for this
to accept with the greatest .
caution the statements by sailors or .
i'll usage aboard Of ship. if it would
avoid laying itself open to adverse +