The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-10-07
SIANANRECOVRS WAGES


"w"H NaH. Nm -Hm NuH Dol.
Hn UluHaHIo Du. 400 hBtau.. DBu.
HaI H. Taken Fram -.uaus War.s.
IH. uHi I..us of Treasury Decisions
contains iHu opinion aUU decision uI
I"' bHuIUt Court uf tup United static.
DOB |NU UHHH ui william chamber a..
BRUSH steamship hpstuI which j. 90"
interest DOB every American port
IN. case BE- thus stated bN thr court
iHo libel lu thIF case was filed bl
rs HIIHm Chambers against tle steam
rHIH httiHT iHT fhD recovery UT sea-.
meme wages Du September % 1889
ihaI vessel being destined ou voyage
ium Baltimore iu Mexico. cuba. and
ihIlilDlulla. uud thereafter uu au-
other voyage from Philadelphia Geo
cuba ANA iU some port Iu the United
states north of Cape Haueras. the
l'e'ani signed shipping articles Goo
serve uu Deer aH UIrmau. The wages
Hu Nas tD receive were stated boo the
articles Geo serve uu beer as fireman.
INH wages Doc was Goo receive were state
cd Iu tle articles as zone shilling for
ODE Irst twenty days aud $50 ppI month
afterwards ON the day nsAt follow
Iuu flaf uu which hu signed tho aTtI-
Giles le entered ou Dds employment and
continued Iu serve boo tHD capacity Uf
fireman until Doe was discharged 100
Philadelphia, November d. 1899. having
served $50 months and seventeen days.
An iha tlma Doe HaE employed the kcs-
I1T was "a British merchant vessel sail
Iug under the British flag, and the
libeIant was "a British subject. u Is
admitted that the libelant received on
account Of his wages for the Two yoy-
ina tn
S2Ok2. The claimant contends that the
balance due 90 the libelant, after de-
.ductlnR the above amount. was, at the
time Of his discharge. 83Glb. Al the
thine Of his discharge the latter amount
was rendered Or offered 10 the libelant
.ln fun satisfaction Of his claim, but be-
refused 10 accept the same. alleging
That he was entitled 10 receive $40 more
than the sum 80 rendered or offered
pa is admitted that the sum 80 tender
ed or offered and refused was deposit
I ed with the British consul at Philadel-
phla November y, 1899, subject 10 the
order Of the liDelant, prior 10 the filing
VI The libel IN this cause, and that
subsequently the BCtiah consul for
/ Warded the same 10 the LOndOn board
IOf trade. pursuant 10 the British ship
/ pino act. 10 the credit Of said libelanL
IThe basis On which the claimant ar
/ riyes a. the amount admitted By him
| ~ b. due ~ the libclant ~ that the
Halter WaE entitled 10 receive
10 balance Of S3G1s. The libclant
claims that Notwithstanding the Lam
Iguage Of the shipping articles. he was
Irntltlcd ~ receive wages at the rate
Of $40 month during the whole PEE
rIOd Of his service. and that, allowing
FOR the above credit, there WAS due 10
him at the time Of his discharge s5G.1S.
For the recovery Of the latter amount
win interest be- fled his libel"
Chambers, the sailor. brought his
suit under Section 10 OF An Act 10
amend the laws relating 10 American
seamen, FOR the protection Of such sea-
men, ana 10 promote commerce." the
pertinent part Of which b. ~ follows:
section 10. (aJ That II shall be, and
Do hereby. made unlawful IN any case
~ pay any seaman wages IN advance
NJ The time when ho has actually earn
ed the same, or 10 pay such advance
wages 10 any other person"
The court then proceeds 10 discuss
tho case 30 follows.
"ThlH section, subject 10 certain eX-
captions and prOvisDa not pertinent In
thia connection, makes IT unlawful In
any cane ~ pay any seaman wages IN
advance Of the time when he has ac-
tually earned the same, or 10 pay such
advaHc" wages 10 any other person,
ana provides that such payment shall
In no case absOlyc the vessel
or the master or owner thereof from
run payment Df wages after the same
shall have been actually earned, and
shall be no defense 10 libel suit, or
action for the recovery Of sucn wages. d
The llbclaut contends that the prOvis-
ions Of thc above section are applica-
bio ~ the prepayment Of the wages
Of British seaman employed 10 serve
a.. 10 h..
was entitled ~ wages a. the rate Of
$40 70 month from the commencement
Of bis service. and that $40 Of his wages
FOR the first month were paid by the
master iu violation Of the statute. The
claimant. on the other hand, contends
That the statute was not intended 10
apply ty inc prepayment Of the wages
Of British seaman serving on Brit .
lHh vessel, that, IL 10 was intended 10 .
extent beyond the power Of Congress .
10 enact, ana that on the assumption .
tbat the statute Ia operated IN such a
caHc, al the wages 10 which the libel
ant waB entitled were specified In the
chipping articles, ana consequently /
there was no violation Of the statute. |
According 10 a literal construction Of |
The shipping articles the wages Of the /
libelaut were GXed al 4 shilling for the |
first twenty days ana $50 per month |
afterwards But this circumstance IL |
not necessarily decisive Of the case. a |
provision in q contract designed and |
calculated 10 secure or facilitate the /
doing Of what by statute Is declared /
unlawful ana made misdcmcanOr |
punishable by fine ana imprisonment, !
.is o nudity. Whatever may be the |
form Of such provision and however |
innocent on iW face, II merits and re-
.CciYcs the condemnation Of the law. If !
the stipulation Of i shilling for the first
twenty days was intended as a cover
'lt N unlawful ana void. II could
derive no vitality from the fact that
the libclant when signing the articles
was Of fun age ana sound mind, He
could not validity contract for the pre-
payment Of his wages ~ himself or 10
lnnOthcr,"
The court goes very fully into the
Icvidcncc ana circumstances Of the case
and concludes ~ follows;
iE