The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1920-04-23
SEAMEN'S ACT UPHELD
BY SUPREME COURT

issue contested the constitutional
ity of the Seamen's act and the
court upheld its validity. The press
in giving the news to the public
did not work about particulars, but
the Seamen's Journal throws some
light on the subject. The Seamen's
Journal says:
The Supreme Court of the United
States has finally rendered a de-
cision on a long-pending test case
involving the constitutionality and
in fact, the entire existence of the
Seamen's Act in it's application to
seamen on foreign vessels in Amer
lean ports.
The text of the Supreme courts
opinion is not yet at hand. The
daily press Of Monday, March 20, in
publishing Washington dispatches
gives just sufficient information to
indicate a victory for the seamen
and the American people generally
The case in question is known as
DILLON VS.. the British Steamer
'Strathearn,' 239 Fed, 5S3." 1t
contested the constitutionality of
the following language in the Sea-
mems Act:
every seamen on a vessel of the
United States shall be entitled to
receive on demand from the master
of the vessel to which he belongs
one-half part Of the wages which
he shall have then earned at every
port where such vessel, after the
voyage has been commenced, shall
load or deliver cargo before the
voyage Is ended and all stipulations
in the contract to the contrary shall
be void; Provided such a demand
shall not be made before the expira-
ton of nor oftener than once in five
days. Any failure on the part Of
the master to comply with this de-
mand shall release the seaman from
his contract and he shall be entitled
to full wages earned. And,
provided further, that this section
shall apply to seamen on foreign
vessels while in harbors of the
United States, and the courts of the
United States shall be open to such
seamen for its enforcement" Sec.
4, 3S st. 1855.
To understand the Importance of
the Supreme Courts favorable de-
cision one must realize that the
British government furnished spec
ial counsel in this case to plead for
the British shipowners' alleged
right to refuse payment of half
wages to seamen when in American
ports.
The British government and Brit
lsh shipowners generally never had
any illusions about the efficacy of
the American Seamen's Act. They
knew that it would equalize the
wage cost of operation, i. e., raise
the wages of seamen on British
ships to the American level when
ever British ships touch at Amer
lean ports.
So-called American shipowners of
the Robert Dollar type, who have
maligned and berated the Seamen's
Act are usually interested in the
financial success of British shipping
ventures. Their logic has been
top heavy with self-interest.
Shipowners who have American
interests at heart no longer oppose
he La Toilette Seamen's Act.
Until the text of the Supreme
Courts opinion is at hand it will
De unwise to comment in detail
lpon it's full portent. Even though
he question or constltut1onality has
,een settled favorably there are
several points of Interpretation in
-olved. The scope of the jurisdic-
ion of the act over foreign ships !
md the exact meaning of the five
lay clause are points at issue.
In fighting this case and carrying |
to the highest court of the land |
he International Seamen's Union
# America has spent about $10,-
100. On the surface of things it was
IL done to collect three months
wages for John Dillon but in practi-
al effect it will mean that every
canaan on every foreign vessel
oming to America will be able to
ollect one-half of his wages if he is
disposed to claim it. And as a per-
ectly natural consequence. it will
qualize seamen's wages-first out
f American ports and ultimately
he world over. An equalization of !