Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/95037/jackson-vs-s-s-archimedes
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 01:37:24
Document Index: 433799618

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 10', '§ 4530', '§ 10', '§ 11', '§ 4', '§ 11']

Jackson Vs S S Archimedes - Citation 95037 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Jackson Vs. S.S. archimedes - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/95037
Case Number 275 U.S. 463
Respondent S.S. "archimedes"
.....* * * *" "(e) that this section shall apply as well to foreign vessels while in waters of the united states as to vessels of the united states, and any master . . . of any foreign vessel who has violated its provisions shall be liable to the same penalty that the master . . . of a vessel of the united states would be for similar violation. the master . . . of any vessel of the united states, or of any foreign vessel seeking clearance from a port of the united states, shall present his shipping articles at the office of clearance, and no clearance shall be granted any such vessel unless the provisions of this section have been complied with." it was held by this court in sandberg v. mcdonald, 248 u. s. 185 , 248 u. s. 195 , that § 11 of the seamen's act did.....
Jackson v. S.S. "Archimedes" - 275 U.S. 463 (1928)
U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. S.S. "Archimedes", 275 U.S. 463 (1928)
1. Section 10 of the Dingley Act of 1884, as amended by the Seamen's Act of 1915, and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, does not apply either expressly or by implication to advance wages paid by foreign vessels to foreign seamen while in ports of foreign countries whose laws sanction such payments. P. 275 U. S. 470 .
2. When foreign seamen institute a libel in this country against a foreign vessel for wages due them, the master is entitled to deduct the advances made in the foreign country. P. 275 U. S. 470 .
This case presents the question whether § 10 of the Dingley Act of 1884, [ Footnote 1 ] as amended by the Seamen's Act of 1915 [ Footnote 2 ] and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, [ Footnote 3 ] applies to the payment of advance wages to seamen on a foreign vessel in a foreign port.
and sanctioned by the British law. On June 1, the vessel arrived in New York. On June 3, they applied for and received from the master further payments on account of wages which, with the advances made in England, exceeded one-half of the wages then earned and unpaid. On June 8, while still in port, they made a formal demand upon the master for one-half of the wages then earned and unpaid disregarding the advances made in England. This having been refused, they left the vessel and filed this libel in the district court, claiming that, under R.S. § 4530, [ Footnote 4 ] they were entitled to the full wages earned at the time of the demand, without deducting the advances made in England, since these advances were invalidated by § 10 of the Dingley Act, as amended, and should be disregarded in computing the amount of wages due. On the hearing, the court dismissed the libel on the ground that the Act does not prohibit advances to seamen on foreign vessels in foreign ports, and such advances cannot be treated as invalid and disregarded when wages are demanded in this country. 10 F.2d 234. This was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals on the opinion of the district judge. 11 F.2d 1000.
It was held by this Court in Sandberg v. McDonald, 248 U. S. 185 , 248 U. S. 195 , that § 11 of the Seamen's Act did not render invalid the contracts of foreign seamen as to the advance payment of wages made by a foreign vessel
"Conceding for the present purpose that Congress might have legislated to annual such contracts as a condition upon which foreign vessels might enter the ports of the United States, it is to be noted that such sweeping and important requirement is not found specifically made in the statute. Had Congress intended to make void such contracts and payments, a few words would have stated that intention, not leaving such an important regulation to be gathered from implication. There is nothing to indicate an intention, so far as the language of the statute is concerned, to control such matters otherwise than in the ports of the United States. The statute makes the payment of advance wages unlawful, and affixes penalties for its violation, and provides that such advancements shall in no cases, except as in the act provided, absolve the master from full payment after the wages are earned, and shall be no defense to a libel or suit for wages. How far was this intended to apply to foreign vessels? We find the answer if we look to the language of the act itself. It reads that this section shall apply to foreign vessels 'while in waters of the United States.' Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the lawmaking power has jurisdiction. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347 , 213 U. S. 357 . . . . We think that there is nothing in this section to show that Congress intended to take over the control of such contracts and payments as to foreign vessels except while they were in our ports. Congress could not prevent the making of such contracts in other jurisdictions. If they saw fit to do so, foreign countries
would continue to permit such contracts and advance payments no matter what our declared law or policy in regard to them might be as to vessels coming to our ports. In the same section, which thus applies the law to foreign vessels while in waters of the United States, it is provided that the master . . . of any such vessel who violates the provisions of the act shall be liable to the same penalty as would be persons of like character in respect to a vessel of the United States. This provision seems to us of great importance as evidencing the legislative intent to deal civilly and criminally with matters in our own jurisdiction. Congress certainly did not intend to punish criminally acts done within a foreign jurisdiction; a purpose so wholly futile is not to be attributed to Congress. United States v. Freeman, 239 U. S. 117 , 239 U. S. 120 . The criminal provision strengthens the presumption that Congress intended to deal only with acts committed within the jurisdiction of the United States."
On the same day, in Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co., 248 U. S. 205 , it was likewise held, upon the same general considerations, that the Seamen's Act of 1915 did not make invalid advances that had been made to seamen by the master of an American vessel in a foreign port.
And later, in Strathearn S.S. Co. v. Dillon, 252 U. S. 348 , 252 U. S. 355 , in distinguishing § 4 of the Seamen's Act -- which in express terms declared that contracts denying seamen the right to demand half of their earned wages at ports reached in the course of a voyage, should be void, and gave seamen on foreign vessels while in American harbors the right to enforce its provisions in the courts of the United States [ Footnote 5 ] -- from § 11 of the Act dealing with advance wages, this Court said: