Case: SANDBERG ET AL. v. McDONALD, CLAIMANT OF THE BRITISH SHIP "TALUS"
Abbreviation: Sandberg v. McDonald
Decision Date: 1918-12-23
Docket Number: No. 392
Citation: 248 U.S. 185
Volume: 248
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: SANDBERG ET AL. v. McDONALD, CLAIMANT OF THE BRITISH SHIP "TALUS.”
Judges: with whom concur Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Bbandeis and Mr. Justice Clabke, dissenting.
Pages: 185–205

Head Matter:
SANDBERG ET AL. v. McDONALD, CLAIMANT OF THE BRITISH SHIP "TALUS.”
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 392.
Argued November 5, 1918.
Decided December 23, 1918.
Spction 11 of the Seaman’s Act of 1915, c. 153, 38 Stat. 1164, prohibits, under criminal penalties, the payment of wages in advance to any seaman* provides that in no case shall such advancements absolve vessel, 'master or owner from full payment of wages when actually earned, or be a defense to a libel or action for their recovery; applies “as well to foreign vessels while in waters of the United States, as to vessels of the United States;” makes the master, owner, consignee, or agent of any foreign vessel who violates its provisions liable to the same penalty as if the vessel were domestic; and, requiring exhibition of shipping'articles, denies clearance from our ports to any vessel of either class, unless the provisions of the section have
. been complied with. Held, not to apply to advancements made to alien seamen shipping abroad on a foreign vessel, pursuant to contracts valid under the foreign law; and that such advancements may be allowed for in paying such seamen in a port of the United States. P. 195. ■
A provision in this act for the abrogation of inconsistent treaty provisions is not opposed to the above construction, since it may properly be referred to other parts of the act abolishing arrest for áesertion and conferring jurisdiction on our. courts over wage controversies arising in our jurisdiction. P. 196.
The construction here adopted is the sanie as that adopted by the State Department in consular instructions; and the reports and proceedings attending the legislation in Congress, so far as they may be considered, do not require a different conclusion, P. 197.
248 Fed. Rep. 670, affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Alex. T. Howard for petitioners:
It was the broad purpose of Congress to grant to the seaman personal liberty and to prohibit as to all vessels that came within our jurisdiction the evil of paying the seaman his wages in .advance and thereby to'promote the welfare of the American merchant marine and the American seaman by an equalization of wages.
The language of the act is broad enough to cover such an advance, and even if this were not the case the payment of such ah advance ought not to be upheld by an American court, when it is passing upon the civil rights of the parties with the res before it, because so clearly, opposed to our public policy. Senate Doc. No. 228, 66th Cong., 2d sess.; 41st Ahn. Report, Legal Aid Society.
The' legislative history of the act shows that its purpose was to equalize wages. Report No. 645, 62d Cong., 2d sess., p. 7; id. pt. 2, pp. 2,3,5; Report No. 852, 63d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 19, 20.
By changing § 11 of the bill so as to make it apply “as well to foreign vessels as to vessels of the United States” instead of merely “to seamen engaged in ports of the United States for service on foreign vessels,” Congress showed its purpose to prohibit advances to the full extent and thereby to equalize wages and to make possible the enforcement of the other humane provisions of the act.
The language is unambiguous and should be given its ordinary meaning. It was erroneous to limit the construction of the section by constraining the civil, to the same field as the criminal provisions. United States v. Twenty-five Packages of Hats, 231 U. S. 358. ‘
Mr. W. j. Waguespack for petitioners:
The penalty provision of the statute'tinder the rule of construction in United States v. Freeman, 239 U. S. 117, is within the scope of legislative authority. The intent that § 11 should apply to foreign vessels when they enter into the ports of the United States to load and unload cargo, and while they remain in the waters of the United' States, is manifest, for the statute provides that any master or owner of a foreign vessel who has violated this provision shall be liable for the penalty.
It is obvious that § 11 forms part of the general plan which Congress has mapped out to elevate and better the condition of American seamen, to secure a higher standard of service, and to benefit the American merchant marine by equalizing the costs of operation between our ships- and. those of other nations, for, as said by this court in The Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, “no one can doubt that the best interests of seamen as a class are preserved by such legislation.”
The immediate purpose which Congress had in view in adopting this criminal provision was evidently to prohibit, the entry into the ports of the United States of vessels with seamen who were victims of “crimps,” as they are called, and who, having been paid advance wages, stood in a state of continuous involuntary servitude, to the end that discrimination against American seamen, and American shipowners, nought be avoided.
The penalty provision of the statute and the civil provision are separable and it is obvious that Congress would have enacted the legislation with the penalty provision eliminated. McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102; Railroad Co. v. Schulte, 103 U. S. IIS;.James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388; New York v. Milu, 11 Pet. 102.
Assuming that no special policy against the making' of advances against foreign seamen in a foreign port can be deduced from § 11,. still a public, policy against making such advances everywhere can be deduced from the fact that it would operate injuriously against the general interest anci policy of our own citizens. Bank v. Owens, 2 Pet. 5277538; Woodward v. Roane, 23 Arkansas, 523; Marshall'†. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9; Hill v. Spear, 50 N., ■H.,253; The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263.
The court erred in concluding that libelants were deserters, and in decreeing their wages forfeited.
Mr. Palmer Pillans, with whom Mr. J. N. McAleer was on the brief, for the ship, reviewed the prior legislation, and held that, so far . as the matter in question was concerned, no new purpose was evinced by the present act. The section, as in previous laws, applied only to advancements- made in. our own waters. It should be taken with the old construction. They cited and discussed the following: The State of Maine, 22 Fed. Rep. 734; The Windrush, 250 Fed. Rep. 180; The Elswick Tower, 241 Fed. Rep 706, 710.; Patterson v.'Bark Eudora, 190 IT. S. 169, 178, 179; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 357; XJjiited States-v. Freeman, 239 U. S. 117, 120; Ken-ney v. 'Blake, 125 Fed. Rep. 672; Hhe Alnwick,-132 Fed. Rep^ 117; The Neck, 138 Fed. Rep. 144, 146; The Bound Brook, 146 Fed. Rep. 160, 162; The Kestor, 110 Fed. Rep. 432, 434, 438, 441, 442, 444; The Troop, 117 Fed. Rep. 557, 560; The Meteor, 241 Fed. Rep. 735; The London, 241 Fed. Rep. 863; affirming 238 Fed. Rep. 645; The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66;. Northern Pacific Ry¿ Co. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 198,
There is necessarily and tacitly attached to every enactment declaring a particular act unlawful the idea that the act shall be one committed- within the sovereignty of the sovereign making the enactment. Such must be the case here. • As the United States could not make it unlawful for a British master to pay seamen on a British ship advance wages in Great Britain it is only reasonable to intend that the act, with this idea in mind, not only may be, but must be read thus: “That it shall be and is hereby made unlawful in any .case to pay any seaman wages • (anywhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States) in advance of the time,” etc. It ought to be manifest, that the words “in any ease” do not mean “in any place” or “anywhere,” but do mean “under any set of circumstances that may arise when advance-payments are made within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 357. «And see United States v.Freeman, 239 U. S. 117, 120.
It should be noted that it is not the payment of advance wages, without more, that it is declared shall Jin' no case absolve the vessel, but the payment of “such advance wages,” that shall in no case absolve, etc. What does the “such” refer to? Unlawful advancements, of course, and no advancements are such unlawful advancements unless they are made within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown, with whom Mr. Robert Szold was on the brief, for the United States as amicus curiae:
The evil sought to be. remedied was the- handicap of higher wage cost under which the then decadent American merchant marine was laboring. President’s Message of December 7, 1903; Report of Merchant Marine Commission, January 4, 1905 (39 Cong. Rec., pt. 1, pp. 437 439; Senate Report No. 2755, 58th Cong., 3d sess.) Annual Report, Commissioner of Navigation, 1915, p. 159 Act of June 26,1884, c. 1215 23 Stat. 53, § 20.
The legislative purpose to equalize the wage cost of foreign and domestic vessels leaving our ports was accomplished by limiting the enforcement of foreign contracts.
The deliberate intent to cover contracts made abroad is shown by the committee reports and legislative history. House Report No. 645, 62d Cong., 2d-sess.; House Report No. 852, 63d Cong., 2d sess.; H.*R. 23673, 62d{Cong., 2d sess., 48 Cong. Rec., pp. 5242, 9259, 9429, 9431, 9432, 9434,-9435, 9502, 9503; Report. Commissioner of Navigation, 1906, pp. 64, 92; 49 Cong.-Rec., pt. 5, pp. 4567, 4588, 4806, 4854; 50 Cong. Rec. 5749; 52 Cong. Rec. 4646.
A reading of the act as a whole also shows this- intent.
Section 4 is valid as a condition.upon the entry of foreign vessels'into American ports. The power to impose such conditions is an incident to the sovereignty of the nation. Yattel, Lav; of Nations (Chitty, ed. 1863), p, Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 TJ. S, 169; Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214U..S. 320; Buttfield,v. Stranahan, ■ 192 TJ. S. -470, 492, 493; Weber v; Freed, 239 U."S.,325, 329; Turner v. Williams, 194 TJ. S. 279, 289.
;It seems clear in this case that Congress was seeking to impose the wage requirement as a condition to the entry of foreign, vessels. Oceanic Steam.Navigation Co. v. Slranoimi, 214 TJ. S.' 320; Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190' U. S. 169.
. The statute declares a rule of policy of the forum forbidding the enforcement of such contracts. The Kensing-ton, 183 U. S. 263; Fonseca v.' Cunará S. S. Co., 153 Massachusetts,. 553.
There is no question of the- “validity with respect to contracts executed between foreign seamen and .foreign masters within the United States/
Section 11 was an amendment of § 24 of the Act of December 21, 1898, and § 24 was an amendment of § 10 of the laws of 1884 as amended in 1886, and, as it now stands as far as pertinent, is as follows:
“Sec. 10 (a) That it shall be, and is hereby, made unlawful in any case to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same, or to pay such advance wages, or to make any order, or note, or other evidence of indebtedness .therefor to- any other person, or to pay any person,- for the shipment of seamen when payment is deducted or to be deducted from a seaman’s wages. Any person violating any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall ' be. deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100, and may also be imprisoned for a period of not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court. The payment of sucfi advance wages or allotment shall in no case except as herein provided absolve the vessel or the master or the owner thereof from the full payment of wages after the same shall have been actually earned, and shall be no defense to a libel suit or action for the recovery of such wages. If any person shall demand or receive, either directly or indirectly, from any seaman or other person seeking employment, as seaman, or from any person on his behalf, any remuneration whatever for providing him with employment, he shall for every such offense be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than $500.”

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case brings before us for consideration certain features of the so-called "Seaman's Act." (38 Stvat. 1164.) The act is entitled: "An Act To promote the welfare of American seamen in the merchant marine of the United'States; to. abolish arrest and imprisonment as a penalty, for desertion and to secure the abrogation of treaty provisions in relation thereto; and to promote safety at sea.'! It contains numerous provisions inténded to secure better treatment of seamen, and to secure for them better conditions of service. •
The libel charges a demand in Mobile, Alabama, for one-half part of the wages then earned by the seamen, and the refusal of the master to pay the amount which the libelants claimed, to be due; The master, paid each of them what he 'conceived to be .due, deducting certain advances made to the men at Liverpool, England, where the seamen were signed. ; •
The facts are:
The "Talus" is a British ship and the libelants and petitioners citizens or subjects of nations'-other than the 'United States and at the time of employment by the ship and before boarding her they received certain advances at Liverpool by the ship or its agents, a practice usual and customary and not forbidden by the laws of Great, Britain. The advance did not, as to any libelant, exceed the amount of a month's wages.
The libelants boarded ., the ship at Dublin, Ireland, December 1, 1916, and remained in her service until they left her at Mobile, Alabama.
The ship arrived in American waters on February 11, 1917, off Fort Morgan, from whence she proceeded immediately to . Mobile,. where she remained until after February 24, and unloaded and loaded cargoes. During the voyage and at Mobile prior to February, 22, libelants received certain payments from the ship in cash and in articles purchased from it.
• On Februaiy 22 libelants demanded of the ,mastér of the ship payment of one-half of the wages earned by them to that date. The .piaster then paid* to them a sum which, with the cash paid them and the price of the'articles; purchased as stated above, together with the advances made in Liverpool, equaled or exceeded the one-half of the wages then earned by each of them from the commencement of his service for the ship. It was less, however, than such one-half wages if the advances at Liverpool had not'been included in the credits. The master claimed that those advances should be deducted from the one-half wages, and did deduct them, and the sum or sums paid by the master to the libelants exceeded the amount of wages earned by them for the eleven days the ship had been in American waters. The libelants quit the ship February 24, 1917, and were logged as deserters on the same day.
Under the foregoing statement of facts the question for decision is: Was the master entitled to make deduction from the seamen's pay.in the amount of the' advancements made at Liverpool? The District Court held that these advancements could not be deducted. 242 Fed. Rep. 954. The Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion. 248 Fed. Rep. 670. The pertinent section of the act for consideration reads:
'"Sec. 10 (a) That it shall be, and is hereby, made unlawful in any case to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same, or to pay such advance wages, or to make any order, or note, or other evidence of indebtedness therefor to any other person, or to pay any person, for the shipment of seamen when payment is deducted or to be deducted from a seaman's wages. Any person violating any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be púnished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100, and may also be imprisoned for a period of not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court. The payment of such advance wages or allotment shall in no case except as herein provided absolve the vessel or the master or the owner thereof from the full payment of wages after the same shall have been actually earned, and shall be no defense to a libel suit or action for the recovery of such wages. If any person shall demand or receive, either directly or indirectly, from any seaman or other person seeking employment, as seaman, or from any person on his behalf, any remuneration whatever for providing him with employment, he' shall for every such offense be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned not more than six months or.fined not more than $500.
He '
"'(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, owner,- consignee, or agent of any foreign vessel who has violated its provisions shall be liable to the same penalty that the master, owner, or agent of a vessel of the United States would be fo'r similar violation.
"'The.master, owner, consignee, or agent 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.'"
The genesis and history of this legislation are found in U. S. Compiled Statutes, 1916, vol. 7, § 8323, annotated.
The Dingley Act of 1884 (23 Stat. 55, 56), which is the origin of this section, contains terms much like those found in this act. That statute, as the present one, in the aspect now before us, was intended to prevent the evils arising from advanced payments to seamen, and to protect them against a class of persons who took advantage of their necessities and through whom yessels were obliged to provide themselves with seamen. These persons obtained assignments of the advanced wages of sailors. 'In many instances this was accomplished with little or no service to the mén who were obliged to obtain employment through such agencies. In the Dingley Act it was made unlawful to pay seamen's wages before leaving the port at which he was engaged. In the present act it is made unlawful to pay seamen's wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same. The Act of 1884 by its terms applied as well to foreign vessels as to the vessels of the United States, and masters of foreign vessels violating the law were refused clearance from any port of the United States. The present statute is made to apply as well to foreign vessels while in the waters of. the United States as to vessels' of the United States.
In the present statute, in the section from which we have just quoted, masters, owners,-consignees, or owners of foreign vessels are made liable to the same penalties as áre the like persons in case of vessels of the United States. Such persons in casé the véssels are those of the United States or foreign vessels, seeking clearance in ports of the United States, are required to present their shipping articles at the office of clearance, and no clearance is permitted unless the provisions of the statute are complied with.
The Act of 1884 came before the United States District Court for the Southern District, of New York in the case of The State of Maine, 22 Fed. Rep. 734. In a clear and well-reasoned opinion by judge Addison Brown the law was held not to apply to the shipment of seamen on American vessels in foreign ports. After some amendments in 1898, not important to consider in this connection, the matter came before this court in the case of Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, and it was held to apply to a British vessel shipping seamen at an American, port, and, furthermore, that the act, as thus applied to a foreign vessel in United States waters, was constitutional.
. While the Seaman's Act of 1915 contains many provisions for the amelioration ofj conditions as to employment and care of seamen, in. the aspect now involved we have called attention to the state of legislation and judicial decision when that act was passed. Did Congress intend' to make invalid the contracts of foreign seamen so far as advance payment of wages is concerned, when the contract and payment were made in a foreign country where the law sanctioned such contract and payment? Conceding for the present purpose that Congress might have legislated to annul 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 réquirement 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 law-making power has jurisdiction. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 U. S. 347, 357. In Patterson v. Bark Eudora, supra, this court declared such legislation as to foreign vessels in United States ports to be constitutional. 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, owner, consignee, or agent 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, 120. The criminal provision strengthens the presumption that Congress intended to deal only with acts' committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.
It is true the act provides for the abrogation of inconsistent treaty provisions, but this. provision has ample application treating the statute to mean what we have here held to.be its proper construction. It abolishes the right of arrest , for desertion. It gives to the civil courts of the United States jurisdiction over wage controversies arising within. our jurisdiction. These considerations amply account for the treaty provision. See Treaties in Force, ed. 1904, index, p. 969.
It is said that the advances in foreign ports are against the policy of the United States and, therefore, not to be sanctioned here. As we havé construed this section of the statute, no such policy as to foreign contracts legal 'where made, is declared.
We have examined the references in the briefs of counsel to the reports and proceedings in Congress during the progress of this legislation so far as the same may have weight in determining the construction of this section of the act. We find nothing in them, so far as entitled to consideration, which requires a different meaning to be given the statute. We may add that the construction now given has the sanction of the Executive Department as shown in Instructions to Consular Officers, promulgated through the.medium of the State Department.
We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals reached the right conclusion as to the meaning and interpretation of this section of the act, and its judgment is
Affirmed.