Castner, Curran & Bullitt, Inc. v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 03 September 1921
• Citation: 275 F. 203
• Parties: CASTNER, CURRAN & BULLITT, Inc., v. HAMILTON, Collector of Customs.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

275 F. 203

CASTNER, CURRAN & BULLITT, Inc., v. HAMILTON, Collector of Customs.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia.

September 3, 1921

Hughes Little & Seawell, of Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.

Paul W Kear, U.S. Atty., and H. H. Rumble, U.S. Admiralty Counsel both of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.

GRONER District Judge.

The Winding Gulf, an American steamship, on arrival at the port of Norfolk from a European port in January, 1921, was boarded by the immigration officials, who removed to the hospital several members of the crew, found to be suffering from one or another of the diseases mentioned in section 35 of the Act of Congress of February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4289 1/4ss), entitled 'An act to regulate the immigration of aliens to, and the residence of aliens in, the United States. ' Subsequently, upon the discharge of the seamen from the hospital, a claim for the cost of hospital treatment was made against the owners of the vessel, payment was refused, the ship was denied clearance, and this petition was filed, praying for a mandamus against the collector of the port.

No further statement is necessary, unless it be to mention the fact that the diseased members of the crew, for whose hospital expenses the vessel is denied clearance, were shipped from the port of New York, and were completing a voyage from this country to Europe and return, when their diseased condition was discovered. The decision of the case involves the construction of the Act of Congress of December 26, 1920 (41 Stat. 1082) entitled 'An act to provide for the treatment in hospital of diseased alien seamen,' reading as follows:

'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that alien seamen found on arrival in ports of the United States to be afflicted with any of the disabilities or diseases mentioned in section 35 of the act of February 5, 1917, entitled, 'An act to regulate the immigration of aliens to, and the residence of aliens in, the United States,' shall be placed in a hospital designated by the immigration official in charge at the port of arrival and treated, all expenses connected therewith, including burial in the event of death, to be borne by the owner, agent, consignee, or master of the vessel, and not to be deducted from the seamen's wages, and no such vessel shall be granted clearance until such expenses are paid or their payment appropriately guaranteed and the collector of customs so notified by the immigration official in charge: Provided, that alien seamen suspected of being afflicted with any such disability or disease may be removed from the vessel on which they arrive to an immigration station or other appropriate place for such observation as will enable the examining surgeons definitely to determine whether or not they are so afflicted, all expenses connected therewith to be borne in the manner hereinbefore prescribed; Provided, further, that in cases in which it shall appear to the satisfaction of the immigration official in charge that it will not be possible within a reasonable time to effect a cure, the return of the alien seamen shall be enforced on or at the expense of the vessel on which they came, upon such conditions as the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe, to insure that the aliens shall be properly cared for and protected, and that the spread of contagion shall be guarded against.'

On behalf of petitioners it is insisted that the term 'alien seamen,' used throughout the act, has no reference or application to members of the crew of an American vessel even though they be aliens; that by settled maritime law a seaman on an American vessel is an 'American seaman,' and therefore not an 'alien seaman,' whatever his citizenship may be; and that the act consequently applies only to the crews of foreign ships. In support of this view the cases of In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 11 Sup.Ct. 897, 35 L.Ed. 581, The Blakeley (D.C.) 234 F. 959, The Laura M. Lunt (D.C.) 170 F. 204, The Santa Elene (D.C.) 271 F. 347, The Marie (D.C.) 49 F. 286, The Kestor (D.C.) 110 F. 432, The Eudora (D.C.) 110 F. 430, and The Ester (D.C.) 190 F. 216, are cited as controlling. These cases hold that service on an American vessel makes the person so serving, whatever his nationality, for the time being an 'American seaman,' and as...