The State of Maine

• Decision Date: 31 December 1884
• Citation: 22 F. 734
• Parties: THE STATE OF MAINE. (Four Cases.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

22 F. 734

THE STATE OF MAINE. (Four Cases.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

December 31, 1884

Alexander & Ash, for libelants.

Henry D. Hotchkiss, for claimant.

BROWN J.

In August, 1884, the American ship State of Maine, being at anchor at Antwerp, and in need of seamen there, shipped a crew, of whom the libelants were a part. Before doing so the captain in vain endeavored to procure a crew without making any advances of wages or paying any sailors' bills there. He was subsequently able to obtain a crew only upon providing for the payment of certain bills for board that were claimed to be due from the men there. The men were shipped under the supervision of the American consul at Antwerp, and the bills were paid by the captain through him. The correctness of these bills in each case was certified by the signatures of the seamen. Upon arrival at this port the crew left the ship according to the master's statement, without being discharged, and before she was fairly made fast. In rendering his account to the shipping commissioner at this port the captain charged against the various members of the crew the amount of the bills that he had paid in their behalf, the vouchers for which were produced, signed by the men, as above stated. The majority of the crew accepted the balances due to them. Four of the libelants insisted on their full wages under the act of June 26, 1884, and in their testimony they deny that the bills were owed by them, and also deny their signatures to the vouchers.

The most important question presented is whether the act of June 26, 1884, known as the Dingley bill, applies to the shipment of seamen in foreign ports, as is claimed by the counsel for the libelants. Section 10 of that act provides--

'That it shall be, and is hereby, made unlawful, in any case, to pay any seaman wages before leaving the port at which such seaman may be engaged, in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same, or to pay such advance wages to any other person, or to pay any person, other than an officer authorized by act of congress to collect fees for such service, any remuneration for the shipment of seamen. Any person paying such advance wages, or such remuneration, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than four times the amount of the wages so advanced or remuneration so paid, and may be also imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court. The payment of such advance wages or remuneration shall in no case, except as herein provided, absolve the vessel, or the master or owner thereof, from 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: provided, that this section shall not apply to whaling vessels: and provided further, that it shall be lawful for any seaman to stipulate in his shipping agreement for an allotment of any portion of the wages which he may earn to his wife, mother, or other relative, but to no other person or corporation. And any person who shall falsely claim such relationship to any seaman, in order to obtain wages so allotted, shall, for every such offense, be punishable by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court. This section shall apply as well to foreign vessels as to vessels of the United States, and any foreign vessel, the master, owner, consignee, or agent of which has violated this section, or induced or connived at its violation, shall be refused a clearance from any port of the United States.'

The language of this section is doubtless broad enough to embrace the shipment of seamen in foreign ports, as well as in ports of the United States; but statutes must be interpreted and applied...