rily the full half of the stream; if she does so, it is her duty, upon the first indication of possible danger from another vessel approaching with the current, to change her course and give way betimes, as much and as early as possible. The tug had sufficient room to do so. She must have been at least 125 feet from the shore, and prohably more than that, and there was no obstruction in that direction. She did port, as she ought to have done earlier, but too late to be of any service; and no previous signals of danger were given. In not giving any such additional signals, and especially in her failure to give way by porting or stopping, or in attempting to do either, until too late, there was such a want of that vigilance and caution which the situation demanded'of her, that the Blue Bonnet must also be held in fault. A decree should be entered against both vessels, with the usual order of reference.
THE PAUL REVERE.
(District Court, 8. D. NelD York.
January 27, 1882.)
SEAMEN'S WAGES-EFFECT OF CONSUL'S DISCHARGE.
Where a consul has by statute jurisdiction to grant a discharge, his certlll.cate thereof, duly authenticated, is a bar to a seaman's claim fOl' wages subsequent to his discharge.
Where, upon the proceedings before the consul on a charge of criminal misconduct, it does not appear that any question was made concerning the seaman's wages at the time of his discharge, the seaman is not precluded from claiming any wages which may, upon the merits, appear to he due to him,
SEAMEN-PUNISHMENT FOR MISCONDUCT.
Double punishment through lOBS of wages, in addition to confinement on board, is not to be imposed except in cases where the seaman is incorrigibly disobedient, and his confinement is necessary to the safety of the ship, in consequence of his own dangerous character. 4. SAI.G;-DoUBLE PUNISH.\IENT WHEN NO'f bIPOSED-CASE STATED. Where the cook (colored) shipped for a voyage from New York to Yokohama and back, and when two months out, in an affray with the steward, fired two shots of a small pistol, by which the steward received a flesh wound in the wrist, and it appeared that the steward was a man of a quarrelsome and dangerous character; that the affray was the result of several previous quarrels and challenges to fight; and it appearmg that aside from this affray the cook was neither quarrelsome nor dangerous in his ordinary behavior, and had previously applied to the captain for protection against the steward; and that immediatcljTafter the firing he was arrested without resistance, put in irons by
TUB PAUL REVERE.
tile orders of the master, and kept in confinement during the following four months until after the arrival at Yokohama, and that his conduct during this time was good, and permission to return to duty had been repeatedly sought from the captain by himself and others of the crew, held, that the cook was entitled to his wages up to the time of his discharge at Yokohama.
In Admiralty. Action for seaman's wages. This action was brought by the libellant (colored) to recover his wages as cook on board the ship Paul Revere, on her voyage from New York to Yokohama and back, from June 24 to September 24, 1879. On Sunday morning, September 1, 1878, about two months after the commencement of the voyage, an affray between the cook and the steward took place in the galley, in the course of which the cook fired two shots of a small pistOl at the steward, by one of which the steward was wounded in the wrist. The libellant was immediately seized, put in irons, and kept so, for the most part, as the mate testified, until about a month before reaching Yokohama, when, being sick, the irons were removed from him, though he w.as still kept under restraint. The vessel arrived at Yokohama on December 24, 1878, and on the sixth of January the captain made a complaint in writing against the libellant before the consul of an assault with a deadly weapon. Upon the following day the libellant was bi'ought before the consul, who, on the seventh, eighth, and ninth of that month, examined the steward, the first and second officers, and the carpenter of the vessel. On the thirtieth of January he rendered a decision as follows:
.. After careful consideration of the evidence in this matter, and in view of the fact that the weapon used by theaccllsed is scarcely more than a toy, and that it would have been very diiacult with it to have made a dangerous wound, and that it therefore hardly comes within the definition of a' dangerous weapon,' and the accuser exhibiting himself as a man of irascible temper, and the evidence showing that the offence charged against the accused was the result of an altercation, one of many between the same parties, and that the accuser has been discharged the ship by consent of the mastel', the latter considering him a troublesome and violent man, and that the accused has now been a long time in confinement: .. I am of opinion that the offence charged is not of such a serious character as to warrant me in subjecting the government to the expense of transportation of the accused and that of the witnesses to the United States, and of his trial there, and I consider that he has been SUfficiently punished already. " It is therefore ordered that he be discharged from arrest. . [Signed] .. THOS. B. V AN BUREN, Consul General. "Yokohama, Janua1'Y 31, 1879.
"On being disclmrged fL'Om arrest. Jackson expressed an unwillingness to return on board ship and asked for his discharge, and ,the captain consenting, he was accordingly discharged, the ship paying into the consulate one month's extra' wages. [Signed] Tuos. B. VAN BUREN,Consul General. "January 31, 1879."
The proceedings before the consul were duly certified and read upon the trial. The consul's certificate of the discharge of Jackson, "according to law," on January 81, 1879, was also proved, together with the receipt by the consul of one month's extra wages. Alexander If Ash, for libellant. Henry Heath, for claimant. BROWN, D. J. The consul at Yokohama had jurisdiction of pro'ceedings to discharge the seaman upon his own applioationand with the master's consent. His Mrtificate of such a discharge, dUly proved and authenticated, is therefore conclusive, and bars any claim by the libellant to subsequent wages. Ooffin v. Weld, 2 Low. 81; Lamb v. Briard, 5 Abb. Adm. 367; Tinglev. Tucker, ld. 919. The proceedings before the consul do not show that any question was made before him concerning the wages which might be due to the libellant up to the time of his discharge, or that any inquiry or consideration was given to that subject. The libellant is, therefore, not precluded by those proceedings from claiming anything to which, upon the merits, he may be entitled. Hutchinson v. Ooombs, 1 Ware, 65; The Nimrod, ld. 9. The affray on the morning of September 1st was the result of repeated quarrels between the cook and the steward during the two months previous. The steward is shown to have been of a quarrelsome disposition, and he was discharged at Yokohama. According to the libellant's account of the affray upon the trial, after high words between them in the galley the steward had rushed out, and presently came back to the door of the galley with one hand in his pocket, holding the handle of a knife, recognized by the cook as having a long blade, and with violent language challenged him to come out and fight; that the cook asked him what he had in his pocket, and told him to go away; that the steward then rushed towards him; and that the libellant thereupon, believing his life in danger, standing in the doorway of his own room leading from the galley, fired at him twice with a pistol. The steward testified before the cunsul that the cook had first challenged him to fight, and that he had afterwards
come to' the door of the galley and renewed' the challenge; that the instrument in;his hand was a can-opener and not a knife. When the mate and captain, upon hearing the pistol shots, immediately went to the galley, no resistance was made by the cook; but he said he was sorry he had not killed him. No complaint was made of the subsequent.conduct oUbe cook, nor did he ata.ny time show any evidences of an ugly disposition. Several times during his confinement he requested t·o be allowed to go on duty. Similar reguests in his behalf by others ofthecre1V, none ,of which were acceded to by the captain. The pistol was not ,by but had been for some foreigri article. It was given to him to be exchanged scarcely capable of infl.icting 'a serious wound. The ball from it lodged in the steward's wrist, but inflicted only a1lesb wound, which dilmbledhis hand for two days only. The captain was examined before the consul, and his deposition 'Was also taken in this case. From these it does not appear that he ever 'instituted any inquiry into the particular causes of the affray, but he was familiar with the previous' quarrelling between the cook and the steward, as he had shortly before, when appealed to by the cook for Bome protection agaitist the steward, toldliim togetitlong as well as he could. From the violent character of the steward it is not certain that the cook did not have reasonable <lause to believe himself in danger when the steward approached him from the galley door before he fired; but the fact that he had a pistol at hand, ready for use, and his language when arrested immediately after firing, show, not only that he was at the time in great passion, but also that his act was not merely an act of self-defence. The circumstances, while not sufficient to furnish a justification, do show much palliation in the degree of his offence. His long subsequent confinement by the master until the arrival at Yokohama was considered by the consul in his decision a sufficient punishment. In my judgment it was altogether more than was warranted at the hands of the master, having reference only to the character of the cook himself, ap.d it may be that the confinement of the cook till arrival at Yokohama was quite as much an act of prudence and protection to him, in consequence of the quarrelsome and dangerous character of the steward, and the captain's belief that it was necessary to keep them apart. Aside from this consideration, the evidence does not show sufficient in the general behavior of the cook to warrant the prevention of his subse-
quent return to duty, as he desired. To inflict upon him, under these circumstances, loss of wages also, would be imposing So double punishment. In the case of Brower v. The Maiden, Gilp. 296, Hopkinson, J., says: " When seamen are confined on board for any misconduct or disobedience, has it ever been pretended that their wages stop, or are therefore forfeited during confinement? I know of no such case. Their imprisonment is their punishment. and forfeiture of wages has not been added to it." See, also, Bray v. The Ship Atlanta, Bee, 48; Woodv. The Nimrod, Gilp.83, 89; Jayv. Almy, 1 Wood &, M. 262; Thorn v. White, 1 Pet. Ad. 168, 175.
It is only where So mariner is incorrigibly disobedient, and his confinement, in consequence of his own dangerous character, is necessary to the safety of the ship, that a forfeiture of wages has also been imposed. It would be not only unjust to the seaman, but highly impolitic and dangerous as So precedent, to permit the vessel to make a profit by the confinement of seamen on board except in cases of this description. The proofs in this case fall far short of that, and the libellant should, therefore, recover his wages up to January 31, 1879, at the rate of $30 per month, less $60 advanced to him, with costs.
Charge of Judge Cox, of the District of Columbia, delivered on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1882, in the celebrated case of Charles J. Guiteau for the assassination of James A. Garfield, late president of the United States, on the second day of July, 1881. Flea. of insanity. Verdict: Guilty.
Gentlemen of the Petit Jury:
The constitution of the United States provides that"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall bave been committed; ... ... ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor j and to have the assisbtnce of counsel for his defence." These provisions are deemed the indispensable safeguards of life and liberty. They are intended for the protection of the innocent from injustice and oppression. It is only by their faithful observance that guilt or innocence can be fairly ascertained. Every accused person is presumed innocent until the accusation be proved, and until such proof no court dare to prejudge his cause or withhold from him the protection of this fundamental law. With what difficulty and trial of patience this law has been adminibLered in the present case, you have been daily witnesses. After all, however, it is our consolation that not one of these sacred guaranties has been violated in the person of the accused. If he be guilty, no man deserves their protection less than he does. If he be innocent, no man needs their protection more, and no man's case more clearly proves their beneficence and justice. At length the long chapter of proof is ended; the task of the advo· cate is done; and the duty now rests with you of determining, with such aid as I can afford you, the issue between public justice and the prisoner at the bar. No one can feel more keenly than I do the grave responsibility of my duty; and I feel that I can only discharge it by a close adherence to the law as it has been laid down by its highest authorized expounders. Before proceeding, I wish to interject here a remark upon an epi. '\'.10,no.2-11