. '!rUE llONTAl1EDIA.
(;Di8trict (Jourt, E. D. Loui8iana. Novell\ber, 1882.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT-REV. ST.
H 4501-4512. The stlttute of June 7,1872, (17 St. at Large, p. 262; Rev. St. H 4501 to 4512,) does not apply to a British vessel.
In the absence of circumstances showing cruelty or great hardship the admiraHy courts of tlui United States cannot be required or allow themselves to entertain jurisdiction of a cascwhere sUbjeets.of a foreign government invoke a merchltnt yessel of fox:eign government. their assistance The Carolina, (decided April, 1876, ante, 424,) followed.
In Admiralty. O. B. Sansum·and J. B. White, for libelants. J. R. Beckwith and J. WaZker Fear1/-, forcll1imants. BILLINGS, D.J. This is a suit instituted by subjects of the em· pire of China againet a British vessel. They were. shipped at·a port within the United States. namely, at San Francisco, for a voyage which was to occupy three years,ll.nd were to be discllarged at Hong Kong. The whole question is, does the statute of June 7, 1872, (17 St. 262; Rev. St. at variouslleciions from section 4501-4512,) apply to a British vessel? The copclusion which I· have reached is that it does not. The act of June 7, 1872,is, in the provisions which relate to. the shipping of seamen, a literal copy of the "Merchant Shipping Act," enacted by the pariiament of Great Britain in the year 1854. In section 160 of the act of the parliament of Great Britain' (11 & 18 Viet. c. 104:;· Digest-of St/).tutes relating to Merchant Shipping, 102) it is enacted that British ships 'Yhich engage seamen at any .place out of her majesty's dominions enter into the engage· ment with the sanction of the British consular officers, and accord· ing to that act of parliament. In section 15. of the act of the congress of the United. States. (17 St. at ;Large, 265) it is enacted totidem verbis that merchant ships of the United States who engage seamen at any place out of the United States shall enter into the ment with the sanction of the officers of the United States, and accordingto i thJ1t ;act' q(,congresS. .Such an adoption on the part of the United States, in the year 1872, of a statute of Great Britain passed in the year 1854-such a coincidence in the legislation of the two nations-furnishes a guide to the courts of each in the construction of these statutes equivalent to a treaty stipulation; for it cannot be supposed that our government would copy the stat-lUlported by Joseph P. Hornor,' Esq·· of the New Orleans bar.
ute of England, and thereby, through its legislation, assert the supremacy of its laws over the manner of the shipment of its sea· men in places and under certain circumstances in England, when it was not willing to concede an ascendency to the laws of England in similar places and under similar circumstances within our own territory. These statutes, then, must be considered as a mutual concession that either nation, in shipping her seamen upon her merchant vessels, was to follow her own laws, even when the shipping was effected within the territory of the other; and it would follow that the act of 1872 could not include in its operation British ships. The strncture of the of 1872 brings me to the same conclusion. The title of the statute is "An act to authorize the appointment of shipping commissioners by the several circuit courts of the United States to superintend the shipping and discharge of seamen engaged in merchant ships belonging to the United States, and for the further protection of seamen." The very title limits the action Of the shipping commissioners to a superintendence of the shipment on ships belonging to the United States. Now, the only thing complained of here is that there was no such superintendence. But, again, section 65 of the aot of 1872, p. 277, (act 4612 of Rev. St.,) enacts that, within the meaning and for the purposes of that act, a "master" is "a person having command of," and a "seaman" is "a person employed on board of," "a. Ship belonging to a citizen of the,United States." I think, therefore, the internal structure of the statute also shows that it was intended to operate only upon the manner of shipping crews upon our own vessels. The case presented is of of a. foreign government, invoking the jurisdiction of a coort of the United States against a. merchant vessel of another foreign -government. Independently of the statute of 1872, the case is without any' eircumstances which would require otallowthis oourt to entertain ju:risdiotion, (see the opinion rendered by this court In re TheOarolina, in april, 1876, ante, 424,) and that statute does not include this cause. . The decree, therefore, will be that the libel be dismissed.
THE NORA,(District (lourt, E. D. PennsylfJania. December 8,1882.)
SHH'PTNG-BILL OF LADiNG-ExCEPTION IN-NEGLIGENCIl;-SHORTAGE.
Where, by the negligence of the captain, an excessive delivery was made to one consignee and a shortage to another, in a libel by the latter against the vessel, tIle ship cannot avoid liability by a provision in the bill of lading that weight, contents, and material were unknown.
Whl're the charterer agreed to load with scrap-iron, and did load partly with scrap-st,·el, and the bill of lading provided that the shipment was subject to the ('harter.party, and weight, contents, and material were unknown, the vessel is lill ble to a consignee of a hill of lading for a shortage in the delivery scrapsteel occas:oned by the negligence of the captain.
SAME-EvIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.
That other consignments of scrap-steel were fully delivered, and that the'captain declined the assistance of an expert for distinguishing iron frOM steel, and aft.erwards made an excessive delivery containing, steel to a entitled to iron, are evidence in this case of negligence in making a shortage to a: consignee entitled to steel.
In Admiralty. Libel and anSWElr, ," Libel filed by Stewart & Co., indorsees of a"bill of against the bark Nora, to recover the value of a shortage pf 26 tons of scrap. On April 6, 18$0, Sanders Bros. shipped on tha bark Nora, afAtltwerp, to be carried to Philadelp4ia, a quantity of iug about 200,000 kilos, or 197 -tons, and indorse\i the billQf to libelants. The Nora also carried two other Eiteel.scrap, of io and 24 tons, respectively, and of scrap-iron, of 20 and 267 tons, respectiv\31y. 1:b,e Waterford in distress. where disc4arged the gl'eater part Qf, h.e,r cargo, and reloaded after repairs. After ar:rival in part of .libelant'!! was sent on geIljlr"l orde" to warehouse, and after inspectiO,nthere, appeared to be a shorta,gEl of 40 tons of scrap-steel. X.he two other consignments of were fully delivered, but to ,one, of the consignees entitled to, !l¢l)a.piron, there were deliyered about' 83 ton!! of sCl$p-stool, all an excess of 26 tons, " , The J,ipelants claim,ed:that ,upqnjthe reloadipgatWll,teriordsteel and iron had,been carelellsly,:p1iled, and that upon vesl\e.1at Philadelphlia the captaiu had :4eclined the a,s!!ista.nceof an ex" >l'iReportcdbyAlblll:t B: Guilbert, Esq.; ufthe PhilD.delphia'bar. " ;;