17 Fed. Rep; .606; The Johns Hopkins, 13 Fed. Rep; 185; The l'ep,nsy1,. vania, 12 Fed. Rep. 914. " 1 think the damages should have been divided between ,the two vessels, and the decree of the district,court will be modified to that extent.
UNITED STA'tES ".SULLIVAN.
(Ob'ctdt Opu'l't, D. Oregon. October 8, 1890.)
SJ'lippme-:.BOAltDttG ARRivING 'VBSSBL·
.Section 4606 ofthe Revised.l::)tatutea,providing for the punishment of any perSO,n whot ,wltl1out the consent of the master, goes on board an arriving vessel berore shereaone. her place ot destination, and'Is' moored thereat, applies to foreign vesBelil. '
In Admiralty. 'Informanop for boarding arriving vessel. E. ' ,Maya and Edw.m'd ,N. DeeJdy, for plaintiff. 'Raleigh/Scott, for
DEADY, J.. The informations in thelle cases charge the ,defendants with the violation of section 4606 of the Revised Statutes, on August 24, 1890; by unlawfully going ,on board the vessel Kate F. Troop,while she WlU! in the Columbia river,.near Astoria., and about to a.rrive ather port of destination, to-wit, Portland, Or., and before she was completely moored therEla.t:, The statute provides that: ,,"Every 'person who, not being in the United States service. and not being duly,autborizedby law for pUl'pose,g911s on board of any vessel about to at pla(le uf llestination, betore her actual arrival, and before ,llba bas been completely moored,withoutperinission of the .mastet, shall. forevetysucb offense, be punishable by a fine of not more t.han two hundred dollars; and by imprisonment for not more .than six months; and the master of such vessei may take any such person 80 going on board into custody, liver him lip forthwith to Rny constable 01' police ,officer, to be by bim taken !:)eCore any j of the peace,to be with according to the provisions of this ..Rey_, :=:;t. tit. 53·. This statute is sectiOn of the act of June 7, 1872, (17 St, 262,) entitled" Anaet to authorize the app()int)llent of shipping by the several circuit courtsqf the United States, to superintend the shipping and discharge of sea)llen engaged inmercbant spipsbelonging: to. the .:United States, and for the further protection of sea)llen." , qln the ,Revised ,Statutes the word "vessel" is substituted for "ship," jn tbeorigiTla,J..,
UNITED S'1'ATES ,,. SULLJVAB..
The defendantBdemur to the informations on the ground:
U(l} That the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime; and (2) that the court baa no jurisdiction to authorize the filing of the information
by the district attorney." The cases were- heatd together. On the argument, the second ground ()f demurrer was abandoned. In support of the first ground of demurrer, it is contended that the statute, taken in connection with section 4612, Rev. St., applies only to American vessels, of which the Troop does not appear to· be one. And it is admitted by counsel that she is a British vessel. In support of this proposition, U. S. v. Minges, 16 Fed. Rep. 657, is cited. This case was an information under section 4601 pfthe Revised Statutes, taken from section 4 of the act of July 20, 1790, (1 St. 133,) entitled" An act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service," for harboring a deserting seaman from a. Norwegian vessel. The court said that the section taken in connection with section 4612 (section 65 of the act of 1872) did not include a desertion from a foreign vessel, and sustained a demurrer to the information; but the court, in support of this conclusion. evidently relied on the fact that there is a treaty betweenthe United States and Norway for the arrest and surrender of deserting seamen from vessels of either nation in the waters of the other. Pub. Treaties, p. 740, art. 14. Section 5280 of the Revised Statthe means for enforcing this treaty within the jurisdiction utes of the United States. Section 4612 provides in the construction of this title, (53,) every person having the command of any vessel belonging to any citizen of the United States shall be deemt'd to be the' master' thereof; and every person (apprentices excepted) who shall be employed or engaged to serve, in any capacity, on board the same,· shall be deemed and taken to be a ·seaman; , and the term ·vessel' shall be understood to comprehend every description of vessel navigating on any sea or chllnnel, lake or river,to which the provisions,of this title may be applicable." But, as I understand this section, it does not declare that the word "seaman," as used in the statute, is confined to one employed on a vessel belonging to a citizen of the United States; but rather, and only, that every person ,employed on such a vessel shall be considered a "seaman." Nor does this section exclude foreign vessels from the operation of the statute,by declaring that a person in command of a vessel belonging to a. citizen of the United States shall be considered the" master" thereof. There is nothing to be inferred from either of these provisions that section 4606 does not include the boarding of a foreign vessel contrary thereto.. , In :U. is. v. Minges, supra, weight seems to have been given to the fact that title 53 of the Revised Statutes, in which these sections occur, is called "Merchant Seamen. II
Now, merchant seamen are simply seamen in private vessels, as disfrom seamen in the navy or public vessels. The seamen em, ployed on private vessels of all, nations are merchant seamen, and liter, ally included in this phrase. v. McArdle, 2 Sawy.367" I held, in the district court, that section 4596, (section 51 of the act of 1872, Rnd included in title 53 of Revised Statutes,) providing for the punishment of minor offenses in the sea service, is applicacommitted by "seamen," lawfully hie to aseaman engaged on a foreign vessel, who is guilty of "disobedience," within the waters of the United States. , TheI,l, as: now, section 4612 was relied on as qualifying the general language of the statute, "any seaman," so as to confine it to cases of seameJ:l on Ap,lerican vessels. , . In, answer te> this argument, I said" and now repeat: "Theeff.ect afaU this 4612) is pnly to declare, in a certam class ot cases" to-wit, ships' belonging to any citizen of the United States.' two already well established: (1) That a person having the command of such a ship shall be deemed thE> master thereof; and (2) that every person employed thereon shall be deemed a seaman. But the section does not declare that tte term' seaman' as used in the act, or that the act itself, shall be held to apply only to seamen serving on ships belonging tocilizells of the United States. aud therllLore it does nut affect the question under consideration." But the section on which these infoirnations are founded does not afin any' service, foreign or domestic. fect "seaman "as such, It provides for the punishment of any "person," be he sailor, boarding"house runner, or harbor or river pirate, who, without the authority of Jaw, or the consent of the master, presumes togo on board of"any vessel" arriving in any water of the United States before she has reached her phieeof'destination, her ultimate port, and been completely moored 'tHereat.· . " ; last.clause but one of section 4612 Seems to be conclusive on the pohlt that the word "vessel" as used in title 53 includes a foreign yessel, aswell,as a domestic one; for it declares that: .. The term' vessel' shall be understood to compreheild every description of vessel navigating on any sea or channel, lake or river, to which the provisions way hI! applicable. " When this (!)ccurrence took place, the Troop was navigating the Columbia. a river to which the provisions of the title are applicable. In'deed, being a general statute, containing no limitations upon its operation in this respect l it is applicable to all the waters of the United States, , The evil which this section is intended to prevent and remedy is apparerit. and in this district notorious. For instance, lawless persons, in the interest or employ of what may be called "sailor-mongers," get on poard vessels bound for Portland as soon as they get in the Columbia river, and by the help of intoxicants, and the use of other means, often savoring bfviolence, get the crews ashore, and leave the vessel without nelp to manage or care for her. The sailor thereby loses the wages of the vo,rage, and is dependent on the boarding-house for the necessaries
UNITED STATES 11. SULLIVAN.
of life, where he is kept, until sold by his captors to an outgoing vessel, at an enormous price. Can there be any reason assigned why the legislation of a civilized nation should limit the punishment for such practices to the case of the vessels of her own citizens, Bnd leave those of foreign nations, which come here in pursuance of treaties of amity and commerce, to take care of themselves,-with the marline-spike, it may be? Every commercial nation is directly interested in maintaining peace and order on Its navigable waters, and affording reasonable protection to foreign vessels engaged iIi c.ommerce thereout The comity of nations requires that each oue shall provide means for the arrest and punishment of all persons guilty of such depredations on commerce within its waters; and I have no doubt that such was the intention of congress in the enactment of section 4606. Its }anguage, "any vessel," includes both foreign and domestic ones; and there is nothing in the context or the subject-matter to warrant its limitation to the latter, but the contrary. Since I commenced the examination of these cases, my attention has been attracted to· the case of U. S. v. AnderBOn, 10 Blatchf. 226, 228, in which Mr. Justice BENEDICT held (1872) that this section applies to foreign vessels. On this point he said: "Considering the general language of section 62. (section 4606, Rev. St.· ) and in view of the evil sought to be remedied thereby. and of the nature of the prohibition therein contained. the section is to be considered as intended to protect foreign vessels, as well 8S vessels of the United States; and the fact that the vessel boarded by the prisoner was a foreign vessel is, therefore, of no avail as a defense in a prosecution under this section." . In conclusion he said: "I have thought;proper to submit the questions raised to the consideration of the circuit judge, p4r. Justice BLATCHFORD.) and he concurs with me in the opinion that the rulings stated are correct." The demu11'ers are overruled.
, .... ! ·
JEDERAL REPORTER,' \rot ,4:3.
UNITED STATES V. THE GEO.
': (DtBtriCt Court, N. D. Wa8h1lnuton. July,189o.)
A vessel stolen frOm ite owner, and used, while out of llis control, without his knowledge or-consent, in bringing Chinese laborers into the United States in violatlOD ohlie law;: 'dOes not for that cause become liable'toseizure and forfeiture. To wotll:a for.feltureof a 'VBssel 'under the. Chinese restriction: act, the master muet knowingly violate the statute. .A person in control of a stolen vessel is not master of the ves8elln theseuse in which'the term ia applledtoan oJJlcer in the statutes of the
(S1l tla bu8
A.OT-Fotill'll\l'ftrBi!I-'MAsTER OP VESSBL. '
In Admiralty.' , .ThiS is a 'case of seizure of a vessel captured while engaged In bringing Chinese,labQl'ersinto the United States contrary to law, and a forfeiture is claimed on the ground that .the person who had actual possession and command oethe' vessel was guilty of knowingly violating the statutes of the UnitElQ Statel:! which prohibit such immigration. P. H. Winston, U. S. Atty., and P. a. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., for libelant. , " O. D.' 1JJm,e:ry, for claimant. ;' HANFORD, (orally.) The ,evidence clearly establishes, that Mr. Bertram is the owner of the vessel; that the six QhinElse laborers who were brought into the United States were so brought by a person unauthorized by him, who at the time had the possession of the vessel without his ·knowledgeor-cimsent, having in ,fact stolen it ftom him. And on this state cif fllcts: the cjtlestion is whether the vessel is to be forfeited to the United States. The statute that has been cited to me contains no provision whatever for the forfeiture of a vessel. However, there is a statute found on page 504 of this same volume (25 St. U. S.) which prohibits absolutely the bringing of Chinese laborers into the United States, and provides that the duties, liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures imposed 'and the powers conferred by the second, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth sections of the act to which this is a supplement are extended to and made applicable to this act. This refers back to sections 2, 10, 11, and 12 of what is known as the "Chinese Restriction Act of 1882." That act, as amended in 1884, contains a provision for the forfeiture of a vessel as follows: "Sec. 10. That every vessel whose master sllall knOWingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation in any district of the United States in which said vessel may enter, or in which she may be found," 23 St. U.
It is under this provision of the statute, if at all, that the vessel is to be declared forfeited. Now this forfeiture takes place only when the master of the vessel knowingly violates the law by bringing Chinese