Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
205
39 S.Ct. 89
63 L.Ed. 208
NEILSON et al.
v.
RHINE SHIPPING CO. HARDY et al. v. SHEPARD &
MORSE LUMBER CO. THE RHINE. THE WINDRUSH.
Nos. 393 and 394.
Argued Nov. 5, 1918.
Decided Dec. 23, 1918.
These cases were considered together in the courts below and may be disposed
of in like manner here.
The facts are:
In the first case Paul Neilson and nine other seamen sue for the recovery of
wages claimed to be due them from the bark Rhine. It appears that they shipped
on the American bark Rhine at Buenos Ayres, October 7, 1916, for a voyage to
New York, at the rate of $25 per month. It is stipulated that the shipping of
seamen on sailing vessels at Buenos Ayres is controlled by certain shipping
masters, to one of whom the libelants, in ac cordance with the usual custom and
The facts in relation to the case of the barkentine Windrush differ from the
above only in respect of the fact that the advance notes are not in evidence, but
are noted on the articles.
The District Court decided in favor of the libelants. 244 Fed. 833. The Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the decrees. 250 Fed. 180. The cases are here on
writs of certiorari.
The section of the statute is the same as that involved in the case of The Talus
(No. 392) 248 U. S. 185, 39 Sup. Ct. 84, 63 L. Ed. 200, just decided. The
difference is that the advances were made by the master of an American vessel
in a South American port, whereas in The Talus the advancements were made
to foreign seamen in a British port. The same general consideration as to the
interpretation of the statute which controlled in the decision of the case of The
Talus are applicable here and need not be repeated. $That American vessels
might be controlled by con gressional legislation as to contracts made in foreign
ports may, for present purposes at least, be conceded. It appears that only by
compliance with the local custom of obtaining seamen through agents can
American vessels obtain seamen in South American ports. This is greatly to be
deplored, and the custom is one which works much hardship to a worthy class.
But we are unable to discover that in passing this statute Congress intended to
place American shipping at the great disadvantage of this inability to obtain
seamen when compared with the vessels of other nations which are manned by
complying with local usage.
The statute itself denies clearance papers to vessels violating its terms. This
provision could only apply to domestic ports and is another evidence of the
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice McKENNA, with whom concur Mr. Justice HOLMES, Mr. Justice
BRANDEIS, and Mr. Justice CLARKE, dissenting.
These cases were submitted with Nos. 361 and 392 (248 U. S. 182, 185, 39
Sup. Ct. 83, 84, 63 L. Ed. 199, 200), and, like them, are proceedings in
admiralty under the Seamen's Act of 1915, 38 Stat. 1165-1168.
10
The facts are set out in the opinion of the court. In these cases, as in others, we
are constrained to dissent. The principle of decision should be, we think, that
declared in our dissent in The Talus, 248 U. S. 185, 39 Sup. Ct. 84, 63 L. Ed.
200. The facts of these cases put more tension upon it, that is, an adhesion to
the words of the statute as determinative of its purpose rather than some of its
consequences. We have here the somewhat appealing force of a picture of an
American ship only able to escape practical internment in a foreign port by a
violation of the law, if it be as we have declared it. And this under the sanction
of the United States Consul acting under the following regulation of the
Department of State:
11
It hence follows that we are of opinion the judgment of the Circuit Court of
Appeals in each case should be reversed and that of the District Court affirmed.