US. the ship Neptune. SEAMEN'S WAGES. Walton et al. in the latter, at his own charge. The ship, by act of Congress is bound to furnish medicines or pay the physician's bill:* but the sailor, when the ship is so furnished, must pay for chirurgical or medical advice and assistance. If left or put on shore (in lieu of the ship's provisions, ship-boy, or nurse ordered by the law of Oleron) his reasonable board wages must be paid by the ship. Medicine chest. The case in 6 Term Rep. 320, Cutter, s. Powell, was determined on the special agreement, and not on the general maritime law. A sum in gross, four times larger than the rate of current wages, was to be paid on terms which death prevented the mariner from performing. Modus et conventio vincunt legem. It appears in this in this case, that there was no fixed usage among the London merchants, in 1795, on this subject. The high wages given to our mariners, are * Always bound to submit, with the respect I owe, to the laws, yet having frequently seen the inefficacy, and in several instances the danger, of medicines administered ignorantly, or carelessly, I have not been perfectly satisfied that the seamen should pay the bill for medical advice, which to complete the intent of the provision should be charges on the ship. But finding the weight of authority that way, I have yielded. It is certain that medicines administered without due knowledge of the disease, are as often fatal as the malady, if not more so. Congress intended a benefit to the mariner, but he had better pay for medical advice, than risk the consequences of indiscreet use of the medicine chest. In numerous instances, physicians' bills, especially in the West Indies, have balanced the claim for wages. By the terms in the alternative, in the act of Congress, that if the ship has no medicine chest, the owners shall pay the physician's bill, it seems, that if the ship is furnished with the chest, the sailor must pay for advice; but the ship must supply medicine. SEAMEN'S WAGES. the ship Neptune. general, and not confined to a particular case; Walton et al. they are contracted for under the shipping articles, and not by special agreement. They are caused by our neutral situation, which occasions great demands for seamen. The merchant's profit, or chance of it, is in proportion. High wages, are however, not confined to the maritime class of our citizens. But the principle is not affected by such fluctuating circumstances. It is certain that I rely much on principles practised upon, in instances of sick and disabled mariners. I cannot distinguish these from those which should govern in the case of a mariner deceased. The law of Oleron couples them together, and is with me decisive. The ordinance of France has fixed a rule for that nation. This rule would give the libellants the full wages, if the decedents had died on the home passage. There are some grounds in point of fact, to warrant this application of their case to this rule, if it were necessary. The outward passage was ended when the ship arrived at the HaThe wages for the voyage must be paid, vanna. subject to all legal deductions. I do therefore adjudge, order and decree, that Decree for the libellants, respectively, have and recover the full wages. sums following, that is to say, Elijah Walton, administrator of Matthias Strum, shall have and recover the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, and Andrew Armstrong, administrator of Johannes Pagel, shall have and recover the sum of sixty four dollars and eighty-three cents, being the balance of wages due to the said Matthias Strum and Johannes Pagel, for the whole voyage. And I finally adjudge, order and decree, that the said ship Neptune, to the ship Neptune. SEAMEN'S WAGES. Walton et al. gether with her tackle, apparel and furniture, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be condemned, and that the same be sold by the marshal of this district for the payment to the libellants aforesaid of the sums of money herein before decreed to them respectively, together with the costs and charges, legally accruing, in the premises. SEAMEN'S WAGES. Scott, administrator of Ellis, versus, The brig Greenwich. THE mariner died on the home passage. Payment to the time of his decease, agreed to be paid; but the residue for the voyage disputed. Court. I have determined this question upon deliberation; and my decree may be seen in the clerk's office. I am obliged to decide this, and many points arising here, on what I conceive to be the principles of the maritime laws. I find in many cases few, and in some, no decisions in the books to I have seen no reason to alter guide me. my opinion. I perceive in a late English publication, that the writer (Abbot, 356, &c.) is doubtful on this question, He says, "there is no general decision on this subject, in our law books." He alleges, "that it is not clear whether the payment thus directed, is to be understood of a sum proportionate to the time of his service, or of the whole sum earned, if he had lived to the end of the voyage.' He cites much at large, the case of Cutter vs. Powell, 6 Term Rep. on which I have heretofore remarked. It appears to my mind, and if my opinion is erroneous, it is in a train to be corrected, that the maritime laws have not left it doubtful, but to me clear, that the wages must be paid for the whole voyage. He (Abbot) agrees, and cites authorities to prove, that, by the maritime laws, wages for the entire Scott vs. SEAMEN'S WAGES. voyage, are due, though inability to do service has the brig occurred by any casualty in actual duty, or by naGreenwich. tural sickness. I have before made my observa tions on the analogy between those cases, and that now before me. The relative bearing of a point on the whole system, is necessary to a correct conclusion; and in this case, perhaps, more so, than a partial view of it under its own circumstances. My habit is always to decide according to my best judgment. I never prolong litigation, when my own mind is satisfied, because differences of opinion arise on questions brought before this court. Decision here, forwards final determination, if the discontented party chooses to appeal. There has been an appeal, in another case, long depending in the superior court. My practice is, when an appeal is depending (if bona fide intended to procure a decision, and not for delay) to order payment in posterior and similar cases, so far as the point is not questioned, and direct the litigated portion to be paid into court, liable to further order. Let the administrator in this case receive to the time of the seaman's death; and let the residue be paid into court, or stipulation be entered into therefor. If no steps are taken, in a reasonable time, to obtain the decision of the circuit court, I shall think myself warranted to effectuate my own judgment.* * Many cases have been brought before the court in which the points here decided have been recognised, but it has not been thought necessary to publish any others. The operation of these decisions, has been in some instances, extremely severe on ship owners; and their effect is now, in most cases, prevented by the insertion of a covenant in the shipping |