Case of men discharged abroad by magistrates or naval courts.
8
The 228th section of the Merchant Shipping Act contains some rules which are good, as far as they go. They are as follows; viz.,
a. If a man is hurt in the service of the ship, the expense of curing him and sending him home falls on the owner.
b. If he is removed from the ship for the purpose of preventing infection, and subsequently returns to duty, the expense of curing him falls on the owner.
c. The expense of medicines, &c. on board ship falls on the owner.
And by section 229 these expenses, if paid by the Government, are recoverable from the shipowners.
In other cases the expenses caused by a seaman's illness are charged against his wages.
To these provisions has been added the following by the Act of 1867
a. That if in any case it is shown that a seaman who is ill on a voyage has through the neglect of the Master or Owner not been provided with proper food and lodging, or with medicines and anti-scorbutics as required by law, the owner shall, besides paying wages, be liable to pay the expenses incurred in curing him, not exceeding 3 months wages.
This establishes a sound principle, but it may be doubted whether it goes far enough. As between the owner and the Government, I think it would be good policy where a seaman is left behind abroad from sickness to make the owner liable for all expenses which the Government may pay in curing the man and sending him home, except those expenses to which the seaman himself is liable, and which are retained by the Government out of his wages.
This goes far beyond what we do at present. But ships and shipowners ought to pay for their own men, and it is good policy to make them do so. The effect will be to prevent sickness.
The mode of procedure to enforce these liabilities will be the same as in the three preceding cases.
5 The next case is that of men discharged abroad by magistrates or naval courts.
This generally, perhaps always, happens in consequence of some dispute. It is the fault either of the masters or of the seamen, or of both. In this case the court has the power of deciding what wages are due, and of ordering payment, subject to the restriction contained in the 190th section of the Act, which is to the effect that no seaman engaged for a voyage which is to end in the United Kingdom may sue for wages abroad, unless discharged by the master, except in cases where there is such ill-usage as to warrant danger to life.
This clause is objected to by the Indian Government. It was inserted to prevent the encouragement of frivolous suits in corrupt colonial ports. But we have always doubted its justice, and I think we should trust our magistrates not to discharge a man, or order payment of his wages, without sufficient cause.
The courts abroad ought, therefore, to have the power of settling disputes, and of ordering payment of wages where wages are due. And they might very properly have the additional power of deciding whether those wages ought to belong absolutely to the seaman, as in the case of men voluntarily discharged abroad, or whether they should be applicable to the expenses of maintaining him and sending him home.
9
In the former case the wages should be paid and dealt with precisely in the same way as in the case first above mentioned, i.e., of men discharged in pursuance of their articles. In the latter case they should, when paid into the hands of the shipping officer, be liable in the first instance for the seaman's expenses, and the balance only (if any) should belong to him. But in either case, as between the ship and the Government, the ship should be liable for such part of the expenses incurred in relieving and sending home the seaman as are not recovered by the Government out of his wages.
It may seem hard that a shipowner who has the misfortune of getting a blackguard on board his ship should not only be plagued with him on board, but be saddled with the expense of sending him back to this country. But there can be little doubt that if captains felt the liabilities of parting with men there would be fewer quarrels, fewer partings, and better discipline. And even if this were not so there is no justice in saddling the expense of sending home mutinous scoundrels, heedlessly engaged by the shipowner, at the cost of the public taxpayer.
In the case, however, of having to relieve and send home men who have thus been declared to be in fault, the relief should be withheld as long as possible, it should be as scanty as possible, and the seaman should be compelled, at the hazard of having relief refused altogether, to take any employment whatever that may offer.
Subject to these rules, the forms of practice and procedure would be the same as in the preceding cases.
6. The next case is that of men left in gaol. This case is precisely similar to that in which men are discharged by magistrates or naval courts for some fault of their own. And it should be treated precisely in the same way, except that provision may, according to the circumstances and rules of the place, have to be made for payment of gaol expenses. These should be charged to the seaman's wages, or to the owner, as the case may be, in the same way as other expenses.
7. The next case is that in which men are left behind because they have deserted or are alleged to have deserted.
This case, again, presents very great difficulties, both as between the shipowner and seaman, and as between the shipowner and the Government. If the shipowner, without fault on his part, loses the services of the seaman at a critical time, it seems hard to throw on him in addition the expense of relieving the deserter.
On the other hand, many, perhaps most, of the men who are returned as deserters by the masters have not really deserted, or if they have deserted have been driven or induced to desert by the masters. It is quite impossible for the shipping officer, without having the deserter before him, to investigate the truth of the reports of desertion made by the master.
Page 9
C
19308.
222
Case of men
discharged abroad by magistrates or naval courts.
8
The 228th section of the Merchant Shipping Act contains some rules which are good, as far as they go. They are as follows; viz.,
a. If a man is hurt in the service of the ship, the expense of curing him and sending him home falls on the owner.
6. If he is removed from the ship for the purpose of preventing infection, and subsequently returns to duty, the expense of curing him falls on the owner.
c. The expense of medicines, &c. on board ship
falls on the owner.
And by section 229 these expenses, if paid by the Government, are recoverable from the shipowners.
In other cases the expenses caused by a seaman's illness are charged against his wages.
To these provisions has been added the following by the Act of 1867
www.
a. That if in any case it is shown that a seaman who is ill on a voyage has through the neglect of the Master or Owner not been provided with proper food and lodging, or with medi- cines and anti-scorbutics as required by law, the owner shall, besides paying wages, be liable to pay the expenses incurred in curing him, not exceeding 3 months wages. This establishes a sound principle, but it may be doubted whether it goes far enough. As between the owner and the Government, I think it would be good policy where a sea- man is left behind abroad from sickness to make the owner liable for all expenses which the Government may pay in curing the man and sending him home, except those expenses to which the seaman himself is liable, and which are retained by the Government out of his wages.
This goes far beyond what we do at present. But ships and shipowners ought to pay for their own men, and it is good policy to make them do so. The effect will be to prevent sickness.
The mode of procedure to enforce these liabilities will be the same as in the three preceding cases.
5 The next case is that of men discharged abroad by magistrates or naval courts.
This generally, perhaps always, happens in con- sequence of some dispute. It is the fault either of the masters or of the seamen, or of both. In this case the court has the power of deciding what wages are due, and of ordering payment, subject to the restriction contained in the 190th section of the Act, which is to the effect that no seaman engaged for a voyage which is to end in the United Kingdom may sue for wages abroad, unless discharged by the master, except in cases where there is such ill-usage as to warrant danger to life. This clause is objected to by the Indian Government. It was inserted to pre- vent the encouragement of frivolous suits in corrupt colonial ports. But we have always doubted its justice, and I think we should trust our magistrates not to discharge a man, or order payment of his wages, without sufficient cause. The courts abroad ought, therefore, to have the power of settling
9
Cisputes, and of ordering payment of wages where wages are due. And they might very properly have the additional power of deciding whether those wages ought to belong absolutely to the seaman, as in the case of men voluntarily discharged abroad, or whether they should be applicable to the expenses of main- taining him and sending him home. In the former case the wages should be paid and dealt with precisely in the same way as in the case first above mentioned, ie, of men discharged in pursuance of their articles. In the latter case they should, when paid into the hands of the shipping officer, be liable in the first instance for the seaman's expenses, and the balance only (if any) should belong to him. But in either case, as between the ship and the Govern. ment, the ship should be liable for such part of the expenses incurred in relieving and sending home the seaman as are not recovered by the Government out of his wages.
It may seem hard that a shipowner who has the misfortune of getting a blackguard on board his ship should not only be plagued with him on board, but be saddled with the expense of sending him back to this country. But there can be little doubt that if captains felt the liabilities of parting with men there would be fewer quarrels, fewer partings, and better discipline. And even if this were not so there is no justice in saddling the expense of sending home mutinous scoundrels, heedlesly engaged by the shipowner, at the cost of the public taxpayer. In the case, however, of having to relieve and send home men who have thus been declared to be in fault, the relief should be withheld as long as possible, it should be as scanty as possible, and the seaman should be compelled, at the hazard of having relief* refused altogether, to take any employment whatever
may offer.
that
Case of men
Subject to these rules, the forms of practice and procedure would be the same as in the preceding cases.
6. The next case is that of men left in gaol. This case is precisely similar to that in which men left in gaol. are discharged by magistrates or naval courts for some fault of their own. And it should be treated precisely in the same way, except that provision may, according to the circumstances and rules of the place, have to be made for payment of gaol expenses. These should be charged to the seaman's wages, or to the owner, as the case may be, in the same way as other expenses.
7. The next case is that in which men are left Case of men behind because they have deserted or are alleged to who have have deserted.
deserted or are alleged This case, again, presents very great difficulties, to have de both as between the shipowner and seaman, and as serted. between the shipowner and the Government. If the shipowner, without fault on his part, loses the ser- vices of the seaman at a critical time, it seems hard to throw on him in addition the expense of relieving the deserter. On the other hand, many, perhaps most, of the men who are returned as deserters by the masters have not really deserted, or if they have deserted have been driven or induced to desert by the masters. It is quite impossible for the shipping officer, without having the deserter before him, to investigate the truth of the reports of desertion made by the master.
C
19308.
222
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.