No. 181.
Sir
Edward Thornton to Mr. Fish.
Sir: I feel it my duty to invite your attention to certain measures taken by Mr. Shannon, a United States commissioner at New Orleans, and Mr. Mason, holding the same office at Galveston, which, if they be repeated, may prove very prejudicial to the interests of British shipping arriving at those ports.
Not long since the British ship Woodburn arrived at New Orleans on a voyage, as described in the articles of agreement, “from Glasgow to Calcutta, and, if required, to any port or ports in the Indian or China seas, Mauritius, Australian colonies, North or South Pacific, West Indies, British North America, or United States of America, to a final port or ports of discharge on the continent of Europe, and or in the United Kingdom, with liberty to call at any port for orders, probable period of agreement two years.”
At Calcutta a man, named Thomas Croker, was shipped in due form before the proper officer, whose initials were attached to his engagement, [Page 417] which appeared on the articles as follows: “Signature of crew; Thomas Croker; age, 37; town or country where born, Ireland.” On the arrival of the ship at New Orleans Croker sued for his discharge and wages on the sole ground that he was a citizen of the United States. As he had described himself as born in Ireland, it was contended on the part of the master that he was prima facie British subject, and that he was bound by law of evidence and by the United States statutes to produce his naturalization papers; but Mr. Commissioner Shannon held that his parol statement was sufficient.
It was then contended that his signing the articles of a ship, proceeding to an American port, to serve beyond that port, must be taken as a waiver to any supposed right to his discharge as an American citizen, but the United States commissioner held that, as Croker had signed the articles after the voyage had commenced, the contract was not an original one, and therefore not binding.
Mr. Commissioner Shannon was good enough to give Her Majesty’s consul these decisions in writing, under date of December 31, 1872, in the following words:
Sir: In the case of Thomas Croker, seaman, vs. ship Woodburn, I decided in favor of the seaman for his wages on the grounds, viz:
- 1.
- That he is an American seaman and entitled to his discharge and payment of his wages in an American port.
- 2.
- The alleged agreement produced is not an original agreement, so far as Croker is concerned, the agreement being one made at Greenock, Scotland, and not at Calcutta, in the East Indies, where the seaman shipped. The wages, if a libel is filed, which will be done, provided payment is not made, will be at £3 per month. If the matter is not settled by Thursday next (sic) will be prosecuted in the United States district court by the filing of a libel against the ship.
R. H. SHANNON.
To avoid farther expense the master discharged the seaman, paid him his wages, and Mr. Commissioner Shannon his fees, amounting to $13.61.
Other cases have since occurred in which the commissioner has made similar rulings.
At Galveston, Tex., the master of the British ship Bucephalus, on his arrival at that port, informed Her Majesty’s consul that a seaman named Thomas Moffat had, while at sea, assaulted him and knocked him down. Moffat subsequently came on shore and also complained to the consul of ill treatment by the master. The consul agreed to take his deposition and forward it to England, so that the case might be tried there.
Moffat then carried the matter before Mr. Sanford Mason, one of the United States commissioners at that port, who issued a warrant for the apprehension of the master, who was consequently arrested about 9 o’clock in the evening of the 28th ultimo and immediately carried to the common jail. He was released at 11 o’clock, having at that time procured sufficient bail.
After an investigation and trial before Mr. Commissioner Mason, which occupied portions of two days, the case was dismissed.
You will, perhaps, agree with me in the opinion that the rulings of Mr. Commissioner Shannon in the above-mentioned case cannot be supported, and though it may be true that such cases could be carried on appeal to the United States district court, the expense and delay caused by such proceedings could not but be extremely prejudicial to the interests of British ship-owners. I venture, therefore, to hope that some means may be found of preventing the repetition of decisions which oblige ship masters to discharge seamen before the completion of the voyage during which they have contracted to serve.
[Page 418]The action of Mr. Commissioner Mason at Galveston seems also to be rather extraordinary, for there can be little doubt that he might have ascertained in a moment that the offense complained of was committed on the high seas, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities of the United States.
But, even if this were not so, I should be much obliged to you if you would inform me whether such cases as those cited above legally come within the jurisdiction of authorities of the United States in the position held by Mr. Commissioner Shannon and Mr. Commissioner Mason, for upon this point I have been unable to obtain an opinion upon which I can rely.
I have, &c.,