By Revised Statutes, § 4569, the master is required to serve his crew with a regular daily allowance of antiscorbutics. It is not sufficient that limes were on board, from which they were at liberty to help themselves. Peterson v. J. F. Cunningham Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 211. It was also held that the penalty imposed for failure to serve antiscorbutics did not inure to the benefit of the crew. The usual length of a certain voyage by sailing vessel being 45 days, a delay, by bad weather or accident, prolonging it to 59 days, does not justify the master in shortening the schedule allowance of provisions to the crew. Peterson v. J. F. Cunningham Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 211. flour and copra (dried cocoanut), was not a proper equivalent for ship bread. Also, that the failure of the master properly to provision his ship was actionable, unless provisions, the allowance of which was reduced, could not be procured in sufficient quantities, or were unavoidably lost or injured, and proper and equivalent substitutes were obtained in a reasonable time. A sailing vessel on a voyage from the Pacific coast of the United States to Alaska may, by analogy, be considered as within Revised Statutes, § 4569, and the act of June 26, 1884, § 11, allowing only 10 per cent profit on articles sold to seamen from the slop chest. Hogan v. The J. D. Peters, 78 Fed. Rep. 368. Every master, when sailing to or from a foreign port, is bound to see, before he sets sail, that his vessel is properly provisioned, including a surplus to meet all reasonable contingencies of the seas, and if, in consequence of omission, there is a short allowance, the withholding of suitable food is not justifiable. United States r. Reed (1897), 86 Fed. Rep. 308. Where there is evidence that every one of a crew was afflicted with scurvey, of which several died, and that the ordinary cause of that disease is lack of suitable food, the jury are justified, unless some other cause is shown, in finding that there was such lack of suitable food. United States v. Reed (1897), 86 Fed. Rep. 308. Where a master by reason of difficulties at sea changes his voyage to a much longer one, he must exercise the same care as at first setting out to provision the ship for the change of course. United States v. Reed, 86 Fed. Rep. 308. Where a master by reason of stress of weather changes his voyage to a much longer one, for which his supplies are plainly insufficient, he was held liable in damages to the crew on account of their sufferings from want of provisions where he failed to call at certain intermediate ports for additional supplies, as he might easily have done. Robinson v. The T. F. Oakes, 82 Fed. Rep. 759. On an indictment under § 5347, Revised Statutes, for withholding suitable food and nourishment from the crew each statutory element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Reed, 86 Fed. Rep. 308. The fact that the master of a vessel did not furnish his crew with the full supply of lime juice required by the law and the shipping articles, does not, in the absence of any claim that the men complained, or that they suffered or were made sick by such deprivation, authorize them to abandon the ship before the end of her voyage and recover their wages, nor does it entitle them to extra wages. The Belvidere, 90 Fed. Rep. 106. The refusal of the master, after complaint made to him, to furnish a warm room for the seamen in cold weather, as required by the act of Dec. 21, 1898 (30 Stat. 755), constitutes a breach of the shipping articles, which justifies the men in leaving the ship and entitles them to recover wages for the time served. The Ida McKay, 99 Fed. Rep. 1002. 7. RELIEF OF SEAMEN. § 731. "Seamen of the United States entitled to relief when destitute are: "1. Merchant seamen, being citizens of the United States, or persons coming under the provisions of section 2174 of the Revised Statutes, and who, at the time of applying for relief, are by habit and intent bona fide members of the American merchant marine, although their last service may not have been in an American vessel. "2. Foreigners regularly shipped in an American vessel in a port of the United States." "The seamen of the merchant marine of the United States alone are those whom the law contemplates relieving; and no provision has been made for the relief of destitute Americans other than seamen. No relief, therefore, is authorized to be granted to such destitute Americans, or to seamen, whether citizens or foreigners, discharged or deserting from naval vessels of the United States; and expenditures for such relief will not be allowed if found in the consular accounts. Seamen on American yachts are regarded as American seamen within the meaning of the statute." Consular Regulations of the United States (1896), §§ 260, 261, pp. 97, 98. The act of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat. c. 121), for the protection of American seamen, and the amendments thereto, apply only to Americans, but to all Americans whose vocation is that of mariner, whether shipping on domestic or foreign vessels. United States v. Nelson, 100 Fed. Rep. 125. A Porto Rican serving as a seaman in the American merchant marine, including that of Porto Rico, is an American seaman within the meaning of the statutes relating to relief by consuls. Griggs, At. Gen., Feb. 19, 1901, 23 Op. 400. All seamen serving on foreign-built but American-owned vessels "are within the jurisdiction of the United States consuls abroad as to shipment and discharge, and (in China) as to all disputes between master and men, growing out of the discipline or police of the ship, and such seamen should be shipped and discharged before the consul. As to extra wages and relief, it is different." But an American citizen shipped on an American vessel either in a port of the United States or a foreign port, under proper conditions is always entitled to relief, protection and extra wages." 66 Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Wingate, consul at Foochow, No. 53, Sept. 20, 1884, 111 MS. Inst. Consuls, 543. Where a minor, having concealed himself, without the knowledge of his father, on board of a whaling-ship, and not being discovered until the vessel was at sea, was then left by the master in the care of the American consul at the first port at which he touched, it was held to be the duty of the consul to provide for and send him home to the United States. Luscom v. Osgood, 1 Sprague, 82. With regard to two stowaways who were put ashore by a Pacific Mail steamer at Mazatlan, Mexico, and when the American consul there requested the captain of the steamer to return to San Francisco, the Department of State said: “If they were paupers and a burden to the community where they were thrown by the company, or if they H. Doc. 551-vol 5-10 belonged to the criminal class, it was the province of the local authorities to protect themselves. If they had complained through the consul and required the steamship company to take the stowaways back, the consul could not have ignored the complaint, as it would have been morally incumbent upon the company to remedy the act of its agent." Mr. Hunter, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lane, March 12, 1885, 154 A young man, a citizen of the United States, who had not been a seaman, finding" a chance to go to sea for the summer as a seaman on a British vessel, shipped at New York for Australia. He was discharged at Melbourne; and afterwards, having reached Sydney, N. S. W., appealed to the American consul there to send him back to the United States. The consul held that he was not authorized to do so. The consul's action was approved. The fact that the applicant for relief was an American citizen" was not, said the Department of State, decisive of the question. The test of his right to relief as an American seaman is not his citizenship, but his actual and bona fide service in the American merchant marine." Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lodge, U. S. S., Aug. 28, 1897, 220 MS. Dom. Let. 480. Certain seamen of the American bark Hilo, which was wrecked near the Hawaiian Islands, reached Honolulu in an "utterly destitute" condition. The American consul-general supplied their wants and shipped them to San Francisco, where they were to be discharged and paid off; and he wrote to the shipping commissioner at San Francisco, enclosing an account of the necessaries furnished and requesting that the amount supplied to each seaman be deducted from his wages. Held, that, under §§ 4577, 4579, Revised Statutes, the amount retained by the commissioner, in accordance with the consul-general's request, should not be retained by the government, but should be refunded to the seamen. Olney, At. Gen., 1894, 21 Op. 25, 34. "The only provision of the existing statutes requiring the retention <f Licensed yachts are not required to "clear at the custom-house' (section 4214, R. S. act March 3, 1883), and have been permitted to depart to foreign countries without obtaining the collector's certification to their crew lists and articles, but they are entered at the customhouse on their return (section 4218, R. S.). The crew is not accounted for at the custom-house, however, under section 4576, Revised Statutes. Such yachts are liable to seizure and forfeiture for any violation of the provisions of Title XLVIII. Revised Statutes of the United States (section 4214, R. S., act March 3, 1883). It has been held that the provisions of law relating to the shipment of seamen do not apply to such vessels, but shipping commissioners have been permitted to allow the shipment of seamen on the vessels before them, if requested to do so by the private persons concerned. The Treasury Department, June 8, 1892, basing its action on an opinion of the First Comptroller, "that seamen of the merchant marine alone are those within the contemplation of the law providing relief for American seamen," held that seamen discharged from an American yacht, either documented or simply carrying naval commissions, or both, were not entitled to relief in cases of destitution, the First Comptroller citing in his opinion Matthews . Offley, 3 Sumner, and 15 Opinions Attorney-General, 683. A subsequent First Comptroller, however, took a different view, and held that seamen on American yachts were entitled to the relief provided for American seamen in the same manner and to the same extent as if the seamten were on other private vessels. (First Comptroller's Decisions, 189394, p. 309.) The Treasury Department accordingly changed its ruling, and declared that the Comptroller's decision covered both registered and licensed yachts. Circular to United States consular officers, Sept. 29, 1897, State Dept. "Foreign-built yachts purchased and owned by American citizens in foreign countries. . are not vessels of the United States' or regularly documented vessels within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and, according to paragraph 349 of the Consular Regulations, may, when in foreign ports, be subject to tonnage and other consular fees from which regularly documented vessels are exempt. "With reference to shipment, discharge, and relief of seamen of such vessels, and the collection and disposition of wages, you are referred to Articles XII. to XX. of the Consular Regulations as modified by the act of December 21, 1898, and the Department's circular of February 6, 1900. "In connection with the foregoing, you should examine carefully the Department's circular of September 29, 1897, in regard to the shipment and discharge of seamen on American registered or licensed yachts. The relation of a consular officer to seamen on board foreignbuilt yachts, purchased and owned by American citizens abroad, should be the same as to seamen upon American registered or licensed yachts, except as otherwise provided by the Regulations.” Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Thackara, July 20, 1900, 173 MS. Inst. Consuls, 433. |