U. S. v. Morrison, (1833) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 448, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,818. Combination not to do duty. If the crew combine together not to do duty it is an endeavor to make a revolt, although no orders are actually given afterwards. U. S. v. Barker, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 404, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,516. If the crew combine together to refuse to do duty and actually refuse until the master complies with some improper request on their part, it is an endeavor to make a revolt. U. S. v. Gardner, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 402, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,188. A mere refusal to do duty on the part of a seaman without any attempt to encourage or aid or influence any others of the crew to the same act would certainly not amount to an endeavor to commit a revolt. There must be some effort or act to incite or encourage others to disobedience or some common combination or understanding to act together for mutual encouragement or support in such disobedience. U. S. v. Haines, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 272, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,275. A mere act of disobedience to a lawful command of the officers is not of itself an endeavor to make a revolt. But to amount to the offense it must be combined with an attempt to incite others of the crew to a general resistance or disobedience of orders or a general neglect and refusal of duty. U. S. v. Smith, (1816) 1 Mason (U. S.) 147, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,337. A mere passive act of disobedience on the part of a single member of the crew, unac companied by any element of force, intimidation, or fraud upon the master or other officer in command, and free from all conspiracy with and incitement of others of the crew to join in the act, is not a violation of this section or section 5360. U. S. r. Huff, (1882) 13 Fed. Rep. 630. A mere disobedience of orders by a seaman without encouraging or aiding or co-operating with others in the same act is not an endeavor to commit a revolt. U. S. v. Thompson, (1832) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 168, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,492. When one of the crew came on deck, apparently to see what was the cause of a disturbance going on, and was ordered peremptorily to go below, and neglected to do so, he was guilty of disobedience of orders and might be punished under the Act of Congress for disobedience of orders and an endeavor to make a revolt. U. S. v. Roberts, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,172. Combination to resist single order. If the crew were to combine together to resist a single lawful order of the master, or to compel him by force to yield up his authority in a single case, and were to proceed in the execution of their purpose, all their acts done towards its accomplishment might perhaps be properly deemed endeavors to make a revolt. U. S. v. Smith, (1816) 1 Mason (U. S.) 147, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,337. Resisting punishment. - Where the master directed one of his crew to be punished for gross misbehavior, and the crew interposed and prevented the infliction of the punishment, compelling the master by acts of violence and intimidation to desist therefrom, this was held to be an endeavor to commit a revolt within the Act. U. S. v. Morrison, (1833) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 448, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,818. Such combination and intimidation may be lawful if, from the improper conduct of the captain, the crew have good reason to believe, and do believe, that they will be subjected to unlawful and cruel or oppressive treatment, or that a great wrong is about to be inflicted on one of their number; they have a right to take reasonable measures for his or their protection. U. S. v. Borden, (1857) 1 Sprague (U. S.) 374, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,625. Resisting sailing of unseaworthy vessel. On an indictment for an endeavor to commit a revolt, it is sufficient defense of the parties accused that the combination charged as an endeavor was to compel the master to return into port because of the unseaworthiness of the vessel, if they act bona fide and the vessel is actually unseaworthy; so also if they act bona fide and upon reasonable grounds and apparent unseaworthiness, and it is doubtful whether the vessel be seaworthy or not. But if the vessel in such case be clearly seaworthy, it is no defense. U. S. v. Ashton, (1834) 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 13, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,470. Resisting deviation. - Where there is a deviation from the voyage in the shipping articles, a refusal of the seamen subsequently to do duty on that account does not amount in law to an endeavor to commit a revolt. U. S. v. Matthews, (1837) 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 470, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,742. Where the refusal of seamen to proceed on a voyage has been charged against them criminally as constituting the offense of 66 endeavoring to make a revolt," or is set up as working a forfeiture of wages, the courts refer at once to the shipping articles for the purpose of determining the rights and responsibilities between the sailor and the public and the master and owners. The law upon this subject is unequivocal and imperative, declaring that the shipping articles must contain а statement of the precise voyage or voyages for which the sailor contracts, and if a deviation from such speculation is carried out not caused by a "vis major," without the consent of the mariner, by going to intermediate ports and landing or receiving on board passengers or freight, or an ulterior voyage is attempted to be superadded or substituted, and the sailors refuse to do further duty, such conduct on their part is justifiable and does not either forfeit their wages or render them liable criminally under the Act in question for an "endeavor to make a revolt." U. S. v. White, (1848) 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,683. Where seamen on board of a vessel refused to do duty on the ground that they were not bound to go the voyage by the terms of the shipping articles, and to do the duty which they were ordered to do, it was held that they should have made such objection at the time of the disobedience of orders. U. S. v. Lynch, (1843) 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,648. Where seamen shipped under articles for a voyage from New Orleans to Havre, thence to one or more ports in Europe, and thence back to a port of discharge in the United States, and the master, intending to make Charleston the final port of discharge, stopped at New York, and landed passengers and freight, it was held that the seamen were not guilty of the offense of "endeavoring to make a revolt " in refusing to get the ship under way and doing further duty for the purpose of proceeding to Charleston. U. S. v. White, (1848) 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,683. Detention of vessel. A combination by the crew to prevent the vessel from going to sea pursuant to the orders of the mas ter is an attempt to commit a revolt. U. S. v. Nye, (1855) 2 Curt. (U. S.) 225, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15,906. Effort to resist arrest. A seaman is not justified in drawing and brandishing a knife or an axe, using them to prevent his arrest, whether for an original offense or the use of the knife. Fuller v. Colby, (1846) 3 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 1, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,149. Resisting injury. If the master use an unlawful weapon or the seaman is exposed to danger of his life or limbs, he may resort to any necessary species of defense to avoid this danger. U. S. v. Smith, (1811) 3 Wash. (U. S.) 78, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,344. Mere offensive or insolent language does not constitute this crime. U. S. v. Forbes, (1845) Crabbe (U. S.) 558, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,129. CONFINING MASTER. General definition. — The confinement forbidden by the statute need not necessarily be a physical confinement of the master's person by depriving him of the use of his limbs or shutting him in the cabin. If he is prevented by either force or intimidation from the free use of every part of the vessel, or by threats of bodily injury in the performance of his proper functions as master, or if he is in any way restrained by conduct on the part of his crew, or any of them, such as would reasonably intimidate a firm man, in every such or like case it is in law a confinement. U. S. v. Huff. (1882) 13 Fed. Rep. 630; U. S. v. Sharp, (1815) Pet. (C. C.) 118, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,264; U. S. v. Smith, (1811) 3 Wash. (U. S.) 78, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,344; U. S. 17. Hemmer, (1825) 4 Mason (U. S.) 105, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,345. The master going armed to every part of the vessel, if it was necessary for his safety that he should so protect himself, does not alter the case. U. S. v. Bladen, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 213, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,606. The offense. - In The Ulysses, (1800) 5 Law. Rep. 241, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,330, it was held that the offense of revolt or that of confining the master was not a felony. Must be felonious. To constitute the offense of confining the captain the act of confinement must be feloniously done. U. S. v. Henry, (1824) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 428, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,351. Intent. To confine the master without lawful authority for so doing is a misdemeanor, consummated in doing the act, whether accompanied by an endeavor to commit a revolt or any other offense. Lander v. U. S., (1844) 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,039. It can accordingly be no protection to the accused to prove he had no other offense in view and that he seized the captain only to restrain his doing what the sailor wished to prevent. He must prove more that the confining was justifiable, or that it was under circumstances from which it might be supposed to be involuntary on the part of the seaman. Lander v. U. S., (1844) 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,039; U. S. v. Savage, (1830) 5 Mason (U. S.) 460, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,225. Resisting master. — If in endeavoring to resist force necessary to bring a seaman to lawful obedience the seaman confined the master, such act would be unlawful, and an offense within the statute. Lander v. U. S., (1844) 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,039. Assault and battery by a seaman upon the master of a vessel does not amount to a confinement of the commander nor an attempt to excite a revolt within the Act of Congress. U. S. r. Lawrence, (1802) 1 Cranch (C. C.) 94, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,575. Momentary restraint. Seizing the person of the master, although the restraint be but momentary, is a confinement prohibited by the law, and such conduct is not excused or justified by a previous battery on the seaman, whose duty it was to have obeyed the command of the captain which was enforced by such battery. U. S. v. Bladen, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 213, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,606. The seizing of the master and holding him back against the ship's rail against his will is, in the sense of the Act, a clear case of confinement of the master; and it matters not whether it was for a long or short time, for a minute or for an hour or for a day. The law looks to the fact and not to the duration of the confinement. Lander v. U. S., (1844) 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,039; U. S. r. Bladen, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 213, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,606; U. S. v. Thompson, (1832) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 168, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,492. Seizing person. If the person of the master is in fact seized, or if he is in fact held in personal restraint (whether for a long or a short time is immaterial), it is a confinement within the meaning of the statute. U. S. v. Savage, (1830) 5 Mason (U. S.) 460, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,225. Purpose of seizure. - It matters not that the seizure or restraint was principally or wholly for the purpose of inflicting persona! chastisement upon the master; that it was to beat or to wound him, and not to deprive him of his command or authority on board the ship; or that the confinement was a means of personal punishment and not an end. The law looks to the act and not merely to the intent. If the seizure is un lawful it is a confinement. The law esteems the person of the master sacred, and protects him from all restraint which is unlawful. U. S. v. Savage, (1830) 5 Mason (U. S.) 460, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,225. Justification for restraint. A master of a vessel may so conduct himself as to justify the officers and crew in placing restraint upon him to prevent his committing acts which might endanger the lives of the seamen or the lives of all persons on board; but such measures should cease the moment the occasion for them ceases. U. S. v. Sharp, (1815) Pet. (C. C.) 118, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,264; U. S. v. Thompson, (1832) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 168, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,492. Every confinement is not an offense within the Act. It must be an illegal confinement or restraint. If the master is about to do an illegal act, and especially to do a felony, a seaman may lawfully confine or restrain him. So a seaman may confine the master in justifiable self-defense. U. S. v. Thompson, (1832) 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 168, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,492. Accessories. - One who joins in the general conspiracy and by his presence countenances acts of violence, but who does not individually use force or threats to compel the master to resign the command of his vessel, is guilty of the offense of confining the master. U. S. v. Sharp, (1815) Pet. (C. C.) 118, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,264. Sec. 5360. [Revolt and mutiny on shipboard.] If any one of the crew of an American vessel on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, unlawfully and with force, or by fraud, or intimidation, usurps the command of such vessel from the master or other lawful officer in command thereof, or deprives him of authority and command on board, or resists or prevents him in the free and lawful exercise thereof, or transfers such authority and command to another not lawfully entitled thereto, he is guilty of a revolt and mutiny, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than ten years. [R. S.] Act of March 3, 1835, ch. 40, 4 Stat. L. 775; Act of April 30, 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. L. 113. Revolt defined. A revolt is an open rebellion or mutiny of the crew against the authority of the master in the command, navigation, or control of the ship. If the crew in a mutiny were to displace him from the actual command of the ship and appoint another in his stead, that would clearly be a revolt. It would be an actual usurpation of his authority on board of the ship and an ouster of him from the possession and control of it. U. S. v. Haines, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 272, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,275; U. S. v. Forbes, (1845) Crabbe (U. S.) 558, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,129. The unlawful acts which now fall within the definition of a maritime revolt are distributed by the language of this section into four categories or classes: (1) simple resistance to the exercise of the captain's authority; (2) the deposition of the captain from his command; (3) the transfer of the captain's power to a third person; (4) the usurpation of the captain's power by the party accused. U. S. v. Almeida, (1847) 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14.433. revolt. U. S. v. Haines, (1829) 5 Mason (U. A positive refusal to perform any duty on board until the master has yielded to some illegal demand of the crew, when it has produced a suspension of his power of command, or when by a general combination the crew refuse obedience to the lawful orders of the master, is a revolt. U. S. v. Forbes, (1845) Crabbe (U. S.) 558, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,129; U. S. v. Haines, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 272, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,275. Wherever Suspension of free command. by the overt acts of the crew the authority of the master in the free navigation or management of the ship, or in the free exercise of his rights and duties on board, is entirely overthrown, and there is intentionally caused by such acts a suspension, actual or constructive, of his power of command, it is a revolt of the crew. U. S. v. Haines, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 272, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,275. Direct or positive force upon or constraint or imprisonment of the master is not essential. U. S. v. Forbes, (1845) Crabbe (U. S.) 558, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,129. Revolts on shipboard consist not only in attempts to usurp the command from the master, or to transfer it to another, or to prive him of it, for any purpose, by violence, but in resisting him in the free and lawful exercise of his authority. U. S. v. Peterson, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 305, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,037. the master thereof from command and took possession of the vessel, this did not constitute the offense of piracy but of mutiny. (1872) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 589. Incompetent master. -If a person substituted as master be grossly incompetent to the duties of his station from want of skill or bad habits, or profligate and cruel behavior, the seamen may be justified in refusing to do duty or to remain by the ship. U. S. v. Cassedy, (1837) 2 Sumn. (U. S.) 582, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,745. Disarming master. The crew have no right to disarm the captain, though using a deadly weapon, if they are in a mutinous state and using personal violence to resist his lawful commands. U. S. v. Peterson, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 305, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,037. A mere disobedience of orders by one or two of the seamen, without combining with the others to produce a deliberate disobedience, although it is highly censurable and may be punished by the master on board the ship or by forfeiture of wages, is not a revolt. U. S. v. Forbes, (1845) Crabbe (U. S.) 558, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,129. Resisting lawful commands. - A master is prevented in the free and lawful exercise of his authority, within the meaning of the Act, if he be prevented from carrying into effect any one lawful command; and a command to continue the business of whaling is prima facie lawful. U. S. v. Borden, (1857) 1 Sprague (U. S.) 374, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,625. A combination to refuse to pursue such business is not, of itself, the intimidation required as an element to constitute the crime, but it may be the means of intimidation. U. S. v. Borden, (1857) 1 Sprague (U. S.) 374, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,625. obedience, but may ask a survey if in port, and if not, but within sight of land, request the master to return and have the survey. Should he then conduct himself unreasonably, or in any way treat them with unnecessary severity, their remedy is at law after their return, and not a resort to violence unless in danger of the actual loss of life, and then at their peril as the result may turn out. U. S. v. Staly, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 338, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,374. If seamen have reason to believe, and do believe, a vessel is unseaworthy before the voyage is begun, they may lawfully refuse to go to sea in her. But they must prove these facts. U. S. v. Nye, (1855) 2 Curt. (U. S.) 225, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15,906. If the crew of a vessel, acting in good faith and upon reasonable grounds of belief, refuse to go to sea because of the unseaworthiness of the vessel, they cannot be found guilty of revolt, even though the jury should not upon all the evidence be in doubt as to the actual seaworthiness of the vessel. U. S. v. Givings, (1844) i Sprague (U. S.) 75, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,212. If the seamen as soon as they could examine the vessel and her sails after coming on board, and decide on her seaworthiness, did so, and then reasonably objected to enter on their contract, they were not punishable as criminals for refusing merely to begin to serve at all under their contract. U. S. v. Staly, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 338, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,374. If no actual revolt is made, section 5359 punishes, though in a milder manner, attempts to commit a revolt and various acts likely to lead to mutiny, and among them to assemble with others on board " in a tumultuous and mutinous manner." U. S. v. Peterson, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 305, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,037. See also cases under R. S. sec. 5359, supra, p. 924, for general construction of the original Act. [VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.] Sec. 4612. [Definitions, schedule, and tables.] In the construction of this Title, every person having the command of any vessel belonging to any citizen of the United States shall be deemed to be the "master" thereof; and every person (apprentices excepted) who shall be employed or engaged to serve in any capacity on board the same shall be deemed and taken to be a " seaman;" and the term "vessel" shall be understood to comprehend every description of vessel navigating on any sea or channel, lake or river, to which the provisions of this Title may be applicable, and the term "owner" shall be taken and understood to comprehend all the several persons, if more than one, to whom the vessel shall belong. SCHEDULE. TABLE A. FORM OF ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Date and place of first signature of agreement, including name of shippingoffice): It is agreed between the master and seamen or mariners of the is at present master, or whoever shall go for master, now bound from the port of to (here the voyage is to be described, and the places named at which the vessel is to touch, or if that cannot be done, the general nature and probable length of the voyage is to be stated.) And the said crew agree to conduct themselves in an orderly, faithful, honest, and sober manner, and to be at all times diligent in their respective duties, and to be obedient to the lawful commands of the said master, or of any person who shall lawfully succeed him, and of their superior officers in everything relating to the vessel, and the stores and cargo thereof, whether on board, in boats, or on shore; and in consideration of which service, to be duly performed, the said master hereby agrees to pay the said crew, as wages, the sums against their names respectively expressed, and to supply them with provisions according to the annexed scale. And it is hereby agreed that any embezzlement, or willful or negligent destruction of any part of the vessel's cargo or stores, shall be made good to the owner out of the wages of the person guilty of the same; and if any person enters himself as qualified for a duty which he proves himself incompetent to perform, his wages shall be reduced in proportion to his incompetency. And it is also agreed that if any member of the crew considers himself to be aggrieved by any breach of the agreement or otherwise, he shall represent the same to the master or officer in charge of the vessel, in a quiet and orderly manner, who shall thereupon take such steps as the case may require. And it is also agreed that (here any other stipulations may be inserted to which the parties agree, and which are not contrary to law). In witness whereof the said parties have subscribed their names hereto, on the days against their respective signatures mentioned. Signed by hundred and -, master, on the Time of day of eighteen NOTE. In the place for signatures and descriptions of men engaged after the first departure of the ship, the entries are to be made as above, except that the signatures of the consul or vice-consul, officer of customs, or witness before whom the man is engaged, is to be substituted for that of the shipping master. |