cunning of agents was able to introduce into the shipping articles an agreement waiving the right to wages in case of loss, which the unthrifty sailor signed, ignorant or careless of its import. To remedy this abuse, a further Act of Parliament, of 13th and 14th Victoria, chap. 98, sec. 53-known as "the Mercantile Marine Act - provides that "No seaman shall, by reason of any agreement, forfeit his lien upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of his wages, to which he would otherwise have been entitled; and every stipulation which is inconsistent with any provision of this Act, or of any other Act relating to the merchant service, and every stipulation by which any seaman consents to abandon his right to wages in the case of the loss of the ship, or to abandon any rights which he may have or obtain in the nature of salvage, shall be wholly inoperative." The Bill which I now introduce is grounded on the provisions quoted from the two Acts of the British Parliament, and contains two principles. First, that seamen shall be paid their wages down to the time of the loss of the ship, in case they serve faithfully to the last; and secondly, that they shall not be permitted to lose their wages through any agreement in the shipping articles. In some details I have departed from the British Act. It has not seemed to me advisable to make the wages dependent on "the certificate from the master or chief surviving officer of the ship," but to leave the question of services open to proof in any way according to the received rules of evidence. I have, therefore, said that the wages shall be paid, "provided the seaman shall have exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo and stores.' The reasons for this course are clear. Masters are often part owners of American ships, and thus have a personal interest adverse to the sailor. In a mood of selfishness or recklessness, they might refuse the certificate, even though well earned. Now, in constructing a protection to the sailor, it does not seem prudent to make his wages dependent upon any such quarter. Indeed, it is hardly just to take from him the right to establish his claim before the Admiralty Court, merely because an interested master refuses a certificate, when, perhaps, plenary proof might be furnished aliunde. Moreover, if the question were put in the control of the master, he might obtain thereby an improper influence over the minds of the crew, inducing them even to sacrifice truth in the event of any litigation between the owners and the underwriters. There can be no harm in leaving the question of fact to be proved by competent witnesses, like every other question of fact: and the seamen should be competent witnesses for each other. A sagacious court will know how to weigh their testimony, should it come in conflict with that of the officer. It seems proper that the master, too, though a party to the suit, as in the case of a libel against him in personam, or in a suit at common law, should be competent to testify to the conduct of the libellant or plaintiff; in other words, whether he had "exerted himself to the utmost," and I have introduced into the Bill a provision accordingly. The British Act of 7th and 8th Victoria contains another defect. It limits the wages to “ every surviving seaman." I can see no good reason why the wife and children of the sailor who has perished in the forlorn hope, perhaps, in the cause of all, should be deprived of the humble wages so dearly earned by their natural protectors, and thus be compelled to feel a new deprivation added to their bereavement. In the proposed Bill there is no such limitation. But Beyond this brief statement I need not, on this occasion, add another word. Already Congress has shown a disposition to modify the rigorous maritime law in some of its provisions. In 1851, it made a change in the liability of ship owners as common carriers. this very liability originated to a certain extent in the same principles from which is derived the liability of the seamen, if they fail to bring the ship and cargo to land. Ship owners and sailors were both treated as insurers. This was in the age of force, before the contract of insurance had spread its broad protection over commerce in every sea. The seaman should share this protection. He should be treated as not necessarily either a pirate or a coward. In the discussions of the Senate on the proposed change in the liability of ship-owners, it was effectively urged by my immediate predecessor, a distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the late Robert Rantoul, jr., that, if the United States failed to adopt that measure, the other maritime nations would have an advantage in the carrying trade. It is equally true that, unless we adopt the measure now proposed, Great Britain will have the advantage of us in the rate of seamen's wages; for, under her existing laws, the sailor can afford to work cheaper on board a British ship than under the American flag. The measure now proposed is of direct importance to the two hundred thousand sailors constituting the mercantile marine of the United States. It also con cerns the three millions of men constituting the mercantile marine of the civilized world, any of whom, in the vicissitudes of the sea, may find themselves in American bottoms. I commend it as a measure of enlightened philanthropy, and also of simple justice. I ask that the Bill, having been read twice, be referred to the Committee on Commerce. The motion was agreed to. THE ANTI-SLAVERY ENTERPRISE; ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY AND DIGNITY, WITH GLIMPSES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH. AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, AT THE METROPOLITAN THEATRE, 9 MAY, 1855. THIS address was the concluding lecture in an Anti-Slavery course in the city of New York. On the night of its delivery the Chair was occupied by the HON. WILLIAM JAY, who introduced Mr. Sumner in the following words: "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have been requested, on the part of the Society, to perform the pleasing but unnecessary office of introducing to you the honored and well-known advocate of Justice, Humanity and Freedom, Charles Sumner. It is not for his learning and eloquence that I commend him to your respectful attention; for learning, eloquence, and even theology itself, have been prostituted in the service of an institution well described by John Wesley as the sum of all villanies. I introduce him to you as a Northern Senator on whom nature has conferred the unusual gift of a backbone – a man who, standing erect on the floor of Congress, amid creeping things from the North, with Christian fidelity denounces the stupendous wickedness of the Fugitive law and Nebraska perfidy, and in the name of Liberty, Humanity and Religion, demands the repeal of those most atrocious enactments. May the words he is about to utter be impressed on your consciences, and influence your conduct." As soon as the applause had subsided, Mr. SUMNER said: |
