REFERENCES FOR GENERAL READING
Commentaries, Kent, III, Lecture XLVI.
Shipping and Admiralty, Parsons, Vol. II, Chapter XIV.
Sea Laws, Jacobsen, Book II, Chapter I.
Niagara, 21 How. 7.
Nebraska, 75 Fed. 598.
Rupert, 213 Fed. 263.
Lombard S. S. Co. v. Anderson, 134 Fed. 568.
Spedden, 184 Fed. 283.
Yarkand, 120 Fed. 887.Ponce, 178 Fed. 76.
Jenkins, S. S. Co. v. Preston, 186 Fed. 108.
Ancaios, 170 Fed. 106.
Aguan, 48 Fed. 320.
Trigg, 37 Fed. 708.
[5] There are a few instances in which a master need not be licensed. All masters of steamers must be licensed, all masters of sailing vessels of over 700 tons and all vessels of over 100 tons carrying passengers for hire (§ 4438). Other masters need not be licensed.
[6] A question sometimes arises whether a particular individual occupies the position of master or not. The fact that the man is enrolled as master is not necessarily conclusive of this question. Where a man was clothed with and did actually exercise the duties of master during the illness of the registered master he was held to have been de facto master and hence not entitled to a maritime lien for his wages (Hattie Thomas, 29 Fed. 297). On the other hand, the engineer of a dredge who was highest officer on the vessel and directed the firemen and other hands but who had no authority to engage or dismiss men or purchase supplies, was held not to be the master and his lien for wages was sustained (Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607). In the Calypso, 230 Fed. 962, it was said: "the master of a ship is pro hac vice the agent of the owner and ... his appointment or authorization lies in contract, ... if the master has not been appointed by the owner enrollment cannot make him such."
[7] The rules referred to are "Rules of Practice for the Courts of the United States in Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction on the instance side of the court."
[8] In a number of leading cases attempts were made to hold the owner liable for shortage in cargo where the master had signed bills of lading for goods not actually on board. Among these are the Freeman, 18 How. 182; Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665; McLean v. Fleming, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 128 (English cases), and American Sugar Refining Co. v. Maddock, 93 Fed. 980. The principle laid down in these cases is "not merely that the captain has no authority to sign a bill of lading in respect to goods not on board but the nature and limit of his authority are well known among mercantile persons."
[9] Ragland v. Norfolk & Washington Steamboat Co., 163 Fed. 376. This was a libel in personam in which the libellant claimed damages on account of an alleged improper arrest while a passenger on board respondent's vessel. The court said:
"Officers of steamboats and passenger vessels should be exceedingly careful before putting a passenger under arrest. They are the servants of the passengers on their boats, paid for the purpose of treating them kindly. The trouble on this occasion arose from a misapprehension on the part of the captain of the steamer of his power and duty as master of the ship. The master of a passenger steamer is an exceedingly important officer. He should be of exceptional firmness, intelligence and character, and more than ordinarily endowed with common sense and tact and always gentle and courteous. He has vast power in dealing with passengers in situations that are liable to and do arise on his vessel, and he may in a proper case after exhausting pacific measures, place a passenger under arrest, but, to suppose, as he testified he did, that he could delegate this authority to minor officials or others on board, cannot be sanctioned. When the time comes to arrest passengers, an occurrence on a steamboat only second in importance to navigating the vessel in safety, it is his duty to properly care for and protect them as far as is reasonably possible, and personally to exercise the responsible duties at hand, and at least give personal direction to what is being done."
The Lizzie Burrill, 115 Fed. 1015, with reference to the duty of the master toward the crew. The court quotes a number of American and English authorities. The syllabus summarizes the decision as follows:
"It is the duty of the master of a ship while at sea to protect his crew from violence and brutal treatment by other officers under his command.
"The master of a ship while on board is the agent of the owners in respect to all matters which come within the scope of his duty, and the owners and ship are liable in damages to a seaman, not only for the unwarranted ill-treatment of such seaman by the master himself, but for his failure to perform his duty to protect the seaman from assaults and ill-treatment by other officers."
[10] The frequently misused term "freight" means the compensation for carrying the cargo and not the goods thereunder.
[11] See Chapter XII, "Pilotage," infra.