Wages, Advances, &c.—The master has no lien upon the ship for his wages.[63] He is supposed to look to the personal responsibility of the owner. He has a lien on freight for wages, and also for his advances and necessary expenses incurred for the benefit of the ship.[64] He can sue in admiralty in personam, but not in rem;—that is, he can sue the owner personally, but cannot hold the ship. It does not seem to be settled in the United States whether the master has a lien on the ship for advances made abroad for the benefit of the vessel.[65] In case of sickness, the master's right to be cured at the expense of the ship seems to be the same as that of the seamen.[66]
CHAPTER III.
THE MASTER'S RELATION TO PASSENGERS AND OFFICERS.
Treatment of passengers. Removal of officers.
Passengers.—The contract of passengers with the master is not for mere ship-room and personal existence on board, but for reasonable food, comforts, necessaries, and kindness. In respect to females, it extends still further, and includes an implied stipulation against obscenity, immodesty, and a wanton disregard of the feelings. An improper course of conduct in these particulars will be punished by the court, as much as a personal assault would be.[67]
Officers.—The master may remove either of his officers from duty for fraudulent or unfaithful conduct, for gross negligence and disobedience, or for palpable incapacity. But the causes of removal must be strong and evident;[68] and much more so in the case of the chief mate than of the second mate. Any temporary appointments, made by the master, are held at his pleasure, and stand upon a different footing from those of persons who originally shipped in the character in question.[69]
When a man ships in a particular capacity, as carpenter, steward, or the like, he is not to be degraded for slight causes. He stipulates for fair and reasonable knowledge and due diligence, but not for extraordinary qualifications.[70]
The right of the master to compel an officer, who has been removed, to do duty as a seaman before the mast, has never been completely established; but the better opinion would seem to be that he may do it in a case of necessity. Merchant vessels have no supernumeraries, and if the master can show that the officer was unfit for the duties he had undertaken, and thus made it necessary to take some one from the forecastle to fill his place, and that, by this means, the ship had become short-handed, he may turn the officer forward, assuming the responsibility for the act, as well as the risk of justification. He would be required to show a much stronger cause for removing the chief mate than would be insisted upon in the case of a second mate; and probably this necessity for exacting seaman's duty would be held to extend no further than an arrival at the first port where other hands could be shipped.
Nothing but evident unfitness or gross and repeated misconduct will justify the master in turning a person forward who shipped in another capacity, as carpenter, cook, or steward. But in such cases, he undoubtedly may do so. Still, when before the mast, he cannot require of them the duty of able seamen, unless they are such in fact.