The United States statutes require every vessel bound from a home port to a foreign port, (f) or, if it be of fifty tons or more, bound from a port in one State to a port in any other than an adjoining State, to have on board shipping articles; they must be signed by every seaman on board, under a penalty of twenty dollars for every one who does not sign, and they must describe accurately the voyage for which the seaman ships, and the * terms on which he ships. (g) * 337

This is one of the many provisions which, together with many usages, indicate that the law-merchant regards seamen as needing and entitled to far more care and protection than persons generally employed to render services to others.

It is one of the effects of this protection, that, in construing these articles, the seaman has the benefit of any doubt as to their meaning or obligation (h); and, what is more, if they contain indefinite language, or unusual, or oppressive stipulations, the seaman is protected against them, (i) even to the extent of annulling them.

A question has arisen, whether the seamen of a ship in a foreign port, will be there protected by the courts, against oppressive or illegal shipping articles made in their home port. The answer may not be certain. We apprehend, however, that the law-merchant permits this, and that any court having cognizance of the case, might, and would give this relief, if a sufficient case were clearly made out. It might be, however, that an admiralty court, which is in some respects a kind of international court, would be

(f) A teaman shipping in a foreign port is not required by statute to sign articles. Gladding v. Constant, Sprague, 73.

(g) Act 1790, c. 29, 1 U. S. Stats, at Large. 181. See The Crusader, Ware, 437; Wolverton v. Lacey, 18 Law Rep. 672; The Brig Osceola, Olcott, Adm. 459; Piehl v. Balchen, id. 24.

(h) The Minerva, 1 Hagg. Adm. 355; Wape v. Hemenway, 18 Law Rep. 390.

(i) The Juliana, 2 Dods. 504; Brown v. Lull, 2 Sumner, 443; Matern v. Gibbs, Sprague, 158. In The Highlander,

Sprague, 510, it is said: "Whenever an unusual clause is introduced into the shipping articles, impairing the rights of seamen, or imposing any additional duties or obligations on them, two conditions are required: 1st, That the seaman had the agreement so explained to him that he fully understood its meaning; and, 2d, That a reasonable compensation was given him for the renunciation of the right, or for the new obligation assumed." See also Heard v. Rogers, Sprague, 556; Mayhew v. Terry, Sprague, restrained by the comity of nations, unless requested to interfere by the resident authority of the foreign nation. (j)

By the law-merchant, seamen have certain rights and liens with respect to their wages; and if the shipping articles derogate from these, common-law courts do not generally allow *much force to the articles, (k) and admiralty courts none. (l) We say this, although an authority as high as Lord Lyndhurst, declared that he knew no principle by which a contract entered into by mariners, is to be construed differently from that made among other persons. (m)

A master may, for sufficient reasons, promote a seaman, or degrade an officer or seaman. If a seaman be promoted, he has the wages of his new office; (n) but if afterwards degraded for incapacity, he can recover only his wages as a seaman during the period of his advancement. (o)

If seamen sail without any shipping articles, they are entitled by statute to the highest rate of wages paid at the place at which they ship, within the preceding six months, for the same voyage. (p) And while the usual rules of evidence and construction apply to shipping articles, a seaman may show by parol any wrongful inducements, or false representations, by which he was persuaded to sign them, and he will be relieved as justice may require. (q)

(j) As to the assent of the consul of the government to which the vessel belongs being required, see Davis v. Leslie, Abbott, Adm. 134; The Infanta, id. 268; Gonzales v. Minor, 2 Wallace, C. C. 848; Hay v. Brig Bloomer, U. S. D. C. Mass. 1859; Lynch v. Crowder, 12 Law Rep. 355. Generally jurisdiction will be exercised when the voyage is broken up at a port of this country: The Gazelle, Sprague, 378; The Barque Havana, id. 402; or where the seaman is compelled to desert on account of cruel treatment: Weiberg v. Brig St. Oloff, 2 Pet. Adm. 428. So in case of a deviation. Moran v. Baudin, 2 Pet. Adm. 416.

(k) See Buck v. Rawlinson, 1 Bro. P. C. 137; Edwards v. Child, 2 Vern. 727; Millot v. Lovett, 2 Dane, Abr. 461; Swift v. Clark, 16 Mass. 173.

(l) The Juliana, 2 Dods. 504; Johnson v. Sims, 1 Pet. Adm. 216; Brown v. Lull, 2 Sumner, 443; The Cypress, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 83.

(m) Jesse v. Roy, 4 Tyrw. 026, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 316. See also Cutter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 820; Appleby v. Dods, 8 East, 300; Webb v. Duckingfield, 13 Johns. 390.

(n) The Providence, 1 Hagg. Adm. 391; The Gondolier, 3 id. 190; Hicks v. Walker, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 642.

(o) Wood v. The Nimrod, Gilpin, 83.

(p) Stat. 1790, c. 29,§ 1,1 U. S. Stats, at Large, 131; Stat. 1840, c. 48, § 10, 5 U. S. Stats, at Large, 394. See Milligan v. The B. F. Bruce, 1 Newb. Adm. 639.

(q) Baker v. Corey, 29 Pick. 496; The Enterprise, 2 Curtis, C. C. 320; The Cypress, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 83; Page v. Sheffield, 2 Curtis, C. C. 377, Sprague, 286.