按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
orfeiture； because it was committed without the authority and against the will of the owner。 It is true that inanimate matter can commit no offence。 But this body is animated and put in action by the crew； who are guided by the master。 The vessel acts and speaks by the master。 She reports herself by the master。 It is； therefore； not unreasonable that the vessel should be affected by this report。〃 And again Judge Story quotes from another case： 〃The thing is here primarily considered as the offender； or rather the offence is primarily attached to the thing。〃 /2/
In other words； those great judges； although of course aware that a ship is no more alive than a mill…wheel； thought that not only the law did in fact deal with it as if it were alive； but that it was reasonable that the law should do so。 The reader will observe that they do not say simply that it is reasonable on grounds of policy to ＇30＇ sacrifice justice to the owner to security for somebody else but that it is reasonable to deal with the vessel as an offending thing。 Whatever the hidden ground of policy may be； their thought still clothes itself in personifying language。
Let us now go on to follow the peculiarities of the maritime law in other directions。 For the cases which have been stated are only parts of a larger whole。
By the maritime law of the Middle Ages the ship was not only the source； but the limit； of liability。 The rule already prevailed； which has been borrowed and adopted by the English statutes and by our own act of Congress of 1851； according to which the owner is discharged from responsibility for wrongful acts of a master appointed by himself upon surrendering his interest in the vessel and the freight which she had earned。 By the doctrines of agency he would be personally liable for the whole damage。 If the origin of the system of limited liability which is believed to be so essential to modern commerce is be attributed to those considerations of public policy on which it would now be sustained； that system has nothing to do with the law of collision。 But if the limit of liability here stands on the same ground as the noxoe deditio； confirms the explanation already given of the liability of the ship for wrongs done by it while out of the owner's hands； and conversely existence of that liability confirms the argument here。
Let us now take another rule； for which； as usual； there is a plausible explanation of policy。 Freight； it is said； the mother of wages； for； we are told； 〃if the ship perished； ＇31＇ if the mariners were to have their wages in such cases； they would not use their endeavors； nor hazard their lives； for the safety of the ship。〃 /1/ The best commentary on this reasoning is； that the law has recently been changed by statute。 But even by the old law there was an exception inconsistent with the supposed reason。 In case of shipwreck； which was the usual case of a failure to earn freight； so long as any portion of the ship was saved； the lien of the mariners remained。 I suppose it would have been said； because it was sound policy to encourage them to save all they could。 If we consider that the sailors were regarded as employed by the ship； we shall under… stand very readily both the rule and the exception。 〃The ship is the debtor；〃 as was said in arguing a case decided in the time of William III。 /2/ If the debtor perished； there was an end of the matter。 If a part came ashore； that might be proceeded against。
Even the rule in its modern form； that freight is the mother of wages； is shown by the explanation commonly given to have reference to the question whether the ship is lost or arrive safe。 In the most ancient source of the maritime law now extant； which has anything about the matter； so far as I have been able to discover； the statement is that the mariners will lose their wages when the ship is lost。 /3/ In like manner； in what is said by its English ＇32＇ editor； Sir Travers Twiss； to be the oldest part of the Consulate of the Sea； /1/ we read that 〃whoever the freighter may be who runs away or dies； the ship is bound to pay： the mariners。〃 /2/ I think we may assume that the vessel was bound by the contract with the sailors； much in the same way as it was by the wrongs for which it was answerable； just as the debtor's body was answerable for his debts； as well as for his crimes； under the ancient law of Rome。
The same thing is true of other maritime dealings with the vessel； whether by way of contract or otherwise。 If salvage service is rendered to a vessel； the admiralty court will hold the vessel； although it has been doubted whether an action of contract would lie； if the owners were sued at law。 So the ship is bound by the master's contract to carry cargo； just as in case of collision； although she was under lease at the time。 In such cases； also； according to our Supreme Court； the master may bind the vessel when he cannot bind the general owners。 /4/ 〃By custom the ship is bound to the merchandise； and the merchandise to the ship。〃 /5/ 〃By the maritime law every contract of the master implies an hypothecation。〃 /6/ It might be urged； no doubt； with force； that； so far as the usual maritime contracts are concerned； the dealing must be on the security of the ship or merchandise in many cases； and therefore ＇33＇ that it is policy to give this security in all cases； that the risk to which it subjects ship…owners is calculable； and that they must take it into account when they let their vessels。 Again； in many cases； when a party asserts a maritime lien by way of contract； he has improved the condition of the thing upon which the lien is claimed； and this has been recognized as a ground for such a lien in some systems。 But this is not true universally； nor in the most important cases。 It must be left to the reader to decide whether ground has not been shown for believing that the same metaphysical confusion which naturally arose as to the ship's wrongful acts； affected the way of thinking as to her contracts。 The whole manner of dealing with vessels obviously took the form which prevailed in the eases first mentioned。 Pardessus； a high authority； says that the lien for freight prevails even against the owner of stolen goods； 〃as the master deals less with the person than the thing。〃 /2/ So it was said in the argument of a famous English case； that 〃the ship is instead of the owner； and therefore is answerable。〃 /3/ In many cases of contract； as well as tort； the vessel was not only the security for the debt； but the limit of the owner's liability。
The principles of the admiralty are embodied in its form of procedure。 A suit may be brought there against a vessel by name； any person interested in it being at liberty to come in and defend； but the suit； if successful； ending in a sale of the vessel and a payment of the plaintiff's claim out of the proceeds。 As long ago as the time of James I。 it was said that 〃the libel ought to be only ＇34＇ against the ship and goods； and not against the party。〃 /1/ And authority for the statement was cited from the reign of Henry VI。； the same reign when； as we have seen； the Admiral claimed a forfeiture of ships for causing death。 I am bound to say； however； that I cannot find