Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
At the moment, alien seamen present problems due to a variety of factors: The inability of Norwegian, Greek, Yugoslav, Dutch, Belgian, and other friendly vessels to return to their home ports under German occupation to replenish their crews with nationals; the dislocation throughout Europe of arrangements for hiring, paying, and attending to the welfare of seamen; the inability of American immigration authorities to force the repatriation of Norwegian, Greek, etc., seamen who overstay their leave in our ports; the wage and other labor difficulties arising from the freedom of seamen to accept or reject any offered job, to quit their jobs and seek better ones; and the operation of our Asiatic exclusion laws upon increasing numbers of Chinese and Lascar seamen.
1 The expression “alien seamen” is ambiguous; it usually means an individual who is an alien and a seaman on any vessel, including those of the American flag; or it may mean a seaman signed on a vessel of an alien flag, even though an American citizen.
2 Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. 1, Sec. 484, citing Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424, 427, 430 (1902), a five-to-four decision. See also Hackworth, , International Law Digest (1941), Vol. 2, p. 248 Google Scholar.
3 The Act of July 20, 1790, c. 29, for apprehension and forcible return of deserters from American vessels, was upheld as constitutional in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275 (1897), a seven-to-one decision (Harlan, J. dissenting), and was promptly repealed (30 Stat. 764 [1898]). The treaties as to desertions from foreign ships, however, survived until 1916-1919.
4 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 141; U. S. Stat., Vol. 27, p. 961. The last in date was with Spain, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 422, July 3, 1902, Art. 24.
5 38 Stat. L. 1184 (March 4, 1915).
6 The Congressional direction to denounce all contrary treaty provisions was complied with (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 3; 1916, pp. 33–41; 1917, pp. 9–18; 1918, pp. 3–10; 1919, pp. 47–73). “Desertion” clauses were duly denounced in treaties with Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Rumania, Spain and Sweden. The usual effective date was July 1, 1916; but The Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden did not agree until 1919. Austria-Hungary and Germany never agreed; but their treaties ended with the war. All of these countries, except Colombia and Great Britain, felt it suitable simultaneously to denounce clauses giving consuls jurisdiction of disputes over internal discipline of ships. “Desertion” clauses in other treaties had ceased to be effective for a variety of reasons.
7 The State Department circular to United States consuls directing them to desist from further efforts to apprehend deserters from American ships was dated Aug. 15,1917. Hackworth, supra, p. 253.
8 The Department of Labor, in 1917, felt “compelled to enforce the immigration law, so far as it applies to the cases of seamen, in such manner as not to interfere with the provisions of” the LaFollette Act, and declined to use the immigration laws to halt deserters from Portuguese ships. Hackworth, supra, p. 253.
9 8 U. S. Code, 269 and 274. If the violation is “knowing,” the vessel is forfeitable (8 U. S. Code, 268), and the master may be fined $500–$1,000 and imprisoned 1–5 years (8 U. S. Code, 279).
10 8 U. S. Code, 286.
10a See People v. Rowe, N. Y. Misc.——; 1942 Amer. Mar. Cases 1229, a grand jury proceeding arising out of the killing of a Chinese seaman during a meeting on the British M.S. Silver Ash in Brooklyn.
11 International Labour Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, Aug. 1942; also 1942 American Maritime Cases, 1178, 1185.
11a Text of news release at 1942 Amer. Mar. Cases (part 10, Nov.)
12 (1) Minimum Age (Child Labor at Sea), No. 7, 1920, revised as No. 58, 1936. (2) Unemployment after Shipwreck, No. 8, 1920. (3) Employment or Hiring of Seamen, No. 9, 1920. (4) Minimum Age of Trimmers and Stokers, No. 15, 1921. (5) Medical Examination of Young Seamen, No. 16, 1921. (6) Seamen’s Articles of Agreement, No. 22, 1926. (7) Repatriation of Seamen, No. 23, 1926. (8) Longshoremen’s Act and Compensation, No. 28, 1929, and No. 32, 1932. (9) Seamen’s Welfare in Ports, No. 48, 1936. (10) Profeesional Capacity of Merchant Marine Masters and Officers, No. 53, 1936. (11) Seamen’s Annual Holiday with Pay, No. 54, 1936. (12) Sickness, Injury or Death of Seamen, Liability of Shipowner, No. 55, 1936. (13) Sickness Insurance (Sea Labor), No. 56, 1936. (14) Hours of Work and Manning, No. 57, 1936.
The 12th Maritime Conference of the International Labor Office met in London in June, 1942, and considered measures for the better protection of seamen against perils of the submarine war; an American delegation attended and took an active part.
13 39 Stat. L. 895; 8 U. S. Code, 165.
14 43 Stat. L. 164; 8 U. S. Code, 166.
15 These men could also be reached for evading the $8 head tax (8 U. S. Code, 132).
16 New York Times, May 31, 1941.
17 Dept. of State Bulletin, March 14, 1942, p. 231; May 16, 1942, p. 437; June 27, 1942, p. 563.
18 An instance of wartime pay was Assimacoupoulos v. Kulukundis Shipping Co., 1942 A. M. C. 761 (SDNY), concerning the proper pay of the chief cook and assistant cook of a Greek ship under articles signed in England in March 1941. The Greek statutory basic rate was £9 per month, plus £3 for baking bread, plus 80% bonus. During the contract the Germans conquered Greece, whereupon a good behavior bonus was abandoned and a 200% bonus was substituted. The court found that the agreement was as follows: Wages £62, plus £8 for baking bread for the chief cook, and £52 for the assistant cook. This was not better than mechanics’ pay in American war factories, although the risk of death and injury by torpedo, shell and bomb was much greater.
19 War Shipping Administration Order, April 9, 1942; 7 Fed. Reg. 2761; 1942 A. M. C. 863; Dept. of State Bull., April 11, 1942, p. 321.
