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！
and take up the doctrines of the Admiralty。 In the early books which have just been referred to； and long afterwards； the fact of motion is adverted to as of much importance。 A maxim of Henry Spigurnel； a judge in the time of Edward I。； is reported； that 〃where a man is killed by a cart； or by the fall of a house； or in other like manner； and the thing in motion is the cause of the death； it shall be deodand。〃 /5/ So it was ＇26＇ said in the next reign that 〃oinne illud quod mover cum eo quod occidit homines deodandum domino Regi erit； vel feodo clerici。〃 /l / The reader sees how motion gives life to the object forfeited。
The most striking example of this sort is a ship。 And accordingly the old books say that； if a man falls from a ship and is drowned； the motion of the ship must be taken to cause the death； and the ship is forfeited； provided； however； that this happens in fresh water。 /2/ For if the death took place on the high seas； that was outside the ordinary jurisdiction。 This proviso has been supposed to mean that ships at sea were not forfeited； /3/ but there is a long series of petitions to the king in Parliament that such forfeitures may be done away with； which tell a different story。 /4/ The truth seems to be that the forfeiture took place； but in a different court。 A manuscript of the reign of Henry VI。； only recently printed； discloses the fact that； if a man was killed or drowned at sea by the motion of the ship； the vessel was forfeited to the admiral upon a proceeding in the admiral's court； and subject to release by favor of the admiral or the king。 /5/
A ship is the most living of inanimate things。 Servants sometimes say 〃she〃 of a clock； but every one gives a gender to vessels。 And we need not be surprised； therefore； to find a mode of dealing which has shown such extraordinary vitality in the criminal law applied with even more striking thoroughness in the Admiralty。 It is only by supposing ＇27＇ the ship to have been treated as if endowed with personality； that the arbitrary seeming peculiarities of the maritime law can be made intelligible； and on that supposition they at once become consistent and logical。
By way of seeing what those peculiarities are； take first a case of collision at sea。 A collision takes place between two vessels； the Ticonderoga and the Melampus； through the fault of the Ticonderoga alone。 That ship is under a lease at the time； the lessee has his own master in charge； and the owner of the vessel has no manner of control over it。 The owner； therefore； is not to blame； and he cannot even be charged on the ground that the damage was done by his servants。 He is free from personal liability on elementary principles。 Yet it is perfectly settled that there is a lien on his vessel for the amount of the damage done； /1/ and this means that that vessel may be arrested and sold to pay the loss in any admiralty court whose process will reach her。 If a livery…stable keeper lets a horse and wagon to a customer； who runs a man down by careless driving； no one would think of claiming a right to seize the horse and wagon。 It would be seen that the only property which could be sold to pay for a wrong was the property of the wrong…doer。
But； again； suppose that the vessel； instead of being under lease； is in charge of a pilot whose employment is made compulsory by the laws of the port which she is just entering。 The Supreme Court of the United States holds the ship liable in this instance also。 /2/ The English courts would probably have decided otherwise； and the matter is settled in England by legislation。 But there the court of appeal； the Privy Council； has been largely composed of common…law ＇28＇lawyers； and it has shown a marked tendency to assimilate common…law doctrine。 At common law one who could not impose a personal liability on the owner could not bind a particular chattel to answer for a wrong of which it had been the instrument。 But our Supreme Court has long recognized that a person may bind a ship； when he could not bind the owners personally； because he was not the agent。
It may be admitted that； if this doctrine were not supported by an appearance of good sense； it would not have survived。 The ship is the only security available in dealing with foreigners； and rather than send one's own citizens to search for a remedy abroad in strange courts； it is easy to seize the vessel and satisfy the claim at home； leaving the foreign owners to get their indemnity as they may be able。 I dare say some such thought has helped to keep the practice alive； but I believe the true historic foundation is elsewhere。 The ship no doubt； like a sword would have been forfeited for causing death； in whosesoever hands it might have been。 So； if the master and mariners of a ship； furnished with letters of reprisal； committed piracy against a friend of the king； the owner lost his ship by the admiralty law； although the crime was committed without his knowledge or assent。 /2/ It seems most likely that the principle by which the ship was forfeited to the king for causing death； or for piracy； was the same as that by which it was bound to private sufferers for other damage； in whose hands soever it might have been when it did the harm。
If we should say to an uneducated man today； 〃She did it and she ought to pay for it；〃 it may be doubted ＇29＇ whether he would see the fallacy； or be ready to explain that the ship was only property； and that to say； 〃The ship has to pay for it；〃 /1/ was simply a dramatic way of saying that somebody's property was to be sold； and the proceeds applied to pay for a wrong committed by somebody else。
It would seem that a similar form of words has been enough to satisfy the minds of great lawyers。 The following is a passage from a judgment by Chief Justice Marshall； which is quoted with approval by Judge Story in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States： 〃This is not a proceeding against the owner； it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence committed by the vessel； which is not the less an offence； and does not the less subject her to forfeiture； 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 rega