the common law-第6章

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！


　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　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