1 Cf. Holmes, J., dissenting in Tyson and Brother v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, 447.

2 As Mr. Justice Story, then on circuit, observed in Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason 541, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6047 (C. C), at 483, “Seamen are by the peculiarity of their lives liable to sudden sickness from change of climate, exposure to perils, and exhausting labor. They are generally poor and friendless, and acquire habits of gross indulgence, carelessness, and improvidence. If some provision be not made for them in sickness at the expense of the ship, they must often in foreign ports suffer the accumulated evils of disease, and poverty, and sometimes perish from the want of suitable nourishment. . . . If these expenses are a charge upon the ship, the interest of the owner will be immediately connected with that of the seamen. The master will watch over their health with vigilance and fidelity. He will take the best methods, as well to prevent diseases, as to ensure a speedy recovery from them. He will never be tempted to abandon the sick to their forlorn fate; but his duty, combining with the interest of his owner, will lead him to succor their distress, and shed a cheering kindness over the anxious hours of suffering and despondency. Beyond this, is the great public policy of preserving this important class of citizens for the commercial service and maritime defence of the nation. Every act of legislation which secures their healths, increases their comforts, and administers to their infirmities, binds them more strongly to their country; and the parental law, which relieves them in sickness by fastening their interests to the ship, is as wise in policy, as it is just in obligation. Even the merchant himself derives an ultimate benefit from what may seem at first an onerous charge. It encourages seamen to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude, and at lower wages. It diminishes the temptation to plunderage upon the approach of sickness; and urges the seamen to encounter hazards in the ship’s service, from which they might otherwise be disposed to withdraw.”

3 E.g., Act of July 20, 1790, c. 29, § 8, 1 Stat. 134; Act of June 7, 1872, c. 322, § 41, 17 Stat. 270; 46 U. S. C. §§ 666, 667, requiring that ships carry a minimum supply of medicines and antiscorbutics. Act of July 20, 1790, c. 29, § 9, 1 Stat. 135; Act of June 7, 1872, c. 322, § 36, 17 Stat. 269; Act of Dec. 21, 1898, c. 28, § 12, 30 Stat. 758; R. S. 4565; 46 U. S. C. §§ 661, 662, requiring that ships carry sufficient and adequate stores and water for the crew. See also 17 Stat. 277, 46 U. S. C. § 713. Act of June 7, 1872, c. 322, § 42, 17 Stat. 270, R. S. 4572; Act of June 6, 1884, c. 121, § 11, 23 Stat. 56; Act of Dec. 21, 1898, c. 28, § 15, 30 Stat. 759; 46 U. S. C. §§ 669, 670, providing that certain basic clothes and heating facilities be furnished by the shipowner; 46 U. S. C. §§ 672–672(c), 673, prescribing qualifications and quotas for crews, and watch divisions.

4 Act of July 16, 1798, c. 77, 1 Stat. 605; Act of March 2, 1799, c. 36, 1 Stat. 729; 2 Stat. 192; R. S. 4808–13; 24 U. S. C. §§ 1, 6, 8, 11, 193.

5 Act of Feb. 28, 1803, c. 9, § 4, 2 Stat. 204; 2 Stat. 651; R. S. 4577; 46 TJ. S. C. § 678, requiring consuls in the case of sick and destitute seamen abroad to provide for their subsistence and return passage to the United States.

6 See, e.g., Laws of Oleron, Articles VI, VII; Laws of Wisbuy, Articles XVIII, XIX; Laws of the Hanse Towns, Articles XXXIX, XLV; Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV, of Marine Contracts, Title Fourth, Articles XI, XII, compiled in 30 Fed. Cas. 1171–1216; cf. Harden v. Gordon, supra.

The Laws of Oleron are typical of the provision for injuries: “If any of the mariners hired by the master of any vessel, go out of the ship without his leave, and get themselves drunk, and thereby there happens contempt to their master, debates, or fighting and quarrelling among themselves, whereby some happen to be wounded: in this case the master shall not be obliged to get them cured, or in any thing to provide for them, but may turn them and their accomplices out of the ship; . . . but if by the master’s orders and commands any of the ship’s company be in the service of the ship, and thereby happen to be wounded or otherwise hurt, in that case they shall be cured and provided for at the costs and charges of the said ship.” Article VI.

7 Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mason 541, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6047 (C. C.); The Atlantic, Abb. Adm. 451, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 620 (D. C); Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U. S. 367, 371.

8 Cf. The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158; Pacific Steamship Co. v. Peterson, 278 U. S. 130; O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredging Co., No. 320, October Term 1942, decided February 1, 1943; Brown v. The Bradish Johnson, 1 Woods 301, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1992 (C. C); The A. Heaton, 43 Fed. 592 (C. C ) ; The Mars, 149 Fed. 729 (C. C. A.).

9 The City of Alexandria, 17 Fed. 390 (D. C); The A. Heaton, 43 Fed. 592 (C. C); The Wensleydale, 41 Fed. 829 (D. C); Sorenson v. Alaska S. S. Co., 247 Fed. 294 (C. C. A.); Peterson v. The Chandos, 4 Fed. 645 (D. C); cf. Seely v. City of New York, 24 F. 2d 412 (C. C. A.); cf. Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sumn. 195, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11, 641 (C. C).

10 Pierce v. Patton, Gilp. 435, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11, 145 (D. C); The Alector, 263 Fed. 1007 (D. C.); Chandler v. The Annie Buckman, 21 Betts 112, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2591 a (D. C); Zambrano v. Moore-McCormick Lines, Inc., 131 F. 2d 537 (C. C. A.); Wytheville, 1936 A. M. C. 1281 (D. C).

11 Barlow v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 101 F. 2d 697 (C. C. A.); The Berwindglen, 88 F. 2d 125 (C. C. A.); Lortie v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., 78 F. 2d 819 (C. C. A.); Oliver v. Calmar S. S. Co., 33 F. Supp. 356 (D. C.)

12 The Quaker City, 1 F. Supp. 840 (D. C).

13 Cf. text and note 15 infra.

14 Compare Yukes v. Globe Steamship Corp., 107 F. 2d 888 (C. C. A.); but cf. States Steamship Co. v. Berglann, 41 F. 2d 456 (C. C. A.), certiorari denied, 282 U. S. 868; Holm v. Cities Service Transportation Co., 60 F. 2d 721 (C. C. A.).

15 The recent tendency to confine the scope of the obligation to those shipboard injuries which are caused by the requirements of the seaman’s duties [Meyer v. Dollar S.S. Line Co., 49 F. 2d 1002 (C. C. A.); cf. Brock v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 33 F. Supp. 353 (D. C.);] is consonant neither with the liberality which courts of admiralty traditionally have displayed toward seamen who are their wards nor with the dictates of sound maritime policy. Calmar S. S. Co. v. Taylor, supra, at 529.

16 See e.g. Laws of Oleron Art. VI, VII; Laws of Wisbuy Art. XVIII, XIX; Laws of Hanse Towns Art. XXXIX, XLV; see also The Montezuma, 19 F. 2d 355 (C. C. A.); Gomez v. Periera, 42 F. Supp. 328 (D. C).

17 Sound reasons of discipline long have impelled this rule. Cf, e.g., Laws of Oleron, Art. VII; Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV, supra; Laws of Wisbuy, supra; and compare Pierce v. Patton, supra note 10.

18 Thus while the Laws of Oleron and the Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV, supra, relieve from liability for injuries incurred while on shore without leave, they say nothing on the question here involved. Similarly, the Laws of Wisbuy, supra, are ambiguous on this point. The Laws of the Hanse Towns suggest that any injuries received otherwise than in the ship’s service are not within the right to maintenance and cure.

19 E.g., Reed v. Canfield, supra note 9; The Berwindglen, supra note 11; cf. The J. M. Danziger, 1938 A. M. C. 685 (D. C).

20 Smith v. American South African Line, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 262 (D. C.); Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 42 F. Supp. 992 (D. C ) ; Collins v. Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc. Lt’d., 23 F. Supp. 395 (D. C).

21 Holmes, J., dissenting in Tyson and Brother v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, 447.

22 See also Holmes v. Hutchinson, Gilp. 447, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6639 (D. C ) ; The Forest, 1 Ware 429, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4936 (D. C); The Nimrod, 1 Ware 1, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10, 267 (D. C); and see cases cited supra note 10.

23 At the argument it was suggested that a reason which might sustain the imposition of liability for sickness innocently contracted on shore leave, but not for injuries so incurred, would be the difficulty of proving origin ashore. The difficulty undoubtedly would exist in some cases, but hardly in all. No authority has been found which suggests this explanation. Rather, cases of illness, which are within the reason and policy of the liability, are indistinguishable from cases of injury received without misconduct. The risk of incidence is not less in the one case than in the other. The afflicted seaman is made as helpless and dependent by injury as by illness. His resources for meeting the catastrophe and his employer’s burden are not greater because he is hurt rather than ill.

24 By presidential proclamation the Convention became effective for the United States and its citizens on Oct. 29, 1939 (54 Stat. 1693). Article 2 provides:

1. The shipowner shall be liable in respect of—

(a) sickness and injury occurring between the date specified in the articles of agreement for reporting for duty and the termination of the engagement;

(b) death resulting from such sickness or injury.

2. Provided that national laws or regulations may make exceptions in respect of:

(a) injury incurred otherwise than in the service of the ship;

(b) injury or sickness due to the wilful act, default or misbehavior of the sick, injured or deceased person;

(c) sickness or infirmity intentionally concealed when the engagement is entered into.

3. National laws or regulations may provide that the shipowner shall not be liable in respect of sickness, or death directly attributable to sickness, if at the time of the engagement the person employed refused to be medically examined.

Relevant material on the scope and effect of the Convention may be found in H. R. Rep. No. 1328, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., containing the interpretation by the Secretary of State; Record of Proceedings, International Labor Conference, 21st and 22d Sessions, Geneva, 1936, 249–51; International Labor Conference, Geneva, 1929, The Protection of Seamen in Case of Sickness, 1st Discussion, 28–46; International Labor Conference, Geneva, 1931, The Protection of Seamen in Case of Sickness, 2d Discussion, 29–43, 161–62. See also H. R. 6881, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.; 84 Cong. Rec. 10540; Hearings before Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, on H. R. 6881, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., passim; Hearings before Senate Committee on Commerce on H. R. 6881, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., passim.