Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/931

 924. FBDBPAIi BEPOKTEB. �This court had occasion years ago to pass upon a lilce question, occurring upçm the upper Missouri. Eeported cases seem not tobe fullyin accord; yet, wlien caref uUy considered, are not different in principle. A mariner wrongfully dis- charged may work bis passage borne in the same eapacity as tbat for which he was originally engaged, and tbus save the cost of transportation to the owners of the vessel. In the absence of such an opportunity he may return as a passen- ger. In seagoing voyages, wbere the destination is to a for- eign port specified, and a direct return to the port of ship- ment, it bas been decided that bis wages sbould be paid up to the time of the vessel'a return, and it bas also been decided that bis wages sbould run to the date of bis return in another vessel. Circumstances may make one or the other of these rulings applicable as to foreign voyages. �In the internai navigation of this country it is evident that no arbitrary rule can obtain, in justice to the interests involved, for, as in the case under consideration, the return could not be made in a reasonable time on a vessel, beeause navigation was closed by ice. The mariners, being discbarged at a port whence by railroad they could return home in a few days, would not bave been justified in waiting until spring for a vessel to take them to their port of shipment. Hence, the rule for their compensation is the amount of their neces- sary transportation aud expeuses, together with their rate of wages from date of discliarge to their arrivai at the port of shipment; for the contracts were not for a specified time of employment. �It might have been that tbeir term of service would bave ended sooner than it did; for the voyage might bave been made only to Cincinnati or Louisville and back to Pittsburgb. It must, however, be always considered that mariners stand in the relation of wards of court, and that, inasmucb as it is in the power of the master and owners to make their con- tracts definite by shipping articles or otherwise, the legal presumption arises, if they do not speeify in their agreements to the contrary. The differences in river navigation from seagoing voyages bave been often considered in this court, ����