Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/835

 M'cAETY V. STEAM-PBOPBLLEB CIXY OF KEW BEDFOBD. «821 �Victoria, c. 104, § 233, provides that "no wages due or accrU'» ing to any seaman or apprentice shall be subject to attach- ment or arrestment from any court, and every payment of wages to a seaman or apprentice shall be valid in law, not- withstanding any previous sale or assignaient of such wages, or any attachaient, encumbrance, or arrestment thereon." I bave not been able to find, either in the reports or the debates in parliament, any occasion calculated to give rise to this pro- vision of the act of George II. at the time of its enactment. There seems to bave been no present necessity for such a pro- vision; and this circumstance, coupled with the provision quoted from the Consolato, leads me to believe that the pro- vision in the statute of George II. was simply declarative of the then existing law of England. I am confirmed in this belief by my inability to find any reported case where the courts of England have been called ou to construe or give effect to the provision referred to. It seems highly probable that the courts would bave been resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of these provisions if they had been new. �It is doubtless, therefore, correct to say that, by the law of England, as well before as since the statute of George II., sea- men's wages are exempt from attachment. If the answer in this case is good, therefore, the law of the United States upon this subject must be at variance with the law of England, Erance, and probably of most other maritime nations. I bave been un- able to discover any good ground for supposing that any such variance exists. Indeed, the statute of the United States, passed June 7, 1872, rendors it impossible to contend for any such variance, unless it be in regard to a part of the coastwise trade. The provision of the act of June 7, 1872, (now section 4536,ïlev.St.,)isasfollovvs: "No wages due or accruing toany seamanor apprentice shall be subject to attachment or arrest from any court. " This provision, of course, ends ail controversy if it is applicable to the present case. But the claimants insist that it is inapplicable to the libellants' wages because of the subsequent act of June 9, 1874, (18 St. at Large, 64,) which declares that noue of the provisions of the act of June 7, 1872i ����