port of clearance, to give a bond to the Crown. This bond must be executed in duplicate and is not liable to stamp duty. In the ordinary course, when the ship is a British ship, the amount of the bond is for £2000; but this is increased to £5000 when neither the owner nor charterer resides in the British Islands. In that case it contains a stipulation beyond that contained in the ordinary bonds, to the effect that the expenses of rescuing, maintaining and forwarding to their destination any steerage passengers carried in the ship, who, by reason of shipwreck or any other cause (except their own neglect or default), are not conveyed to their destination by, or on account of, the master, owner or charterer of the vessel, shall be a Crown debt due to his Majesty.

The ordinary condition of the bond is such as to guarantee the seaworthiness of the vessel, her calling at certain intermediate ports for the shipment of a sufficient supply of water, and the due observance of all the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act in respect of her and her passengers (except in so far as these apply exclusively to passenger brokers and emigrant runners); that the master shall submit himself to the jurisdiction of certain tribunals in the possessions of his Majesty abroad, which, according to the Act, have jurisdiction for offences committed under it; and that he will pay all fines and forfeitures which, under the Act, he shall be adjudged to pay, as well as all expenses (if any) incurred on account of the ship by any Secretary of State, governor of a colonial possession, or British consular officer.

The bond can only be put in force within three months of the vessel's arrival at a port in a British possession to which she was bound, or within twelve months of the return of the ship and of the master to the British Islands. In the latter case, the master is sued on the original bond; in the former, the duplicate, which has been countersigned by the chief officer of customs and forwarded by him to the colonial governor, is the document upon which the Court will take action, and the defences which the necessity of formal proof of the signature and position of the person so countersigning it, might afford are expressly avoided by the Act.

Certificate of Clearance.-When all these multitudinous requirements have been fulfilled, the master may apply to the emigration officer for a certificate of clearance. Such certificate shows that, as far as they can be complied with before the ship sails, every requirement of the Merchant Shipping Act has been fulfilled, and that the ship, her crew, and her steerage passengers are all fit for the intended voyage, and that the master's bond has been duly executed. The master, owner, or charterer can, at

his own expense, by appeal to the Board of Trade, have two other emigration officers, or any two other competent persons, called in to examine into the matter and report, if the emigration officer refuse his certificate. If these two certify that the ship is fit to proceed their certificate is sufficient. Or the appeal may be made to a Court of Survey. In that case the judge of the Court reports to the Board of Trade, and, if his decision is in favour of the ship, the Board of Trade directs the emigration officer to issue his certificate of clearance. The penalty for emigrant-ships proceeding to sea without the certificate for clearance, or having properly proceeded to sea and put into a British port with damage, and leaving or attempting to leave with steerage passengers on board without having the further certificate for clearance, is forfeiture to the Crown. Such forfeiture may be enforced by any officer of customs in his Majesty's dominions within two years of the commission of the offence, and a vessel so forfeited is treated as if forfeited under the customs laws. The Board of Trade have power, if they think fit, to release a vessel so forfeited on payment of a sum of money not exceeding £2000.

Putting Back with Damage. The master may not yet be clear of his obligations, for the perils of the sea may cause him to put into a port in the British Islands with damage. In such case he must, within twelve hours, report in writing his arrival, the cause of putting back, the condition of the ship, and of her provisions, water and medical stores, and produce his list of passengers to the emigration officer at the port of refuge.

Duty of Masters Putting Back.-If after clearance a vessel puts back or calls at another port in the British Islands, or is detained at her sailing port for seven days, she must fill up with provisions, water and medical stores at the ship's expense, effectually repair any damage sustained, and obtain a fresh certificate of clearance before she resumes her voyage.

Obligation to allow Inspection. The master of any vessel fitted to carry, or carrying, steerage passengers on a voyage, such as those for which passenger lists are enjoined, must afford every facility for inspection to emigration officers at all ports in his Majesty's dominions. These officers must also be given opportunity of communicating with the steerage passengers and of ascertaining that the requirements of the Act in respect of passengers and emigrants have been complied with. If the ship be a British ship, the same facilities must be extended to British consular officers in foreign ports.

CHAPTER IX.

MASTER'S FINANCIAL LIABILITIES.

CONTENTS.-On Account of Charterer-On Account of DisbursementsOn Contracts in Excess of his Authority-For Acts of Subordinates. AFTER the somewhat wearisome recitals of statutory obligations on the master, we now turn to matters connected with cargo and ship, where the principles of the law have some chance of being discussed, and where our work is not merely that of cataloguing a series of arbitrary, if well-intentioned, precautions.

On Account of Charterer. When we begin to speak of cargo, it is necessary for the master to recollect that he has much work to do (even though he may be paid by the shipowner) for the charterer. And his position in regard to the charterer is much inferior to that which he has in regard to the owner. For he is able, when dealing for the owner, to take his remedy, if necessary, in rem; that is to say, to proceed against the security of the ship herself. But the ship is not the charterer's property, and he is not usually himself the charterer's servant. And thus it is that, unless what he has done is really for the owner's, as distinguished from the charterer's benefit, he is not able to proceed in rem for the recovery of what he has done. Thus we see that, though principle sanctions the suing of the ship for necessary disbursements made on owner's account, the master has no such remedy against the ship when he has spent money for the charterer. And, indeed, all through his dealings with the charterer he must ask himself whether the order given, or the indemnity offered, is really a thing which is in the charterer's power. If it be not within such limits it may prove a very dangerous trap for the unsuspecting master.

On Account of Disbursements.-The great importance of this observation is apparent when we remember that the master is in a totally different position to any other employé in respect of disbursements for the necessary course of the business of the adventure. The manager of a manufacturing place of business may order goods to be sent to, or repairs to be executed at, the establishment in charge of which he is placed, and it is obvious

that, in a general way, those persons who execute such orders look to his employer for payment, and accordingly do not give credit to the person with whom they have direct dealings. In such a case there is a presumption that credit is given to the employer and not to the employed, though it is, of course, quite possible for the employed, even in this case, to make himself personally liable for the debts contracted by him on account of the business. But in the case of a shipmaster the presumption is the other way. The master has a personal liability for all the contracts he makes for supplies or other necessaries ordered by him on the ship's account, or for dues incurred, or for repairs for whose execution he contracts. He must be careful, when he has any reason to doubt the position of the owner for whom he is acting, to make an express agreement with the contractor to give credit to the ship and not to the shipmaster. Creditors, though they have a remedy both against the ship and the master, in the absence of express agreement on the point, cannot proceed against one, and, if they fail, resort to the other. A creditor is, as the law expresses it, put in such cases to his election, and if he proceed against the shipowner and obtain judgment he cannot, when he finds his verdict a barren one, commence afresh against the master. And, in the same way, if he elect to proceed in the first instance against the master, the judgment in such a suit is a bar to later proceedings against the shipowner.

It is possible, of course, that exclusive credit may have been given to one or other of the parties, and, in that case, the other could not be made liable. This is entirely a matter of evidence in each particular case. For example, a ship repairer who had received orders from an owner personally, in the absence of the master, could hardly contend that he gave credit to the employé, whom he had not seen, in preference to the employer, who had actually given the order.

On Contracts in Excess of his Authority. The master must not forget that he can only bind his principals by his action in matters which come within the scope of his authority, express or implied. In the absence of express authority, the implied authority seems to amount to an order to do that which seems reasonably best for the shipowner's interests under any exceptional and unforeseen circumstances in which the master may find himself at a critical period of the adventure. Where there is a possibility of consulting the owners themselves before making his decision in an important matter, and that without running a risk of losing everything by a short delay, the implied authority of the master would seem to warrant him in exercising

F

far less discretion than it would do where he was constrained to instant action and had no chance of referring to his principals. When a master enters into an agreement presumably on behalf of his principals, and it is afterwards found that he had exceeded his authority in doing so, he is personally liable on the contract. The owner's liability rests on the decision as to whether the master's action in contracting was, or was not, within the scope of his authority.

For Acts of Subordinates.-Not only is the shipmaster liable on what he does himself, but he also has responsibilities for what is done by those under him.

In collision cases the master is liable to third parties and to his owners for damages caused by his own negligence or misconduct.

This may include the want of an efficient crew or of proper appliances for navigation. And in this way a liability for the negligence of his subordinates may be brought home to him personally. The master, too, may be liable for loss caused to the cargo-owner by his own, or the crew's, carelessness or want of skill. He is never liable, however, for the wilful acts of the crew, or indeed of any one else. For though a man may be liable for the negligence of other people with whom he is in certain relationships, he can never be liable for the wrongful acts of others than himself, when such acts are either what the law calls crimes or torts. The latter expression includes all wrongful acts known to the law, short of crimes and offences of a criminal nature, which cannot be included in the term "breach of contract."