78 THE AMERICAN WHALEMAN 



the action under review were regarded as a case of flogging 

 for the sake of punishment, then the master was to be found 

 guilty as charged j but if it were held to be a form of chastise- 

 ment intended to induce a return to duty, and one which 

 seemed an appropriate means towards such an end, as well as 

 one which had been adopted in good faith and reasonable 

 judgment, then the captain was to be exonerated. In other 

 words, he pointed out to the jury that by calling flogging a 

 form of chastisement, the application of the law could be 

 evaded. And this in spite of the fact that tying a man to the 

 rigging and striking him on the back with a rope, the offense 

 charged and proved in this case, constituted the very definition 

 of flogging! The jury, taking a hint from such a devious 

 and questionable interpretation of the law, returned a ver- 

 dict under which a fine of one cent was to be paid to the 

 plaintiff. 



Curiously enough, this legal indifference to the sufferings 

 of seamen, together with the accompanying suspicion of their 

 personal rights, ran parallel to a strongly paternalistic watch 

 over the formal terms of their agreements. The seaman was 

 commonly regarded as a so-called ward of admiralty, whose 

 numerous legal and political disabilities entitled him to the 

 special protection of the courts in the making and observing 

 of his contractual relationships. Consequently the average 

 judge sternly insisted that owners and masters must carry out 

 their share of the bargain embodied in the shipping articles, 

 particularly with regard to rank, length of voyage, and the 

 payment of wages duly earned. Thus was presented the 

 interesting spectacle of having identical courts refuse to pro- 

 tect foremast hands against the most harrowing maltreatment, 

 and yet exhibit meticulous concern over the receipt of a few 

 dollars in wages. 



But if the courts were often remiss in the interpretation of 

 protective legislation, the consuls were guilty of even greater 

 sins of omission. This was particularly reprehensible be- 

 cause these officials had been appointed by law as the ac- 

 credited guardians of American seamen in foreign countries. 

 As early as April 14, 1792, they were especially empowered 

 to receive protests or declarations concerning treatment and 



