Slike strani
PDF
ePub

M. Hoag, and The Three Sisters, 69 Federal Reporter, 742 citing many authorities. The reasons assigned for not allowing such lien are: First, because when the master contracts, he is supposed to trust to the personal credit of the owner.) (Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mass. (U. S.) 91, Fed. Cas. No. 17679. Second, the inconvenience and expense to which the owners might be subjected if, in every dispute with the master, he could take the vessel out of their hands, and thus compel them to submit to improper charges. (The Grand Turk, 1 Paine (U. S.) 73 Fed. Cas. No. 5683.)

The master is allowed a lien upon the vessel in continental Europe. The Graf Klot, 8 Fed. Rep. 833 (Germany); The Velox, 21 Fed. Rep. 479 (Holland); The Olga, 32 Fed. Rep. 330 (Italy); The Angela Maria, 35 Fed. Rep. 430 (Italy). In England he has a lien by statute. The Sabina, Lush. 545. There are similar statutes in several states, and the statutory lien is enforced in admiralty. (The Sabina, Lush. 545.)

The rule which obtains in the Philippine Islands is that the master of the vessel has a lien on the ship for wages, as may be seen from a simple perusal of article 580 of the Code of Commerce which reads:

"In all judicial sales of vessels for the payment of creditors, the following shall have preference in the order stated:

[ocr errors][merged small]

The salaries due the captain and the crew during their

IS A STEVEDORE ENTITLED TO A LIEN

Under the American Law, a stevedore is entitled to a lien for his services in loading or discharging a foreign vessel. In the Main, 51 Fed. 594, it was said:

"The services of a stevedore in loading and stowing cargo on board of a ship, and in unloading a cargo from a ship, are largely employed on board the vessel itself, and generally he uses the ship's tackle and machinery in performing the work. It is difficult to see why hoisting and lowering a cargo on a vessel is not as much a maritime service as hoisting and lowering yards and sails. A vessel, in taking on and unloading cargo, is earning freight; for, in loading and unloading cargo services are rendered the expense of which necessarily enters into the affreightment contract. It may be true that stevedores, when employed by the owner or consignee, are employed on personal credit; but it is not true, that when stevdores are employed by a master in a port they are employed on the personal credit of the master."

When the stevedore's services are rendered in a home port, there is no lien in the absence of a statute to the contrary. (The Wyoming, 36 Fed. 493; The Gilbert Knapp, 37 Fed. 209.)

In the Philippine Islands, no lien exists in favor of a stevedore for services rendered in loading and unloading a foreign vessel, inasmuch as article 584 of the Code of Commerce expressly says that "for debts of any other kind whatsoever not included in the said article 580, the vessel can only be attached in the port of her registry," and a stevedore's debt nowhere appears to be included in article 580 of the Code of Commerce referred to above.

ASSIGNMENT OF SEAMEN'S LIEN FOR WAGES.

Whether or not a mariner's lien for wages may be assigned is a question upon which the authorities in the United States are not in harmony. But the case of the William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. Reporter 742, upholding the assignability of the lien said: The lien of mariners for wages should stand upon the same footing with those of other laborers upon vessels and of material-men. When the services are rendered, and the right is perfected, the assignability of a thing enhances its value, and a non-assignable character given to a mariner's lien is more likely to injure than to protect the owner; when the services are rendered, and the right is perfected, there is no more reason to deny the mariner's right to dispose of this property than there is of any other belonging to him. The law guards him against imposition without imposing disabilities upon him in the enjoyment of his property and rights. Unless the assignee is a speculator, or there is other reason to question or suspect the fairness of the transaction, the lien for wages in the hands of the assignee should be enforced." For the reasons assigned in the above quotation and due to the fact that there is no law expressly prohibiting the assignment of such lien, it may be said that the same principle obtains in the Philippine Islands with regard to the assignability of mariner's lien for wages.

[blocks in formation]

Subsequent solicitor's lien for costs in defending actions against the ship.

The Livietta, 8 Prob. Div. 209.

Liens for a prior mortgage.

The Mary Ann, L. R. 1 Ad. 8;

The Feronia, L. R. 2 Ad. 65;

The Ringdove, 11 Prob. Div. 120;

The Island City, 1 Low 375;

The City of Tawas, supra.

(To be continued.)

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

Published monthly, August to April inclusive, during the academic year, by the alumni and students of the College of Law, University of the Philippines.

[blocks in formation]

Jorge Bocobo, Acting Dean of the College of Law.

Quintin Paredes, Professorial Lecturer on Criminal Law.

Enrique Altavas, Lecturer on Land Registration and Mortgages.

NOVEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN

NOTE AND COMMENT

RAMÓN R. SAN JOSE, Senior

Editor

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADMIT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS INTO THE UNION AS A STATE, TO CEDE TO A FOREIGN POWER, OR TO DECLARE INDEPENDENT

"These three constitute the broad constitutional possibilities open to the United States in dealing with the Philippine Islands," says Mr. Justice Malcolm in an article which appeared in the American Law Review. (Vol. LI, p 543; July-August, 1917.)

After enumerating the express and implied powers of the Congress of the United States to "dispose of" acquired territories, the author discusses at length the Philippine question from the constitutional point of view. Thus he states, "Under the Constitution, under sovereignty, under the treaty of cession, and under political policy is a general premise that the future of the Philippines, whatever it may be, is given into the hands of Congress."

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADMIT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS INTO THE UNION AS A STATE

Our former dean is of the opinion that "this is a contingency which is unlikely to happen. The United States has never committed or obligated herself to giving

the Filipinos immediate or even ultimate statehood. The American people have never favored incorporation of an alien people living at a great distance into the family of states. The Filipino people, with the decadence of the Federal Party, (predecessor of the Partido Progresista) manifest no desire for such a status." Granting, however, that both Americans and Filipinos are in favor of incorporation, will the act be constitutional, be legal? In the Insular Cases, the U. S. Supreme Court has recognized-so says Mr. Justice Malcolm-that the Philippines could be incorporated into the United States when Congress shall see fit, and that they might "be introduced into the sisterhood of states." Furthermore, "the Constitution expressly [grants to Congress [the power to erect new states out of acquired territory to be received into the Union."

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CEDE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO A FOREIGN POWER

The author believes that this is a "possibility which is unlikely to be seriously considered," as it would be incompatible with American honor and the United States "would lose commercially thereby with no reciprocal gains." Besides, the Filipinos "would stoutly resist being bartered off like chattels, and would regard it as a dastardly betrayal of American trust." Looking upon the question, however, from its legal standpoint, Mr. Justice Malcolm affirms that although "there is no express provision of the Constitution authorizing a transfer of territory in the possession of the United States to another power," yet according to the precedent established by the Louisiana purchase and the principle of sovereignty, the United States may dispose of its territory. The U. S. Supreme Court has held that "when territory is once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States, and is subject to the disposition of Congress." Hence, the right of the United States to alienate the Philippines, an unincorporated territory, is based "on the fundamental principle of sovereignty, re-enforced to an extent by the very fact that territory in this position is not yet a part of the United States." In consequence, if a treaty for the sale of the Philippine Islands is entered into by the United States with a foreign power, "a citizen could with difficulty restrain fulfillment."

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DECLARE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS INDEPENDENT

The author asserts that "this is the contingency most likely to take place," for "the great majority of the American people, while differing as to date and methods, have looked forward to an independent existence for the Philippines, and the Congress of the United States has formally declared the purpose of the United States to make the Philippines ultimately independent" in what is popularly known as the Jones Act. (Act of Congress of August 29, 1916.) On the other hand, "public opinion in the Philippines as represented by the press and in popular assemblies has

protested again and again the desire of the Filipino people for independence, and their accredited representatives, the Philippine Assembly and the Resident Commissioners to the United States, have solemnly and unequivocally so stated by resolution, petition and address." In case the United States shall ultimately decide to withdraw its sovereignty from the Philippines, the question will then arise whether the act could be regarded as constitutional, and therefore, legal. It is true that "no previous action identical to what would take place if the Philippine Islands were recognized as independent can be found in the historical records of the United States," yet "if the United States can acquire or cede territory without express constitutional authority, why can not the same sovereign power, which permits of such action, likewise permit unincorporated territory to be made independent?" "What difference is there between cession to another foreign power and cession to another people temporarily under American control? If the United States could by treaty pass on the boon of freedom to Cuba, why can it not a few years later under the power reserved by the same treaty to Congress, pursuant to this power, hand over a similar right to the Philippines?"-R. S. J.

The following clipping from the New York Times is a review of Judge Lobingier's "The Evolution of the Civil Law" (the text-book used by our Freshmen in their Roman Law class), which was written by Prof. Charles P. Sherman, an authority on the subject, and was originally published in the Yale Law Review and later copied in the New York Times.

BOOK REVIEWS

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CIVIL LAW. By Charles S. Lobingier, Shanghai,
China. Published by the author. 1915. Pages 105.

A most welcome addition to American literature on Roman law is this learned work of Judge Lobingier, writes Prof. Charles P. Sherman, of Yale University. In his opening chapter this distinguished Federal Judge and law teacher takes pains to emphasize the great modern value of Roman law and the necessity for its study in American law schools: not only does Judge Lobingier point out that Roman law is the mother of the Continental European and allied legal systems (e. g., Spanish-American) as well as of Canon law, and that International law is closely related to the Roman, but also that "the Anglo-American law is profoundly indebted to the Roman."

After analyzing the present great study value of Roman law Judge Lobingier holds-and correctly-that American law students need and should receive instruction in Roman law "following immediately upon the undergraduate work and preceding any considerable advance into the technical field of modern law. The gulf between these two... is very wide, but Roman law supplies the bridge which renders passage comparatively easy. The bridge is of little value if it is not to be used until the passage is accomplished by some

« PrejšnjaNaprej »