and the number of those among whom the salvage must be divided. These are the elements which swell the salvage, and the want of these of course diminishes it. Where a raft of timber was found adrift in New York harbor and taken on shore and watched for several days, the court decreed fifty dollars as salvage.1

Perhaps the courts are disposed to encourage nothing more than salvage efforts for the purpose of saving life. The court has no power to decree salvage for saving life merely. "But if it can be connected with the preservation of property, whether by accident or not, then the court can take notice of it, and it is always willing to join that to the animus displayed in the first instance." 3 It has been held that if the lives of the crew are saved by one vessel, and the property by another, the one saving the crew is entitled to salvage. But there seems to be no reason why salvage should be allowed in such a case and not where the crew are saved, but no assistance rendered to the vessel by any one, and the distinction is repudiated by Dr. Lushington.5

Slaves being regarded as property, form an exception to this rule, and the owner of them contributes according to their value.

and buoy rope of the value of £20 were found by some mariners who had gone in search of anchors, etc., the court decreed two fifths, after deducting expenses. This suit was brought to determine the amount due in similar cases, and may be considered as a leading case.

1 A Raft of Spars, Abbott, Adm. 485.

2 The Zephyrus, 1 W. Rob. 329.

3 The Aid, 1 Hagg. Adm. 83; The Emblem, Daveis, 61; Sturtevant v. The Geo. Nicholaus, 1 Newb. Adm. 449.

The Queen Mab, 3 Hagg. Adm. 242.

The Zephyrus, 1 W. Rob. 329. The Queen Mab is explained on the ground that the vessel was a derelict, and the court had not to contend against any opposition on the part of the owners of the Queen Mab. This subject is now provided for by the Merchants' Shipping Act of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, § 459, which enacts that salvage for saving life shall be paid before all other claims; and if, after deducting the expenses incurred, the value of the property shall not be sufficient to pay the amount of salvage due in respect of such life or lives, the Board of Trade may, in its discretion, award such sums as it may deem fit, in whole or in part satisfaction of any amount of salvage so left unpaid. See The Bartley, 1 Swabey, Adm. 198; The Coromandel, id. 205. In The Clarisse, 1 Swabey, Adm. 129, the court allowed salvage for preserving life, although the statute had been passed between the time of the rendering of the service and of the decision.

Jerby v. 194 Slaves, Bee, Adm. 226; Flinn v. The Leander, id. 260. See also, ante, Vol. I. p. 324, n. 6.

Nevertheless, these efforts to save life do not command a compensation so much higher than is given for the saving of property as might be expected, for the reason that it is not a deviation if the vessel goes out of her way to save life, and therefore the insurance is not forfeited; whereas it is a deviation to wander for the purpose of saving property,2 and compensation must be made for the forfeiture of the insurance. This deviation, the master, by the law-merchant has a right to make, if in the exercise of a sound discretion he deems it expedient. And if the only means of saving life are by saving property also, as where a vessel was taken in tow, because the crew could not be rescued in any other way, this would not constitute a deviation.5

Under ordinary circumstances, the owners of the saving ship have one third of the amount decreed, and may have more if the salvage service exposes their ship to peculiar danger.

1 See ante, Vol. I. p. 301, n. 6.

2 See ante, Vol. I. p. 3, n. 1.

3 See Bond v. Brig Cora, 2 Wash. C. C. 80; Warder v. La Belle Creole, 1 Pet. Adm. 31; The Nathaniel Hooper, 3 Sumner, 542, 578. But in The Deveron, 1 W. Rob. 180, Dr. Lushington held that in apportioning the remuneration in salvage cases every vessel was to be considered as uninsured, on account of the inconvenience in considering whether a vessel had in each case forfeited its insurance. See also, The Orbona, 1 Spinks, Adm. 161.

The Ship Nathaniel Hooper, 3 Sumner, 542, 579.

5 Crocker v. Jackson, U. S. D. C., Mass., 1847.

The Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumner, 400; The Sch. Boston, id. 328; Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; Bond v. The Cora, 2 Pet. Adm. 361; The Amethyst, Daveis, 20, 28; Concklin v. Brigantine Harmony, 1 Pet. Adm. 34, 43, note; Evans v. The Ship Charles, 1 Newb. Adm. 329; Union Tow Boat Co. v. The Bark Delphos, I Newb. Adm. 412.

7 In The Waterloo, Blatchf. & H. Adm. 114, the vessel claiming salvage was bound from Havana to Cadiz. In latitude 34° N. 75 W. she found the Waterloo a derelict, and with great difficulty and danger towed her into New York. Two thirds of the amount decreed was allowed the owners, on the ground that the risk was very great, and that the master and crew should not have imperilled property worth $72,000, to rescue property worth $40,000. In the following cases one half of the amount decreed has been allowed the owners. The Columbia, 3 Hagg. Adm. 428; The Martha, 3 Hagg. Adm. 434; The Waterloo, 2 Dods. 433; The Rising Sun, Ware, 378, 385; Taylor v. Ship Cato, 1 Pet. Adm. 48, 68; The Cumberland, U. S. D. C., Mass., 1815, cited 1 Sumner, 427; Montgomery v. The Steamboat T. P. Leathers, 1 Newb. Adm. 421. In The Nicolina, 2 W. Rob. 175, one fifth was allowed. In The Hope, 3 Hagg. Adm. 423, about two fifths; and in Smith v. The Stewart, Crabbe, 218, one thirteenth. In The Albion, 3 Hagg. Adm. 254, where a fishing smack performed a salvage service, seven twentieths were given. In The Deveron, 1 W. Rob. 180, and in The Louisa, 2 id. 22, also cases of fishing smacks, seven sixteenths. The owners of steamers which

Compensation has been refused the owners, where the master had made a valid contract to perform the service.1 And only a remuneration for wear and tear was allowed where the service was performed by boats from the shore.2

Compensation was entirely refused to the owners where the vessel was abandoned at sea, and the crew in the boats fell in with another vessel which was also abandoned, and which they saved. If a vessel is met with short-handed at sea, and assistance is rendered by sending some men on board, this is a salvage service, as we have seen, but yet one for which the owners of the vessel rendering assistance, are entitled to some compensation, but not to a great one unless the assistance thus rendered materially weakened their own vessel. If the vessel is engaged in a lucrative employment at the time of rendering a salvage service, this of course is an essential ingredient in estimating the compensation to be awarded to the owners; but if not actually engaged, it has been held that no allowance is to be made for what she might have earned.5

Even if actually engaged at the time, if the vessel to which the service is rendered is not then in imminent danger, it is said that no compensation is to be made for any loss of profits unless the master of the vessel saved is informed at the time of the nature of the employment in which the salvor is engaged.

The master has, perhaps commonly in our courts, about twice as much as the mate; but here, and still more as to the seamen, it can hardly be said that there is a rule. The share of an apprentice

perform a salvage service are entitled to a liberal compensation. One half of the amount decreed was allowed in The Howard, cited 3 Hagg. Adm. 256, and in The Earl Grey, 3 Hagg. Adm. 363; and in The Beulah, 1 W. Rob. 477, over four fifths were allowed. In The Spirit of the Age, 1 Swabey, Adm. 286, the court allowed the damage done to the vessel and a reasonable sum for the loss of services to be deducted before division, and then allowed the owners one half of the moiety, remarking that after such deductions more than a moiety was never allowed.

1 The Mulgrave, 2 Hagg. Adm. 77.

2 The Charlotte, 3 W. Rob. 68. But in The Norden, 1 Spinks, Adm. 185, it was held that owners of fishing smacks were entitled to salvage, although the service was of short duration and not dangerous.

3 The Two Friends, 2 W. Rob. 349.

Williamson v. The Brig Alphonso, 1 Curtis, C. C. 376, 380. And see cases cited ante, p. 613, n. 8.

5 The Louisa, 3 W. Rob. 99.

• The Nicolai Heinrich, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 615; The Hedwig, 1 Spinks, Adm. 19.

is given to him and not to his master,1 and an agreement to the contrary would be void;2 and slaves, it would seem, are entitled to salvage for their own use. If some of the salvors decline or refuse to claim salvage, this will not enure to the benefit of the co-salvors, but to the benefit of the owners of the property.+

SECTION VII.

ON WHAT PROPERTY SALVAGE IS ALLOWED.

Salvage is generally decreed on all the property saved, whether ship, cargo, or freight. It is allowed on public property, and

1 Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; The Two Friends, 2 W. Rob. 349; The Columbine, 2 W. Rob. 186. In this last case additional compensation was made to the owners of the vessel, on the ground that although the owner was not entitled to receive the whole benefit of the apprentice's services, yet that to a certain extent the owner was entitled to derive benefit from it. But the language used by the learned judge in the subsequent case of The Two Friends, is not consistent with the master's claim in any

case.

2 The Columbine, 2 W. Rob. 186.

3 In Small v. Goods, etc., 2 Pet. Adm. 284, 287, salvage was decreed to slaves for their own use. But in Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240, it was adjudged to the master, he having agreed to manumit the slave and to pay him one fifth of the sum allowed.

Evans v. Ship Charles, 1 Newb. Adm. 329.

5 Where a salvage service is concluded at one port and the cargo is taken to another and sold, the value at the former port is to be taken. The George Dean, 1 Swabey, Adm. 290. The cargo in this case was sent on from Lisbon to London, it being represented that it could not be sold at Lisbon. The court said: “I imagine the strict method to arrive at the value of the cargo at Lisbon would be, not on any assertion of its being unsalable there, but by putting it at 77. and 81. per cent. less than the proceeds of its sale in London, deducting freight and other charges for the voyage from Lisbon to London, but allowing a pro rata freight as far as Lisbon." When the cargo is saved, suit should be brought against it as well as the ship, as the proper mode of apportioning the salvage is to take the value of both, and if the value of the cargo does not appear, the court will not be able without much difficulty to apportion the salvage. The Mary Pleasants, 1 Swabey, Adm. 224.

6 In The Peace, 1 Swabey, Adm. 85, where an action was entered against the vessel and her freight, but as the cargo had been delivered, only the vessel was arrested, and bail was given for both ship and freight, the court held that the owners of the vessel were bound to bring in an account of freight on oath, and to set forth when, and the names of the parties by whom, such freight had been paid.

all goods of the government pay the same rate as if they were owned by individuals.1 But there is an exception to this rule in favor of the mails,2 and perhaps in the case of a ship of war belonging to our own government. And it has been determined in this country, that vessels of war belonging to a foreign neutral power cannot be arrested in our ports into which they have lawfully come.+

The same is true of a private armed vessel sailing under a commission from a foreign government. But the general rule is that our courts have jurisdiction over all property to whomsoever it belongs, which comes within their territorial jurisdiction; and though an exception is made in favor of an armed vessel, and her munitions of war, yet the private property of a foreign sovereign, or the prize property which a vessel of war brings into our ports comes within the general rule and not within the exception.

We should therefore say that where the court could take jurisdiction it would enforce a salvage claim but not otherwise." Salvage is not however allowed on the clothing left by the master and crew on board of the vessel, which they abandon, but this should be returned, free of charge. Nor on money found on the person of a drowned man:9 Nor, it is said, for saving from a wreck, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt or documents of title.10 It has also been held, that admiralty will not allow, in a suit for salvage, charges made by the salvors for

1 The Lord Nelson, Edw. Adm. 79; The Marquis of Huntly, 3 Hagg. Adm. 246. The law is the same in general average. See ante, Vol. I. p. 324, n. 2.

2 Sch. Merchant, cited in Marvin on Salvage, 132.

3 This was so held in England in 1816, in the case of The Comus, cited 2 Dods. 464.

The Sch. Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch, 116.

5 L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238.

6 The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283.

7 In The Prins Frederik, 2 Dods. 451, this question was discussed at length, but no decision was given, as the foreign government afterwards consented that the judge of the admiralty court might determine the amount of salvage due.

8 The Rising Sun, Ware, 378.

9 The Amethyst, Daveis, 20, 29. The expense of his interment was, however, allowed out of this money.