In time of war, he must avoid acts which will expose his vessel and cargo to seizure and confiscation, and must do all acts re quired for the safety of the vessel and car go and the interests of their owners. .In case of capture, he bound to remain by the vessel until condemnation, or until re covery is hopeless ; Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mas. 161, Fed. Gas. No. 17,680. He must bring home from foreign ports destitute seamen; R. S. § 4578 ; and must retain from the wages of his crew hospital-money ; R. S. § 4585. He is personally liable to seamen for their wages ; Temple v. Turner, 123 Mass. 125.
He is liable to the owners, and he and they to all others whose interests are af fected by his acts, for want of reasonable skill, care, or prudence in the navigation or management of the vessel; Stone v. Bet land, 1 Wash. 'C. C. 142, Fed. Cas. No. 13, 483; including injuries done to the cargo by the crew ; Spurr v. Pearson, 1 Mas. 104, Fed. Cas. No. 13,268; and this rule includes the improper discharge of a seaman; Hutch inson v. Coombs, 1 Ware 65, Fed. Cas. No. 6,955.
His authority on shipboard is very great ; Bangs v. Little, 1 Ware 506, Fed. Cas. No. 839; but is of a civil character. He has a right to control and direct the efforts of the crew, and to use such force as may be neces sary to enforce obedience to his lawful com mands. He may even take life, if necessary, to suppress a mutiny. He may degrade offi cers : The Elizabeth Frith, 1 Blatchf. & H. 195, Fed. Cas. No. 4,361; The Exchange, 1 Blatchf. & H. 366, Fed. Cas. No. 4,594 ; At kyns v. Burrows, 1 Pet. Adm. 244, Fed. Cas. No. 618; Thompson v. Busch, 4 Wash. C. C. 338, Fed. Cas. No. 13,944 ; 2 C. Rob. 261. He may punish acts of insolence, disobedience, and insubordination, and such other offences, when he is required to do so for the safety and discipline of the ship. Flogging is, how ever, prohibited on merchant vessels; R. S. § 4611; and for any unreasonable, arbitrary, or brutal exercise of authority towar6 a seaman or passenger he is liable, criminally and in a civil suit; 4 U. S. Stat. L. 776, 1235. In all cases which will admit of the proper delay for inquiry, due inquiry should pre cede the act of punishment ; 1 Hagg. 274, per Lord Stowell. He has a right to'exact from his officers and crew not only a strict observance of all his lawful orders, but also a respectful demeanor towards himself ; The Superior, 927. He may also restrain or even confine a passenger who refuses to submit to the necessary discipline of the ship; Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mas. 242, Fed. Cas. No. 2,575 ; but, without conferring with the officers and entering the facts in the log-boole, he can inflict no higher pun ishment on a passenger than a reprimand ; Krauskopp v. Ames, 7 Pa. L. J. 77; 6 C. & P.
472; Dunn v. Church, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 119.
If the master has not funds for the neces sary supplies, repairs, and uses of his ship when abroad, he may borrow money for that purpose on the credit of his owners; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 484, Fed. Cas. No. 3,373; and if it cannot be procured on his and their personal credit, he may take up money on bottomry, or in extreme cases may pledge his cargo ; The Packet, 3 Mas. 255, Fed. Cas. No. 10,654. His authority to act as the owner's agent is based on necessity and ceases when the lat ter is within reach of instructions; [1893j A. C. 38; Botsford v. Plummer, 67 Mich. 264, 34 N. W. 569. He cannot bind owners to pay for repairs done at the home port without special authority ; Dyer v. Snow, 47 Me. 254; nor when they or their agents are so near that communication can be had with them without delay ; Woodruff & Beach Iron Works v. Stetson, 31 Conn. 51; 3 Kent 49. The extent of his contracts must be confined to the necessities of the case; The Clan Mac Leod, 38 Fed. 447. He has no authority to execute bottomry or any express hypotheca tion of the ship for differences in freights in favor of the charterer, or for his advances of charter money; The Serapis, 37 Fed. 436; The Lykus, 36 id. 919. See Borromay ; SPONDENTIA.
Generally, when contracting within the ordinary scope of his powers and duties, he is personally responsible, as well as his own ers, when they are personally liable. On bottomry loans, however, there is ordinarily no personal liability In this country or in England, beyond the funds which comes to the hands of the master or owners from the subject of the pledge ; The Irma, 6 Ben. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 7,064; Abb. Sh. 90; Story, Ag. §§ 116023, 294. See The Serapis, 37 Fed. 436.
In most cases, too, the ship • is bound for the performance of the master's contract; The Paragon, 1 Ware 322, Fed. Cas. No. 10, 708; but all contracts of the master in chattering or freighting his vessel do not give such a lien ; Vandewater v. Mills, 19 How. (U. S.) 82, 15 L. Ed. 54.
Where the master of a ship is without fault during a period of detention resulting from seizure of the ship, by legal process against the owner, he is entitled to wages on the terms of his contract, unless it stipulate to the contrary ; Swift v. Tatner, 89 Ga. 660, 15 S. E. 842, 32 Am. St. Rep. 101.
See FLAG, LAW OF ; LIEN ; SHIP.