Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/839

M'cARTÎ V. BTEAM-PROP£LLEB CITY OP NEW BEDFOED. 825 �court can be ousted of jurisdiction to issue the summona thus prescribed, by an attachment issued at the instance of a creditor of the seaman in an action at law. But the statute goes further, and declares that the vessel shall be forthwith seized unless the master show that the wages have been "paid or otherwise satisfied or forfeited." An absolute and statu- tory right is here conferred upon the seaman to have the vessel seized and sold in every case where the master omita to show that the wages have been paid or otherwise satisfied or forfeited. Surely it is straining language to say that proof of service of an attachment upon the ship-owner at the instance of a creditor of a seamau would show that the wages had been paid or otherwise satisfied or forfeited, within the meaning of the act of 1790. Still further, the statute declares that any dispute between the seaman and the ship-owner touching the wages shall be determined according to the course of the admiralty, unless the seaman elect to bring his action at law. Is it possible that the seaman can be deprived of the right thus conferred by a statute of the United States, by the act of his creditor in causing an attachment to be served upon the ship-owner ? Yet such must be the resuit, if wages are subject to be attached by process from a state court. Such is the resuit claimed here, where it is said that this seaman, Hare, eannot proceed against the vessel for his wages, and eannot have his dispute determined according to the course of the admiralty, because one Eddy, a creditor, has, without his concurrence, comraenced a suit for him against the owners, in the second district court of the county of Bristol. �Another provision in the act of 1790 may be referred to as bearing upon this same question. The act declares (section 4547) that "in such suit ail the seamen having cause of com- plaint of the like kind against the same vessel shall be joined as complainants." This is a proxision of statute made not only to save the ship-owner from being subjeeted to several suits by members of the same crew, but also to save the seamen the expense and delay attending several distinct suits. It is by virtue of this provision that in this proceeding not only ����