LIFE SALVAGE the sea in ships, would be practically of no value on account of their poverty, and the further difficulty of determining the rela tive value of different lives for the purpose of ascertaining the salvage; for it would be manifestly unjust to award the same amount of life salvage against the poor mechanic and the multimillionaire. These difficulties, however, are more apparent than real. What we want to do is to encourage the saving of life at sea and a reward is a wellknown means of stimulating to moral duty when human nature is halting and recreant. Lack of wherewithal to satisfy a judgment is a thing we meet with in all branches of the law, and is no reason for withholding a remedy altogether, even against those who have the means to pay. The difficulty of estimating the values of different lives is a thing constantly met with in actions by personal representatives for the death of the deceased by wrongful act, which are now, since Lord Campbell's Act in England, provided for by nearly all of the states of the Union. There would be no greater diffifulty in ascertaining the proper amount in actions for life salvage than in actions for death by wrongful act. On the whole, it would seem that the ob jections to life salvage are rather senti mental than founded on common sense, and that the matter should be dealt with by statute of the United States, allowing a salvor to recover against one whose life he has saved on navigable waters. It has been dealt with by statute in England ever since the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, but there no life salvage is allowed unless prop•erty is saved, and the old injustice of mak ing the owner of property pay for the life salvage of another is perpetuated by the statute. Moreover, the life salvage is given priority over claims for the salvage of the property itself, so that the whole of the property saved may be applied to the pay ment of life salvage from which the ship owner gets no benefit at all. If, however, the ship or property be wholly lost or its
709
value is insufficient to pay the life salvage, the Board of Trade may in its discretion pay the life salvage or the balance remain ing unpaid by the shipowner out of what is called the Mercantile Marine Fund.1 In regard to this subject of life salvage, the Maritime Law Committee of the Inter national Law Association, consisting of the Hon. Mr. Justice Phillimore, Mr. W. Arnold, Mr. Carver, K.C., Mr. Marsden, Mr. F. R. Miller, Mr. Douglas Owen, and Dr. Stubbs, in reptying to the questionnaire of the In ternational Maritime Committee for the Paris Conference in October, 1900, say, "We do not see the logical reason why property salved should pay for the salvage of life, but public policy and humanity seem to require this. We are not prepared to depart from the principle of law so far as to recommend that a person whose life is saved ought to be compelled to pay life salvage." It would seem that public policy and humanity require that the salvage of life should be compensated, whether any prop erty is saved or not. (The English statute itself supports this view by providing for its payment out of the Mercantile Marine Fund.) That the life salvage should be paid by the person whose life is saved, if he is able to pay it, and if not out of a public fund provided for the purpose and not by a private individual like the shipowner, who, in many cases, is in no way benefited. In England there seems to be a fund ap plicable to this purpose. In this country, what better application of Mr. Carnegie's Peace Hero Fund could be made? There would be no liability to deception, because the money would be paid only after exam ination of the case and judgment by a com petent court. If the trustees could be con vinced of the advantage of this, it would be a great public benefaction. A draft treaty for the purpose of making 1 See The Renpor, L. R. 8 P. D. 115. The Annie, L. R. 12 P. D. 50. The Pacific, L. R. (r8g8) P. 170.
