V RILEY v. ALLEN. 47
ln Admiralty. V *
W. S. Flippin, for libelant.
H. O. Warirmer, for defendants.
Hmnoun, J. This is a libel in perscnam against the officers and
owners of a steam-boat for personal injuries. The plaintiff is a
"roustabout,"—a name by which negro deck hands on the steam-
ers plying the Mississippi river and its tributaries are known. He
shipped on the Rene Macready for a .trip up the St. Francis river.
He alleges and proves by his own testimony and that of three other
roustabouts that the mate beat him with a stick or club, severely
bruising his arm and disabling him for several weeks. The mate
swears he did not strike him at all, and so does the captain, who saw
the occurrence. Another witness not connected with the boat also
testines that the mate did not strike the libelant. There is no doubt,
however, that on a cold night in January, when the ground was cov-
ered with water, this man was paid off, discharged, and made to »
leave the boat at a place where there was no accommodation for him;
that, being wet from rain and mud, he had to go to a negro cabin
some distance away, where he stayed all night, and the next morn-
ing was compelled to walk through the overflowed swamp some five
miles to a railroad, where he walked the track about thirty miles to
his home in Memphis. The cause assigned for his discharge is that
"he was no account;" that is, did not work satisfactorily. He proves
by himself and one of his witnesses that he begged to be allowed to
stay on the boat, and offered to pay his way back to Memphis, which
was refused. This again is denied by the officers, who say that one
Collins offered to hire him, and they thought he had done or would
do so; but Collins is not produced to prove this, and it is denied by
the libelant and his witnesses.
A very earnest argument is made by counsel for defendants to the
effect that these roustabouts are a very degraded class of laborers,
and so vicious in their instincts that they are uninfluenced by any
ordinary consideration that would impel a man to do his work most
efficiently; and that it would imperil the interests of commerce and
obstruct the navigation of this river to apply to complaints like ·this
the customary rules of law that govern the contract of sea-going mar-
iners. It is urged that nothing but the severest compulsion will make
them work; that they understand this, and engage in the service with
a knowledge of the fact that they may be subjected to rough measures f
to prevent them from shirking their labor under circumstances where
inefticiency is disastrous to their employers. There is a good deal
of force in this, but it is the old-time argument in favor of flogging
seamen and soldiers, and cannot override the humane policy of our
statute which abolishes it in the army, in the navy, and "on board
vessels of commerce." Bev. St. § 4611. It is no more lawful to Hog a
"roustabout" than it is to so discipline a common seaman, and it never
was lawful to beat and wound them with sticks and clubs, for which the