,39 mnnnn REPQRTER.
so that Buzzard would not trust them for the price agreed upon; and
they had McMorran & Reynolds (whom Buzzard was willing to take "as
security") become the charterers in the writing, and therefore under
the contract responsible. to Buzzard; but Merriman & Fowler were the
A real charterers and managed the expedition. As might have been ex-
pected, these insolvents did not pay any of the men, at least that is the
inferenceysince every one who testifies in the case says he has not re-
ceived any money, and the libelants insist on the security of a lien upon
the schooner for their wages. To this they are entitled, even upon Buz-
za.rd’s own testimony, for it is not at all pretended that these libelants
especially agreed to release their lien upon the vessel or to look solely to
the charterers for their wages, but only that such is the legal effect of the
contract as implied from the circumstances. But that is a mistake.
The maritime or admiralty law does not permit any such implication from
the proven circumstances, as against seamen for their wages, whatever
it may do as to supplies or repairs or the like, as to which no opinion
need be now expressed. To seamen the law secures a lien on the ship
unless they especially contract otherwise. The proof- therefore must
show not only that they knew of the charter-party and of the stipulation
that the charterers were to be responsible for the seamen’s wages, but
also that they agreed that they would accept service alone upon the per-
sonal credit of the charterer, and not look to the ship for a lien. If they
do not so agree the lien remains whether the regular owner relinquishes
his control to the charterer or remains wholly or partially in possession,
either on his own account or as the agent of the charterer, and whether
the charterer be the owner for the voyage or charter term or only a con-
tractor for the ship’s services, and be the terms of the charter-party what
_ they may. That is to say, a personal liability of the owner for the
wages, qua. owner, or as master, one or both, is not at all essential to the
[lien on the vessel, but that may and does arise just as well out of the
v personal liability of the charterer, for the seamen’s wages, whether he be _
the owner pro hac, or only a mere contractor in the enterprise; and the
lien is not released or surrendered by the seamen unless they consent to
look solely to the personal liability of the charterer. Or, to put it in
another way, the lien on the vessel for seamen’s wages always exists, un·
less they waive or release it knowingly and intentionally, and there is
` not any intimation in the proof that these men did that.
- Another matter may be mentioned here. A court of admiralty will
not tolerate such sharp practice against seamen as that which this master
and owner confesses he attempted against these men, who had been his
faithful crew, and whom he wished to stay by him in this expedition,
as he concedes in his testimony. His pretense is that they agreed to
hire to Merriman & Fowler and not to him, although he made. the con-
tract for them, but at their request, he says. They never spoke to Fow-
· ler or Merriman, but ._it is pretendedthat they heard the contract that he
-made in their behalf, being near enough to hear, "unless they were very
deaf," the witness says. But it turns out that Merriman & Fowler were
so utterly worthless as paymasters that the master and owner would not