Under the provision's of the Labor Management Relations Act ( 29 U.S.C.A. § 178 ) the Court regularly made and entered a restraining order in the above entitled cause on the 11th of April, 1962. Pending an application for the preliminary injunction the restraining order was designed to preserve the status quo and prevent the defendants from conducting and continuing a strike which had *687 resulted in a national emergency in the maritime industry.

The restraining order, although containing the usual provisions to be found in a Taft-Hartley injunction, met with immediate resistance on defendants’ part and on April 13th the Court was advised that the seamen had refused to sign the articles in the traditional, statutory form unless a rider were affixed thereto in the following form:

On April 13th during the course of the hearings concerned with the propriety and legal significance of the above mentioned rider, the Court regularly made and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law and regularly made and entered a preliminary injunction herein. The far-reaching effects of the rider are at once apparent and the propriety of its use by the defendants must be considered in view of the scope, design and purposes of the injunctive relief.

The Pacific Maritime Association claims that its use will tend to frustrate and render meaningless the avowed purposes and design of the Act and they request a supplemental order clarifying this issue.

Similarly, the defendant unions also ask for supplemental orders and radical modifications of the preliminary injunction, as follows:

That defendant Pacific Maritime Association, and its member shipping companies affected by this preliminary injunction, and their agents, do not require crew members, during the period of this preliminary injunction, to sign Shipping articles which are binding upon them during the discharge of cargo in any American port at any time after eighty days following the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order herein on April 11, 1962;

That defendant Pacific Maritime Association, and its member shipping companies affected by this preliminary injunction, and their agents, pay off their crews on mutual consent and discharge them under their Shipping Articles immediately upon entry in any American port after eighty days following issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order herein on April 11, 1962, and upon the making of their vessel safe and secure;

That defendant Pacific Maritime Association, and its member shipping companies affected by this preliminary injunction, and their agents, do not sail any vessel employing crew members represented by the defendant union from any American port upon a voyage in which more than one half such voyage, as determined from the date of departure from such American port to the scheduled date of arrival at any American port, is scheduled to occur after eighty days following the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order herein on April 11, 1962.

These proposals, drastic as they are, should be considered and viewed in the light of the problems, economic, operational and otherwise, which confront the maritime industry when strike sanctions are exacted. Not only are the ships struck, but the cargo as well, awaiting to be transported and taken from the docks and delivered to the ultimate con *688 signee. Pacific Maritime Association asserts that this is the first instance wherein cargo, as such, was subjected to strike sanctions, and represents a new approach to the strangulation process and slow economic death which inevitably occurs when picket lines are drawn over extended periods of time.

It is unnecessary to dilate upon the tragic situation confronting the State of Hawaii. The affidavit of Governor James Quinn received in evidence during the course of the hearings on the preliminary injunction in part, stated:

Similarly, the President of the United States of America, John F. Kennedy, in his communication to the Attorney General, stated:

Approximately 40,000 tons of vital cargo, including medical, remained undelivered and strikebound until this Court intervened. It was not until several weeks of lengthy hearings and extended negotiations that strikebound emergency cargo, including military, reefer and perishables was relieved in the so-called Liberty Gold Fruit Co. v. Weisberger, et al. (No. 28459) action, instituted by consignees. 3

It is significant to note that all other cargo was held under strike sanctions. Comparable acute and demoralizing situations prevailed in other West Coast ports.

*689 During the course of the said hearings affidavits were received from responsible shippers. That of Lester Goodman, President of the World Trade Association of San Francisco and Chairman of Getz Brothers & Co., representing one of the largest shippers in the United States, stated in his affidavit:

The foregoing affidavit is typical of many that were marked in evidence disclosing a trend toward the use of foreign flag vessels in order to avoid the risk of having cargo tied up for extended periods at the docks and in the holds of vessels.

Also to be considered is the unusual character and far-flung activities of the industry. If the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo, then recognition must be given to sailing schedules, and the advance booking of cargo and passengers during the eighty day period. A series of affidavits was received by the Court from the members of the Pacific Maritime Association disclosing the internal and operational problems occasioned as a result of the strike.

Mr. Paul St. Sure, President of the Pacific Maritime Association, graphically described the situation confronting the industry:

The Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may formulate orders and decrees consistent with an orderly beginning and an orderly conclusion of all voyages conducted during the 80-day cooling off period.

The specific provisions of the preliminary injunction provide in part:

The foregoing language is sufficient and all-embracing. It contemplates that a seaman satisfy and discharge his contractual obligations under the articles without regard for the fact that the 80-day period might well expire before the completion of a given voyage.

The strategy and effect of the rider conceived and insisted upon by defendants would render nugatory the traditional obligations of the seaman provided for in the articles and would tend to create a selective or only a partial resumption of work. 5

A national emergency having been found by the Court to exist, the Government is entitled to an injunction against the whole strike and the Court should not order a selective or partial resumption of work. United Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 , 80 S.Ct. 1, 177 , 4 L.Ed.2d 12, 169 .

*691 In United States v. National Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, 2 Cir., 294 F.2d 385 at 387 , the Court views the significant language concerning the shipping industry:

Without the necessary assurances of returning to the port of ultimate destination and the discharge of the cargo after the 80 days, the injunction would provide merely a selective or partial resumption of work. Ships which could not complete their voyages within the 80 days would, for practical and realistic purposes, remain unproductive. Many would not sail at all — mindful that round-the-world voyages approximate 120 days in duration, outbound and inbound. Many would be forced to return on the last leg of the voyage without productive or any cargo for the reason that shippers would be reluctant to hazard the ultimate fate of struck cargo at the point of destination.

Obviously, shippers would not undertake cargo commitments under such dire circumstances.

Instead of creating a return to status quo, the injunction, if so interpreted as to its scope and legal effect, would create a catastrophic situation unsound economically, eminently unfair and unjust, and in complete conflict with the mandate of maritime law and the traditions of the sea.

It is significant at this juncture to note the attitude of the cargo shippers in the light of the strike sanctions. It is elemental that without cargo and passengers the owner-operators, if forced to sail the vessels under the mandate of the injunction, would merely provide the seamen with a pleasure jaunt. Such could not be the intent and purpose of the benign legislation that this Court is asked to interpret.

The Court, in shaping its decrees and orders, may consider the temper of the times and the environment in which the industry has been placed as the result of a long, enduring strike. The Court will take judicial notice of public sentiment and the reaction of the community through the medium of the press and other accredited sources. Appended to this memorandum may be found current press compilations depicting the critical condition of the maritime industry on the West Coast.

Counsel for the defendant unions finally recognized the necessity of balancing conveniences and in their memorandum filed with the Court observed:

*692 Union-Defendants then propose that vessels should not be permitted to sail on voyages in which more than a half of the scheduled trip-time occurs during the post injunction period. And continuing, the defendants conclude:

In Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Mo. K. T. Ry., 363 U.S. 528, 529 , 531-532-535, 80 S.Ct. 1326 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1379 , the court said:

In Textile Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 457 , 77 S.Ct. 923 , 1 L.Ed.2d 972 , the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Courts must fashion an appropriate rule of substantive law:

problem. * * * It is not uncommon for federal courts to fashion federal law where federal rights are concerned.”

Union-Defendants, in view of their proposed arbitrary formulae, would treat the interpretation to be placed upon the preliminary injunction in a vacuum, completely disassociated from the realities of the problems implicit in the contractual relationship which exists under the articles between the master and the seamen, and the owner-operators and the shippers and consignees. Their contention that upon the expiration of the eightieth day (estimated as June 29, 1962, if the strike issues are not earlier settled), the seamen are privileged to walk off the ship at the first American port leaving the cargo and ship to be strikebound for an indefinite period of time, is contrary to the traditions, customs and practices long held in reverence under elementary principles of maritime law.

Accordingly, the court will fashion a supplemental order herein which is to be affixed to the articles when executed by the seamen. 6

The order will be filed contemporaneously with the within memorandum and will provide for the duration of the hiring and the express obligations imposed under the articles when executed, regarding the ultimate care and disposition of cargo upon the termination and completion of the voyages engaged in during the 80-day period, with reciprocal provision being made for pay-off by mutual' consent.

The motion of the defendants to modify the injunction in the particulars herein-above discussed, is DENIED.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of granting such other and *693 further relief as may be necessary and proper under Section 208 of the Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER

Application having been made for a supplementary order to be entered pursuant to Section 208(a) (ii) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 178 (a) (ii), it appearing that the order herein set forth is appropriate and necessary to effectuate the preliminary injunction entered in this cause on April 13, 1962, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That defendant Seafarers’ International Union of North America, Pacific District, comprising Marine Firemen’s Union, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific and Marine Cooks and Stewards, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Watertenders and Wipers Association, Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, and each of them, and its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are hereby restrained from insisting, demanding or requesting that the shipping articles prescribed by 46 U.S. C.A. § 713 be supplemented or modified by any rider limiting the period of the voyage or granting the seamen any right to terminate their articles prior to the time that the vessel has concluded its normal scheduled return voyage, has discharged and delivered all of its cargo, and has been shifted to a berth designated by the employer for its safe mooring should there be a resumption of strike activity and from in any manner interfering with or affecting the orderly sailing of vessels on schedule for their normal voyage to completion of the work as hereinbefore set forth;

Upon completion of the voyage in accordance with the foregoing, the seamen shall be paid off by mutual consent.

2. That the said defendants and their respective appropriate officers, agents, servants and employes are hereby directed to instruct immediately all persons represented by such unions who have been accepted for employment on vessels to sail pursuant to the provisions of the preliminary injunction entered on April 13, 1962; that they are to sign on normal shipping articles in the form prescribed by statute without the inclusion of any special riders limiting their employment to a period of eighty (80) days.

3. That the standard form of shipping articles executed by the seamen and members of defendant unions during the duration of the preliminary injunction shall contain the express provision that the period of the hiring shall not extend beyond the duration of the particular voyage undertaken and that the articles shall terminate and expire upon the completion of the voyage in the manner particularly provided for in paragraph (2) hereof.

4. That the said defendant unions furnish the necessary replacements for crew members so that any vessel sailing pursuant to the provisions of the preliminary injunction can, without interference by strike activity, continue to operate until all cargo loaded for the return voyage to the United States is taken to its port of destination and is discharged and delivered and the vessel is shifted to an appropriate and safe berth as directed by the employer.

5. That the defendants Seafarers’ International Union of North America, Pacific District, comprising Marine Firemen’s Union, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific and Marine Cooks and Stewards, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, Pacific Coast Marine Firemen, Oilers, Water-tenders and Wipers Association, and Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, and their respective appropriate officers, agents, servants, employes, members and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are hereby restrained from in any manner encouraging, ordering, aiding or taking part in any concerted activity of refusing or failing to sign on articles that are provided in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof, or to modify, alter or supplement or change any said articles.

*694 6. That nothing in this order shall be construed to require an individual employe to render labor or service without his consent nor to make the quitting of his labor or service by an individual employe an illegal act.

7. That a photostatic copy of the within supplementary order shall be affixed to the said articles when executed by the seamen during the duration of the preliminary injunction and made a part thereof, with the same force and effect as if fully and completely set forth therein, and shall constitute notice to the individual members of defendant unions.

8. That a copy of this Supplemental Order shall be served upon the said defendant unions by the United States Marshal as soon as is practicable.

. In 1948 a comparable situation prevailed as to the then Territory of Hawaii. See United States v. International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, D.C., 78 F.Supp. 710 .

. U.S.A. Exhibit No. (O).

. The parties stipulated that the employees would remove from vessels perishables, freezer, cold storage, military cargo, mail and passenger baggage. In order to effectuate this stipulation the Unions removed the picket line, thus enabling their members and the longshore crews to load or unload vessels of the supplies authorized by the stipulation.

There is no reason that a similar arrangement cannot be entered into by the Unions in connection with the unloading of all cargo upon the completion of a voyage commenced during the preliminary injunction period and consummated after the 80-days have elapsed, thus permitting seamen to fulfill their duties under their articles without going through a picket line.

. Tr. p. 161, 1. 10 to and incl. p. 162, 1. 25.

. Of. Norris on the Law of Seamen (1951), Sec. 176, p. 187: Because of the peculiar nature of the seaman’s calling, his obligation under the articles is to remain with the ship until the voyage is ended unless the contract be abrogated by mutual consent or by operation of law. This duty that the law imposes upon seamen is for the purpose of safeguarding maritime property, so that the mariners do not needlessly leave a valuable ship and cargo thus subjecting them to destruction or pilferage. Seamen, unlike shore workers, cannot leave their vessel as a strike protest or in sympathy with a strike without subjecting themselves to serious difficulties. A strike at sea is mutiny and criminal prosecution may ensue.

“When a vessel comes into port while a strike is in progress, the members of the crew cannot strike and walk off the ship (unless they have been signed off) without incurring forfeiture of their earned wages and loss of their clothes and effects — the penalties of desertion. This rule is equally applicable to vessels in the coastwise trade.”

. See United Steelworkers v. United States, supra, 361 U.S. at p. 59 , 80 S.Ct. at p. 185 , where it is stated: “Under the Labor Management Relations Act the District Court is given jurisdiction to enjoin ‘and to make such other orders as may be appropriate.’ Congress thus provided a jurisdiction additional to the power to grant an injunction, not alternative to it: and ‘other order’ may only supplement an injunction, it may not supplant it.”

Cf. Southern Steamship Co. v. N. L. R. B„ 316 U.S. 31 , 62 S.Ct. 886 , 86 L.Ed. 1246 .