Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Suit in admiralty by F. Lopes and 16 other seamen against the whaling bark John and Winthrop (H. J. Knowles and the Millen Griffith Company, claimants), in which two other seamen intervened. Decree for libelants and interveners, and claimants appeal.

This is an action in rem, brought by the libelant F. Lopes and 16 others against the whaling bark John and Winthrop for wages and for breach of contract of good treatment while the libelants were .on board the bark as seamen on a whaling voyage on said vessel in the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans. There is also an intervention of two other seamen alleging the same causes of action. The shipping articles signed by the libelants and inter-veners provided for a term of service not to exceed 12 calendar months, and in consideration of the lay in the catch of the vessel the seamen to receiye no share or interest in the trade. The share of each of the libelants and in-terveners was to be a lay of 1/175 in addition to an advance of $35 paid them on signing the shipping articles. It was provided in the articles that the “seamen or mariners do severally hereby promise and oblige themselves to do their duty and obey the lawful commands of the officers on board said vessel or boats thereunto belonging as become good and faithful seamen or mariners while cruising for whales and at all places where said vessel shall put in or anchor at during said voyage, * * * and not to neglect or refuse doing their duty by day or night, and that they shall not go out of said vessel on board any other vessel, or be on shore under any pretense whatever until the aforesaid voyage be ended and the vessel discharged of her loading, without leave first obtained of the captain or commanding officer on board.”

These articles were signed by the libelants in San Francisco in January, 1908. The vessel on her voyage reached the port of Hakodate, Japan, on July 23, 1908. It appears that on the next day the crew asked for and was granted shore leave by the master; the two watches being required to take their turns on successive days. The permission was given the men by the master to go ashore in the evening on the express condition that they would return on the next morning at 6 a. m. There was nothing due the men at that time, but the master gave them a small sum — one yen each. The first watch to go ashore was the starboard watch, on Saturday, July 25th. This watch returned on Sunday morning, July 26th, in accordance with the agreement had with the master, and on Sunday evening the port watch went ashore. This watdlj returned on Monday morning in accordance with the agreement. On Monday evening, July. 27th, the starboard watch again went ashore; but on Tuesday morning, July 28th, all the members of the watch did not return. Five of the watch were missing, namely, Olsen, Svensson, Mattsen, Costa, and Wilkins. The master reported these missing members of the crew to Mr. E. J. King, the United States consular agent at Hakodate, who applied to the local authorities for their arrest. The. consular agent at the same time directed the master not to allow any more of the crew to go,ashore, as it would . interfere with the apprehension of those that were missing. On the afternoon of Tuesday Olsen, Svensson, and Mattsen, were brought on board the vessel by the police, and on Wednesday, July 29th, Costa was returned to the vessel by the police, but Wilkins was not found and brought back until Friday, July 31st. In the meantime, and on Tuesday, July 28th, the port watch applied for leave to go ashore and was refused by the master, in accordance with the directions of the consular agent. Thereupon the entire crew quit work. At this time the master was ashore on business with the consular agent in connection with missing members of the crew. When the master returned and was informed of the situation by his chief mate, he asked the crew to go to work; but they refused, insisting that they should have more money and shore liberty. The master explained to the men the orders he had from the consular agent, but they persisted in their refusal to go to work. On July 29th and 30th the crew continued their refusal to go to work. They, however, sent a note to Mr. King, the consular agent, asking him to come aboard the vessel to hear their complaint; but as he was sick at the time he requested the master to allow two of the men to come and see him. On Friday, July 31st, two of the men, Prescott and Taylor, were allowed to go ashore to see the consular agent concerning their complaint and the right of the men to have shore leave. These two men went ashore as the representatives of the other members of the complaining crew. The consular agent heard their complaint, but refused to interfere further than to direct the master to place all the men in irons who refused to do duty. On Saturday, August 1st, each member of the crew was again asked to go to work, and upon refusing to do so several members of the crew were placed in irons; but, as there was not a sufficient number of irons on the vessel for all the disobedient members of the crew, additional irons were obtained from the consular agent, and subsequently all of the crew refusing to do duty were placed in irons, but allowed the freedom of the vessel and their regular rations. Three times on Saturday the members of the crew who had been placed in irons were requested to return to duty, but all refused. Some were willing to go to work, but were afraid of the leaders, who told the others not to go to work. On Sunday, August 2d, the members of the crew in irons were asked on several different occasions to go to work, but on each occasion all refused as before.

The vessel made ready to sail from the port of Hakodate on Sunday, but before sailing the American consular agent came on board the vessel and had the men called on deck, and thereupon each man was asked to return to duty, but they all refused; the ground of refusal being that they had been refused shore leave and money. The vessel was taken to sea by the officers, assisted by the consular agent and three seamen who had not refused to do duty. On Monday, August 3d, the vessel was at sea, and upon the continued refusal of the disobedient crew to go to work, coupled with threats and the use of abusive language against the master, he called all the officers together to consider what should be done. After consultation it was determined to place the men on chains fastened to beams in the main hold or between-decks. There were three small chains stretched parallel to the three sides of the hatchway, one across athwartships and two on each side, running fore and aft. The men were handcuffed, and a chain run between the arms of each man, and the chain suspended from 4½ to 5 feet' above the deck; but they were not triced up in the sense in which that term is used on board ship. The purpose of the chain was to keep the men from dancing, or moving around, or lying around. There was the further reason for the chain in the fact that there was no other place or method of confining them. The handcuffs were not fastened to the chain, but could be rested upon it or elevated above it. The men could move along the chain from right to left from two to four feet. Their rations while on the chain were bread and water. At meals and while attending to the calls of nature the men were released from the chain from 20 to 30 minutes. On Monday night, August 3d, the chain was let down so that the men could lie down on deck. On Tuesday morning, August 4th, the chain was again suspended, and the men were again asked in the morning and at noon to return to duty, and they at first refused; but in the afternoon they asked to have the articles read to them, which was done, and about 6 o’clock in the evening they signified their willingness to return to duty, and they were immediately taken from the chain and released from their handcuffs. Some of the men complained of the punishment, they received because the handcuffs made their wrists sore, and others because the deck where they slept on Monday night was wet from the splashing of a water-cask. The men had been told, and they knew all the time, that as soon as they were willing to go to work they would be released from the chain and relieved from the handcuffs. The record does not contain all the testimony in the case.

The foregoing facts leading up to the action of the master on August 3, 1909, when the libelants and interveners were placed on the chain, are taken from the stipulations and admissions of the parties to the action, the entries in the mate’s log book, and a certified statement, signed by E. J. King, the American consular agent at Hakodate, and such testimony as has been incorporated in the record relating to those occurrences; but the testimony of the witnesses that has been brought here on this appeal relates mainly to the occurrences on boards the vessel on and after August 3, 1909, and after the libel-ants and interveners had been placed on the chain, the appeal being limited in express terms to so much of the decree as was entered in favor of the libel-ants and interveners upon such causes of action.

Upon arrival in San Francisco the crew were paid $1 each, for which they each executed a receipt, releasing the vessel, her owners, agents, master, or officers from all claims whatsoever. Subsequently they brought this action in the District Court. Upon the trial of the case the court awarded the libelants Olsen and Wilkins $50 each, on the ground that the master was not justified in placing Olsen and Wilkins in irons and imprisoning them on said vessel while in the harbor of Hakodate. To the remaining libelants, Lopes, Svens-son, Brown, McVey, Williamson, Naza, McDonell, Cramer, Olivier, Fraser, Mattson, Johnson, Anderson, George, Mahoe, Prescott, and Berg, the court awarded each the sum of $125, on the ground that the master was not justified in placing the libelants in irons and confining them in the main hold or between-decks of said vessel in the manner described.

No appeal has been taken from the award of $50 each to Olsen and Wilkins. It is only that part of the decree awarding $125 to each of the latter named libelants that is involved in this appeal.