The Barque Island City— Pierce, Cromwell, Libellants

Mr. Justice GRIER.

If the barque “Island City” was derelict when she was rescued by the Westernport, the libellant would be entitled to the usual allowance for salvage in such a case, without regard to previous unsuccessful attempts to rescue her by the Forbes and the schooner Kensington.

The owners of the, barque have not appealed from the decision of the court on the libel filed by the other alleged salvors. But the decision of those eases may be collaterally challenged in this, in so far as they affect th.e rights of the libellant, if his vessel was entitled to the whole, and has received but one-third.

*128 The first question, then, is, whether the salved barque was derelict,’ or totally abandoned by her crew and the- others who claim to have commenced the salvage service, which, it is admitted, was successfully concluded by the "Westernport.

When the barque wVs. discovered by the Westernport, on .'the ,30th of January, 1857, in Vineyard Sound, she was dismastéd, and her rudder gone’; she was held only by her stream anchor and a heavy chain. She was-liable, in ease of a storm of wind from the east, to be driven by the ice on shoals, and lost. The crew had left her thus apparently abandoned. The Westernport was, therefore, justified in taking possession of her, and taking her. to a place of safety in the port of Hyannis, and to have a liberal salvage compensation, even if it should turn out that the barque had not been derelict.

To constitute a case of derelict, the abandonment must have been final, without hope of recovery, or intention to return. If the crew have left the ship temporarily, with intention to return- after obtaining assistance, it is no abandonment, noi will the libellant be entitled to the-salvage as of a derelict.

The testimony in this case'fully justifies the decision of the court below, that-"when the barque was discovered by the Westernport she was not derelict.

The peril from which the barque was finally rescued by the interposition- of the Westernport was begun previous to the 23d of January, when the barque was first discovered by the schooner, and the salvage service was first commenced. The barque was in her greatest peril at that point,, and was with much difficulty taken by the schooner to a place of greater comparative safety; but she was unable to put the barque in a place of absolute safety in the port of Hyannis. The peril was not ended. The schooner being unable to complete the rescue, gave notice, by telegraph, to the owners at Boston, who despatched the steamer Forbes to the assistance, of the barque.

The Forbes then takes possession of her, and, -finding, it impracticable, on account of the ice, to take her into the port of Hyannis, attempts to take-her to Provineetown. After encountering much peril and difficulty from the tides and the ice, it is discovered that their supply of fuel is insufficient, *129 under the circumstances, to take themselves, with the barque in tow, to Provincetown. They then conclude to anchor the barque, with her remaining anchor and heavy chains, in a position of greater comparative safety, where she would most probably be able, though not out of peril, to ride out the storm till the Forbes should return. The crew of the barque departed in the steamboat, intending to return, believing they could render more service by expediting her return, while they could be of no service by remaining on board the barque. They were detained at Provincetown much beyond their expectation, from the impossibility of sooner obtaining a supply of coal, and were unable to return till after the Westernport had taken possession of the boat, and brought her safely into the port of Hyannis. We concur, therefore, in the opinion of the Circuit Judge, that the barque was not abandoned after the salvage service commenced; that it was one continuous peril from which the barque was rescued, and that each of the several salvors contributed to the. final result. The amount allowed for the salvage service was liberal, and the apportionment of it among the several salvors just and proper.

It has been contended here, that the court, in apportioning the salvage allowed to the Westernport as between the owners of the boat and the crew, should not have followed the established rule of giving but one-tliird to the ship, and two-thirds to the crew; that it is the power of steam, which is the chief agent in the rescue, and the danger, if any, is to the boat and cargo, and the enterprise and perils of the crew comparatively unimportant. We admit that there may be eases in which a court might be justified in not adhering ridgidly to the rule; but in this case, the question was not properly raised by the pleadings or evidence, so as to justify the court in departing from it. The evidence shows that considerable danger and hardship was encountered by the crew, and it is only after the court have adjudged th.eir claim to have been forfeited by their misconduct, that fault has beén found with the apportionment. Tn establishing a new rule as regards steamboats, the parties interested in the decision of the question, and claiming adverse interests, should both be heard, and a proper issue made be *130 tween them; where the testimony talcen should have direct reference to the issue to be decided. In this case the crew had no counsel to contest the question adversely to the boat.

Lastly, it has been contended, that the decree of the court, forfeiting the salvage apportioned to the crew on account of their misconduct, is unnecessarily harsh and severe, and ought to be reversed. The principles of law which should govern thé case are correctly stated by the Circuit Judge in the 'following summary from adjudged cases : • ■ “Public policy encourages the hardy,and industrious marinér to engage in tjiese laborious and sometimes dangerous enterprises, and with a view to withdraw from him every temptation to embezzlement and dishonesty, the law allows him, in case he is successful, a liberal compensation’. Those liberal rules as to remuneration' were adopted, and are administered not only as an inducement to the daring to embark in such enterprises, but to withdraw, as far as possible, every motive from the salvors to depredate upon the property of the unfortunate owner. While the law is thus liberal as to compensation, it requires on the part of the salvors the most scrupulous fidelity. It visits,'says’a learned judge, any embezzlement, although small, with an entire forfeiture of all claim for salvage. It not only withholds the extraordinary reward allowed to the honest salvor as a premium for his courage and hardihood, but, by way of penalty for his fraud, deprives him even of a quantum meruit for his labor. While the general interests of.society require that the most powerful inducements should -be held out to men to save life and property about to perish at sea, they also require .that those inducements should likewise-be held forth to a fair and upright conduct with regard to the objects preserved. Compensation for salvage service presupposes good faith, meritorious service, complete restoration, aud incorruptible vigilance, so far as the property is within the reach or under the control of the salvors. Salvors are required by the nature of their undertaking, and by a due consideration of the large award allowed them for their services* •to be vigilant in preventing, detecting,- and exposing every act of plunder upon the property saved; and if they are guilty of *131 embezzlement, whether at sea, in port, or even after the property is delivered into the custody of the law, it works a forfeiture of their claim to salvage. When secret, and purely an individual act, it is justly held not to prejudice co-salvors, who are innocent. But all may become guilty by consenting thereto, or by connivance, concealment, or encouragement afforded to the actors, or by not preventing the act when it is in their power.”

Op a careful examination of the testimony, we concur with the court below in their application of these principles to the case before us.

The embezzlement proved was not the secret act. of one or two of the crew. A general system of plunder seems to have been carried on while the barque lay at the wharf in Hyannis, and before the crew returned to claim their property. In this the officers and crew of the Westernportseem all to have been actively or passively implicated. Locks were broken, chests and trunks forced open, and clothing, money, and other articles of value were carried away, and never returned. Those who did not actively participate in this systematic and general pillage have connived and consented' thereto, and have justly been decreed to have forfeited all right to compensation.

Decree of the Circuit Court affirmed, with costs.