## Facts

- The United States indicted James Ashton and other seamen, crew members of the *Merrimack* of Boston, for “an endeavor to commit a revolt” on the high seas under § 12 of the Crimes Act of 1790.
- The *Merrimack* sailed from Boston for Rio de Janeiro on August 23, 1834, commanded by Captain Eldridge.
- Evidence indicated the vessel was leaking when she sailed, and the captain allegedly attempted to conceal the extent of the leakage from the crew.
- After departing, the crew learned of the leak and asked the captain to return for repairs; he refused but said he would return if the leak worsened.
- On August 27 the ship encountered a continuing gale; the crew pumped throughout the night and became exhausted.
- The crew then collectively asked the captain to return to Boston, stating a firm belief that the ship was unseaworthy and their lives were in imminent danger.
- The captain refused to return to Boston, proposing instead to continue and, if needed, stop at the Western Islands for repairs.
- The crew refused further duty and remained below for several hours while the gale continued and the vessel was in serious danger.
- To induce the crew to resume duty, the captain agreed to return; the ship returned to Boston within nine days of departure.
- The crew otherwise behaved properly during the voyage; trial evidence conflicted on whether the vessel was seaworthy.

## Issues

1. Whether, on a charge of endeavoring to commit a revolt, seamen may defend by proving they combined and refused duty solely to compel a return to port because of actual unseaworthiness, acting in good faith.
2. Whether the same defense applies when unseaworthiness is reasonably apparent and the vessel’s condition is doubtful, even if later found not clearly unseaworthy.
3. Whether the defense fails if the vessel is clearly seaworthy.

## Decision

- The court allowed evidence of seaworthiness and held it could constitute a complete defense, depending on the jury’s factual findings.
- If the seamen acted bona fide and the vessel was actually unseaworthy, their combination to compel return to port could not support conviction for endeavoring to revolt.
- If the seamen acted bona fide on reasonable grounds of apparent unseaworthiness and imminent peril, and the vessel’s condition was doubtful, the defense could still apply.
- If the vessel was clearly seaworthy, unseaworthiness was no defense, and the conduct could amount to an endeavor to revolt.
- Seaworthiness, good faith, and reasonableness were questions for the jury under proper instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Seamen’s duty to obey extends to reasonable orders and ordinary perils of the voyage; they do not contract to risk their lives in a clearly unseaworthy vessel.
- A concerted refusal to work aimed solely at compelling a return to port may be justified where the vessel is actually unseaworthy and the crew acts in good faith.
- Good-faith resistance is also excused where unseaworthiness and imminent danger are reasonably apparent and the vessel’s condition is doubtful.
- If the vessel is clearly seaworthy, a crew’s combination and refusal of duty is not justified by a claimed fear of danger and may support liability for endeavoring to revolt.
- The defense turns on both subjective good faith and objective reasonableness, with the jury determining the facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that on a charge of endeavoring to commit a revolt, seamen may avoid conviction if they acted in good faith to compel a return to port due to actual or reasonably apparent unseaworthiness posing imminent danger, but the defense is unavailable where the ship was clearly seaworthy and the belief in danger was not reasonably grounded.


United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873 (C.C.D. Mass. 1834)