In a work entitled "Among our Sailors," the author, Dr. J. Grey Jewell, formerly Consul at Singapore, speaks at some length about the law requiring three months' extra pay for seamen discharged abroad, and concludes: "I am convinced that the law is a good one and that it should stand." During some years' experience in command of vessels I formed the opinion that this is not a good law, and further that there is no enactment concerning our merchant marine so injurious to sailors, so vexatious to shipmasters, so unjust to shipowners, or so corrupting to its executors in its influences. I believe most of those familiar with its operations will approve of my pronouncing it a great curse. This law was made in the beginning of the century, when Americans manned our ships, and when these vessels visited ports seldom frequented, where the discharge of a seaman might often leave him in destitution, with no means of returning home. Now our ships are chiefly manned by foreigners, who are more at home in foreign ports than in those on our own shores, where only we may discharge them; and commerce has become so extended that few places are visited by ships whence ready exit may not be obtained. Some instances of the operation of this law will best explain its evils. A European crew were shipped in an American vessel at San Francisco for a voyage to Liverpool, the shipping articles containing the clause, made customary by the law prohibiting discharge of seamen abroad, "and thence to a final port of discharge in the United States." At Liverpool the men wished to leave and return to their homes in Norway and Germany, or sail on other voyages. The ship was to remain for several weeks in Liverpool and then sail for San Francisco again, and the men had no desire to go in that direction. Wages in Liverpool were lower than those paid this crew from California, so the shipowner's interest demanded that he should not be obliged to support and pay a useless crew for the weeks his ship was idle, and that he should be allowed to man her for a new voyage at the lowest rate of wages. On application to the Consul by the captain and sailors, information was given that the crew might be discharged, but one month's pay must be given to the Consul, and two months' pay extra to each seaman. The crew, in order to be released, offered to return the two months' pay to the captain, after signing a receipt for it, but the captain, desiring to avoid the unjust imposition altogether, gave the wages to the mate, who privately handed them to the sailors, and they took their departure. The captain next reported to the Consul under oath, that his crew had deserted without his knowledge or consent, but the Consul, finding out that the men had received their money, insisted on the payment of one month's wages at his office. Another vessel shipped a crew at San Francisco to be discharged at Liverpool, but still this extra payment was required.