Four Sailors, a Filthy Jail, and a Test of the Law at Port Townsend
A British crew refused duty after the ship changed course for Puget Sound. Their answer was a jail cell — and a writ of habeas corpus to see whether the territory could legally hold them.
A writ of habeas corpus issued on the 19th of April for the bodies of James Argue, Charles Cunningham, James Kingston and Edward Day, on the petition of Edwin Po[e]. The prisoners were seamen on the British ship [Row—], and were themselves British subjects. The facts out of which the issue arose are as follow:
By the articles of shipment, entered into at London, the ship was to proceed to Sydney, thence to Vancouver's Island, and from thence to [a] port in Europe. The seamen, arriving at Vancouver's Island, not being able to procure a cargo [of spars] at that place, proceeded to [Puget Sound], and [on account of] the deviation from the voyage, the prisoners refused duty and were [confined]. ... [Complaint was made] before [the authorities] ... and, upon a hearing, ... [they were committed] to prison in the filthy jail at Port Townsend, for the purpose of testing the legality of this [commitment] the prisoners were brought up on the writ ...
“...they were committed to prison in the filthy jail at Port Townsend, for the purpose of testing the legality of this [commitment] the prisoners were brought up on the writ.”
Four merchant seamen jailed in a territorial lock-up for refusing a voyage their contract never bargained for — this is maritime labour law being invented on the spot, in a port town with no courthouse worth the name. Crews are still abandoned, unpaid and stranded in Washington ports today, and the question of who can hold a worker against his will has not gone away. Port Townsend's 'filthy jail' is gone; the argument is not.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.