Beside his work for the sailors to which I refer later there was
another class of peculiarly helpless sufferers to make even
stronger demand upon his sense of justice. By his social relations
and by his strong antipathy to violence of every kind, Dana would
naturally have found his place amongst the men who in politics
prefer orderly and regular and especially respectable
associations. He came into active life when a small band of
earnest men and women were agitating for the abolition of slavery.
Some among them were also attacking the church, and proposing all
sorts of changes in society. But Dana was a man of strong
religious principles and feelings, and he had little faith in any
violent change in the social order. His diaries and letters of the
period show that he was annoyed by the temper of the
Abolitionists. They were not his kind. Nevertheless he was not a
man to steer between two parties. In a great moral crisis he was
sure to take sides. He took sides now and came out as a member of
the Free Soil party. He made a distinction, which was a clear one,
between the Free Soil party and the uncompromising Abolitionists.
But in the rising heat of political feeling, other people did not
make a like distinction, and Dana, a young lawyer, married now,
and with a family growing up about him, found himself put out into
the cold by the well-to-do, the successful, and the respectable.

Dana had a keen scent for politics, and he looked with the
strongest interest upon the great political movement which was
stirring the country; but he did not espouse the cause of free
soil because he expected to profit by it politically. On the
contrary, he knew that he was shutting himself out from political
preferment by such a course, and at the same time was imperilling
his professional success. It was the act of a man who stood up for
the cause of righteousness, without counting the cost. In like
manner he now had the opportunity of illustrating afresh his
attitude toward the law, for he held that law was for the
accomplishment of justice, and that it was most glorious when its
strong arm protected and defended the weak and downtrodden. By a
natural course, therefore, he became a prominent counsel for those
unfortunate negroes who, at this time, in Boston, were held as
fugitive slaves. While the ingenuity of some was expended in
putting the law on the side of the strong and the rich, Dana, who
was convinced in his mind that the law of the state was honestly
to be invoked in defence of the fugitive slave, gave himself heart
and soul to the work of applying the law, and received no
remuneration for his services in any fugitive slave case. Instead,
he received at the close of one of the most important cases, a
blow from a blackguard which narrowly missed maiming him for life.
It is worth while to read what Dana wrote after rendering all the
aid he could in the defence of Anthony Burns: ``The labors of a
lawyer are ordinarily devoted to questions of property between man
and man. He is to be congratulated if, though but for once, in any
signal cause he can devote them to the vindication of any of the
great primal rights affecting the highest interests of man.'' He
was a member of the noted Free Soil Convention at Buffalo of 1848,
and presided at the first meeting of the Republican party in
Massachusetts.

It may be a source of wonder to some that Dana, who achieved a
great literary success in the book which he wrote when a young
man, did not pursue literature as an avocation, if not as a
vocation. He published but one other book, a narrative of a trip
to Cuba made in 1859, and he wrote a few magazine articles. The
explanation must be found in the temperament and character of the
man. His ``Two Years Before the Mast'' is a vivid representation
of what he saw and experienced at a most impressionable age. He
put his young life into it; he was not thinking of literature when
he wrote it, and thus the book takes rank with those books which
are bits of life rather than products of art. Afterward he was
immersed in his law practice, and he was a prodigious worker. He
saw with great clearness the points in the cases he took up, and
he was untiring in his industry to cover the whole case. He did
all the work himself; he did not lay the details on others, and
avail himself of their diligence. His time, moreover, as we have
shown, was very much at the disposal of those who could pay him
little or nothing for his services, and he gave months of labor to
the unremunerative defence of the fugitive slave. Moreover, his
deep religious conviction and his high sense of legal honor often
stood in the way of his profit. So it was that his life was one of
hard work and little more than support of his family. There was
scant time for any wandering into fields of literature.

Yet he left behind him some other writings which show well that
the hand which penned the ``Two Years'' never lost its cunning. He
made an interesting visit to Europe, and, later in life, in
1859-60, made a journey round the world. The record which he kept
on these journeys has been drawn upon largely in the biography[2]
prepared by Charles Francis Adams, who was in his early days a
student in Dana's office, and there one finds page after page of
delightfully animated description and narrative. He wrote for his
own pleasure and for that of his family, and his writing was like
brilliant talk, the outflow of a generous mind not easily saved
for more common use. He published notes to Wheaton's
``International Law,'' several of which are quoted in all new works
on the subject to this day.

The journey which he took round the world was for the purpose of
restoring his health, which had been greatly impaired. He came
back in improved condition, and entered upon the excited period of
the war, when he held the office of United States District
Attorney. During this time he argued the famous prize causes
before the United States Supreme Court, and his argument was the
one that turned the Court, which was democratic in its politics,
to take the unanimous view that the United States Government had a
right to establish blockade and take prizes of foreign vessels
that were breaking this blockade. Had it not been for this
decision, so largely influenced, as the Court itself generously
states, by Mr. Dana's argument, the Civil War would have been
greatly prolonged, with possibly another, or at least a doubtful
issue. He afterward served in the Massachusetts legislature, and
there made several noted speeches, among others his argument on
the repeal of the usury laws, a bill for which was unexpectedly
carried in that body as the result of this speech which has been
reprinted for use before legislatures of other states.

He accepted a nomination to Congress, chiefly as a protest against
the nomination of B. F. Butler, who was running on a paper money
and repudiation platform against the principles of his own party,
but Mr. Dana was defeated. In 1876 he was nominated by President
Grant minister to England, but his nomination was not confirmed by
the Senate, for his nomination had been made without consulting
the Senatorial cabal and also he had bitter enemies, who carried
on a warfare against him upon terms which he was too honorable to
accept.

A selection of Mr. Dana's speeches, the most interesting
historically or those of most present value, have been published,
together with a biographical sketch,[3] supplementing the Life
written by Charles Francis Adams.

Two years later, broken now in health, but with his mind vigorous,
he resolved to give up the practice of law and devote himself to
writing a work on international law. For this purpose, and as a
measure of economy, he went to Europe, and for two years applied
himself diligently to his plan for a book which he believed would
give some fundamentally new views on international law. He had
made many notes and had begun to write the first few chapters when
he died, after a short illness, from pneumonia, in Rome, January
6, 1882. He was buried in the beautiful Protestant cemetery of
that city.

His wife, who was Sarah Watson of Hartford, Conn., survived him,
and he left five daughters and a son. There are now nine of his
grandchildren living (four of them Dana grandsons), and also four
great-grandchildren.

Finally, what did Mr. Dana accomplish for sailors? In the preface
to the first edition (1840) he said, ``If it shall . . . call more
attention to the welfare of seamen, or give any information as to
their real condition which may serve to raise them in the rank of
beings, and to promote in any measure their religious and moral
improvement, and diminish the hardships of their daily life, the
end of its publication will be answered.'' And after the flogging
at San Pedro, there was his vow (page 1252), ``that, if God should
ever give me the means, I would do something to redress the
grievances and relieve the sufferings of that class of beings with
whom my lot had so long been cast.'' For redressing individual
grievances he took the part of the sailor in many a lawsuit where
his remuneration was often next to nothing, and by which action he
incurred the ill will of possible future rich and influential
clients. In his journal December 14, 1847, he says, ``I often have
a good deal to contend with in the slurs or open opposition of
masters and owners of vessels whose seamen I undertake to defend or
look after,'' though he adds there were honorable exceptions. These
cases he fought hard and bravely, and into them he put his whole
mind, heart and soul. He could not have done better in them if he
had been paid the highest fees known to the Bar. He settled as many
of these cases out of court as he could. He believed any reasonable
settlement better for the sailor than a legal contest, though his
own fees would be less. Beside taking the part of the individual
seamen, he published the ``Seamen's Friend,'' a book giving the full
legal rights of sailors as well as their duties, a set of definitions
of sea terms, which to this day is quoted in all the dictionaries,
and much information for the use of beginners. He drew up a petition
and prepared an accompanying leaflet addressed to Congress for
``The More Speedy Trial of Seamen.'' He wrote numerous articles
for the press and delivered many addresses on behalf of seamen, or
for institutions for their benefit such as ``Father'' Taylor's
Bethel and for a more cordial reception of sailors in the church.
He wrote the introduction of Leech's ``A Voice from the Main
Deck,'' but above all it was the indirect influence of his ``Two
Years Before the Mast'' which did the most to relieve their
hardships.

While on a trip in Europe in 1875-76, I spent some weeks in London
and visited Parliament frequently to study the proceedings and see
and hear its leading men. By a strange coincidence at my very
first visit, made at the invitation of the late Sir William Vernon
Harcourt, after I had sent in my card and was ushered into the
inner lobby, I saw a man, evidently a member, rushing out into
this lobby, and, to quote from my journal written at the time,
``in a wild state of excitement, throwing about his arms and
shaking his fists, with short ejaculations such as `I'll expose
the villains, all of them,' and I heard the words `Cheats!' and I
think `Liars!''' This was a strange introduction to the then
decorous British House of Commons, for this was before the active
days of Parnell. I saw poor, blind Henry Fawcett[4] and others
trying to calm the man. The lobby was immediately cleared of
strangers, so I saw no more just then, but I was later admitted
into the House and learned that this man was the famous Plimsoll
(1824-1898). He had become enraged because his Merchants' Shipping
Bill had just been thrown out by Disraeli, then Prime Minister, on
this day of the so-called ``Slaughter of the Innocents,'' that is,
the day when the Government abandoned all bills which they were
not to carry out that session. Justin McCarthy, in his ``History
of Our Own Times'' (Vol. IV, page 24, et seq.), gives a full
account of this scene. Plimsoll's Bill was a measure for the
protection of seamen against the danger of being sent to sea in
vessels unfit for the voyage. To understand the whole situation of
the sailor in civilized countries, one must know that the only way
allowed by law or custom for him to get employment is to sign
articles sometimes without even knowing the name of the vessel,
and almost always without an opportunity to examine or even see
her. Once having signed these papers, sailors are by law compelled
to keep their contracts and can be imprisoned and sent aboard if
they try to escape. Every other person in every other kind of
employment, since the abolition of slavery, signing similar papers
has a right to refuse to carry out his agreement, with no other
penalty than a suit for damages. He cannot be forced to carry out
the contract in person. If this were not so, there would be a sort
of contract peonage or slavery endorsed by the law. It is
otherwise, however, with the sailors. The United States Supreme
Court in the case of Robertson v. Baldwin (165 U.S. 275, 1896)
decided, Judge Harlan dissenting, that notwithstanding the
thirteenth amendment to the Constitution which, it was supposed,
had prohibited involuntary servitude except as punishment for
crime, sailors could be forced on board of vessels, and the facts
that the vessel was unfit for living, the food bad, and the master
brutal were no defences. The headnote of the case says, ``The
contract of a sailor has always been treated as an exceptional one
involving to a certain extent the surrender of his personal
liberty during the life of his contract.'' Mr. Plimsoll was
rightly convinced that unseaworthy vessels left port for the sake
of insurance money on valued policies, that the lives of the
seamen were thereby imperilled, and that the poor sailor had no
redress before the law. The bill that had just been thrown out by
Disraeli provided that if one-quarter of the seamen appealed on
the ground of unseaworthiness a survey would be ordered, the
vessel detained till the survey was made, and if she were
unseaworthy or improperly provisioned the sailors would be
relieved from their contract unless those defects were cured. It
also had other minor provisions for the benefit of the sailors. In
Parliament that night, it was thought that Plimsoll's wild conduct
had destroyed his reputation as a sane man and had ruined the
chances of ever passing his bill, but outside of Parliament the
effect was just the reverse. The public was aroused to a full
understanding of the essential merits of his bill and the
government was forced to put it on the calendar and carry it
through that session in its substantial features, and the
following year (1876) a more complete and perfected act covering
the same points was passed.

In the United States, a most interesting character, Andrew
Furuseth, a Norwegian, himself a sailor, and without much
education but a man of wonderful force, has succeeded, largely by
the aid of labor unions, in forcing through Congress bills by
which no American seaman can any longer be forced against his will
into this servitude nor any foreign seaman on domestic voyages.
Another evil tending to degrade and enslave the sailor was the
allowance made by law of three months' advance wages on beginning
a voyage. This apparently harmless and, to the credulous and
inexperienced legislator, beneficial provision gave a chance to
the sailors' boarding-house keeper and runner, or ``crimp,'' as he
or she is called, to ``shanghai'' seamen and put them aboard drunk
or drugged, with little or no clothing but what they had on their
backs and rob them of this advance money. The ``crimps''' share of
this money in San Francisco alone has been calculated at one
million dollars a year, or equal to eighty per cent of the
seamen's entire wages. Part of this had to be shared with corrupt
police and politicians and some of it has been traced to sources
``higher up.'' So common was this practice that vessels sailing
from San Francisco and New York had so few sober sailors aboard,
that it was customary to take longshoremen to set sail, heave
anchor and get the ship under way, and then send them back by tug.
This is precisely what happened on the well-equipped and new ship
on which I sailed from New York in 1879 for California, and the
same situation is described by Captain Arthur H. Clark in his
account of seamen in his ``Clipper Ship Era.'' These poor sailors,
without proper clothing, had to draw on the ship's ``slop chest''
for necessary oilskins, thick jackets, mittens and the like, and
used up almost all the rest of their wages. The small balance was
wasted or stolen, or both, at the port of arrival, and off they
were shipped again by the ``crimp'' with no chance to save or
improve their condition. After years of agitation by the friends
of sailors the advance pay is now wholly abolished in the
coastwise trade in America and the three months' advance cut down
to one in the foreign trade, immensely to the benefit of the
sailor and the discouragement of the ``crimp.'' The argument that
without this system of bondage and ``crimpage'' it would be
impossible to secure crews is fully answered by the experience of
Great Britain since the passage of the Plimsoll Acts and in the
United States since the recent acts of Congress. On the contrary,
these measures tend to secure a better class of sailors and compel
improvement of the conditions under which they do their work. I
was told when in England that Plimsoll, who himself was not a
sailor, was influenced among other things by my father's book
``Two Years Before the Mast.''

THE END

[1] He was Richard Henry Dana, Jr., when he wrote his book, and
continued to be called so through life, for his father, a poet and
litterateur, lived to the age of ninety-two, and died but three
years before his son.

[2] Richard Henry Dana, Jr. A Biography. By Charles Francis Adams.
In two volumes. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company.

[3] Speeches in Stirring Times and Letters to a Son. Richard H.
Dana, Jr. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1910.

[4] The political economist and M.P.



End of The Project Gutenberg Etext of Two Years Before the Mast
by Richard Henry Dana
