Let us now take another rule, for which, as usual, there is a plausible explanation of policy.  Freight, it is said, the mother of wages; for, we are told, “if the ship perished, [31] if the mariners were to have their wages in such cases, they would not use their endeavors, nor hazard their lives, for the safety of the ship.” 1 The best commentary on this reasoning is, that the law has recently been changed by statute.  But even by the old law there was an exception inconsistent with the supposed reason.  In case of shipwreck, which was the usual case of a failure to earn freight, so long as any portion of the ship was saved, the lien of the mariners remained.  I suppose it would have been said, because it was sound policy to encourage them to save all they could.  If we consider that the sailors were regarded as employed by the ship, we shall understand very readily both the rule and the exception.  “The ship is the debtor,” as was said in arguing a case decided in the time of William III. 2 If the debtor perished, there was an end of the matter.  If a part came ashore, that might be proceeded against.

Even the rule in its modern form, that freight is the mother of wages, is shown by the explanation commonly given to have reference to the question whether the ship is lost or arrive safe.  In the most ancient source of the maritime law now extant, which has anything about the matter, so far as I have been able to discover, the statement is that the mariners will lose their wages when the ship is lost. 3 In like manner, in what is said by its English [32] editor, Sir Travers Twiss, to be the oldest part of the Consulate of the Sea, 1 we read that “whoever the freighter may be who runs away or dies, the ship is bound to pay:  the mariners.” 2 I think we may assume that the vessel was bound by the contract with the sailors, much in the same way as it was by the wrongs for which it was answerable, just as the debtor’s body was answerable for his debts, as well as for his crimes, under the ancient law of Rome.

The same thing is true of other maritime dealings with the vessel, whether by way of contract or otherwise.  If salvage service is rendered to a vessel, the admiralty court will hold the vessel, although it has been doubted whether an action of contract would lie, if the owners were sued at law.  So the ship is bound by the master’s contract to carry cargo, just as in case of collision, although she was under lease at the time.  In such cases, also, according to our Supreme Court, the master may bind the vessel when he cannot bind the general owners. 4 “By custom the ship is bound to the merchandise, and the merchandise to the ship.” 5 “By the maritime law every contract of the master implies an hypothecation.” 6 It might be urged, no doubt, with force, that, so far as the usual maritime contracts are concerned, the dealing must be on the security of the ship or merchandise in many cases,