The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1O | MARINE REVIEW. [December 1. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. TWO ADMIRALTY CASES OF SPECIAL INTEREST--LOSS BY PERIL OF THE SEA-- ANOTHER RULING REGARDING THE HARTER AOT. The supreme court of the United States was again called upon in the G. R. Booth case, decided recently, to determine what is a loss by peril of the sea or accident of navigation within bill of lading exceptions, that the carrier shall not be liable for losses occasioned by such perils. The large steel steamer G. R. Booth was discharging at her dock in New York a general cargo, which included twenty cases of detonators. A case of detonators exploded in handling, and blew a |hole in the side ot the steamer, through which water entered and damaged a part of the cargo. There was no negligence in transporting, storing or handling thie detonators. The question submitted to the court was "Whether the 'damage to libellant's sugar caused by the sea water which entered the ship through the hole made in her side by the explosion, without 'her fault, is a 'loss or damage occasioned by tthe perils of the sea or other waters,' or by an 'accident of navigation of whatever kind,' within the above-mentioned exceptions in the bill of lading." After a somewhat extended consideration of previous rulings of the court touching the same general question on varying facts and fixing the rule that to the predominant cause the loss must be attributed, and that that cause must rank as predominant which set the other in motion and gave to it its efficiency for harm at the time of the disaster, the court held -- that the loss was mot within the exceptions, saying: "The damage to the sugar was an effect which proceeded inevitably, and of absolute necessity, from the explosion, and must therefore be as- cribed to that cause. The explosion concurred, as the efficient agent, with the water, at the instant when the water entered the ship. The in- flow of water, seeking a level by the mere force of gravitation, was not a new and independent cause, but was a necessary and instantaneous result and effect of the bursting open of the ship's side by the explosion. There 'being two concurrent causes of the damage--the explosion of the de- tonators and the inflow of water--without any appreciable interval of time, or any possibility of distinguishing the amount of damage done by each, the explosion, as the cause which set the water in motion and gave it its efficiency for harm at the time of the disaster, must be regarded as the predominant cause. It was the primary and efficient cause, the one that necessarily set the force of water in 'operation; it was the superior o1 controlling agency, of which the water was the incident or instrument. The inflow of the sea water was not an intermediate cause, disconnected from the primary cause, and self-operating; it was not a new and in- dependent cause of damage; but, on the contrary, it was an incident, a necessary incident and consequence, of the explosion; and it was one ot a continuous chain of events brought into being by the explosion--events so linked together as to form one continuous whole. The damage was not owing to any violent action of winds or waves, or to the ship coming against a rock or shoal or other external object; but it was owing to an explosion within the ship, and arising out of the nature of the cargo, which cannot be considered, either in common understanding or accord- ing to the judicial precedents, asa peril of the sea." .. Another case passed upon by the supreme court recently is the Silvia, decided October 17, 1898.. The steamer Silvia, with sugar in lower hold, and spare rails, ropes and a small quantity of stores between decks, which had been fitted to carry steerage 'passengers, sailed from Matanzas for Philadelphia. In the between decks compartment, next to the fore- castle and about 9 feet above water line, when deep laden, were four 8-inch port holes furnished with 54-inch glass covers and an inner iron cover. At sailing only the glass covers were on, hatches were battened, but could be opened in two minutes. The weather was fair at sailing, but during the afternoon of the same day rough weather was encountered and the glass cover to one port broken, whether by the sea, floating tim- ber or wreckage was a matter if conjecture. Water entered by the broken port and damaged the cargo. Ina previous case the court had determined that the Harter act does not relieve the owner from having his vessel seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage, and in this case it was contended that the Silvia was unseaworthy at the time of sailing. Tihe court said: '"The test of seaworthiness is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport. The port holes of the compartment in question were furnished both with the usual glass covers and with the usual iron shutters or deadlights, and 'there is noth- ing in the case to justify an inference that there was any defect in the construction of either. When she began her voyage, the weather being fair, the glass covers only were shut, and the iron ones were left open for the purpose of lighting the compartment. Although the hatches were battened down, they could have been taken off in two minutes, and no cargo was stowed against the ports so as to prevent or embarrass access to them in case a change of weather should make it necessary or proper to close the iron shutters. Had the cargo 'been so stowed as to require much time and labor to shift or remove it in order to get at the ports the fact that the iron shutters were left open at the beginning of the voy- age might have rendered the ship unseaworthy. But as no cargo oe so stowed, and the ports were in a place where these shutters would usu- ally be left open for the admission of light, and could be easily got at and closed if occasion should require, there is no ground for holding that the ship was unseaworthy at the time of sailing, % This case does niot require a comprehensive definition o 'navigation' and 'management' of a vessel within the ee ee congress. They might not include a stowage of cargo not affecting the fit- ness of the ship to carry 'her cargo. But they do include, at least, the control, during the voyage, of everything with which the vessel is equipped for the purpose of protecting her and her cargo against th inroad of the seas; and if there was any neglec : covers of the ports, it was a fault or error in the navigati management of the ship." ei or in the t in not closing the iron - PACKAGE FREIGHT STEAMER TROY. TRIAL OF A LAKE-FREIGHTER THAT BURNS LESS THAN 14% POUNDS OF CoAL PER INDICATED HORSE POWER PER HOUR. e is presented herewith a picture of the steamer Troy, built recently isthe Deter Dry Dock Co., Detroit, Mich., for the Wesee ee Co., which is the lake line of the New York Central Railroad. e cy is certainly a representative package freight steamer of the la ese He can stow away enough flour ito give her a full cargo at the present rae Ll to Lake Superior, and she has 'hoisting apparatus capable gras eine her entire cargo inten hours. She holds the record in the flour trade-- 48,500 barrels. It is claimed for her that she can move 5,050 tons of freight at 13 miles speed with less power than any other ship on the lakes. Success with this vessel as regards fuel economy is attributed largely by her builders to the use of Howden hot draft. In the following particulars of a trial made October 19 between Detour and Point au we SPRING 700 MEP 80" SPRING 60 = .£.P 40L MEP 405 ------ SPFEING 3so™ ME. 20k" sPeivea1o* ME a2 so™* bia -- IF TF OY -- Barques by Messrs. Wilson and Mattson, it will be noted that the coal burned per indicated horse power per hour is only 1.480 pounds. Particulars of vessel--Length over all, 40214 feet; beam, 45 feet 6 inches; depth, moulded, 28 feet; load, 4,852 net tons; mean draught, 17 feet 3 inches; quadruple expansion engine, with cylinders of 19, 27%, 40 and 08 inches diameter by 42 inch stroke; air pump of 33 inches diameter and 14 inch stroke, with 18 inches diameter of trunk; three Scotch boilers, 11 feet diameter by 11 feet 6 inches over all, allowed 210 pounds pressure; 6 furnaces of 39 inches inside diameter: grate bars of 5 feet 3 inches--1023¢ square feet of grate surface, total heating surface, 4,617 square feet; heating surface to grate surface, 45.104; fan wheel for draft, 66 inches diameter, 34x84 inches discharge; fan engine, 7x7 inches; heater, 20 inches outside diameter, and 9 feet 6 inches over all, with 49 tubes of 1% inches by 7 feet 8 inches--147 square feet heating surface: propeller, sectional and four- bladed, of 14 feet diameter and 16 feet pitch--61.2 square feet expanded area, _ Report of trial--Steam pressure, 204 pounds; steam pressure, first re- ceiver, 98 nounds; second receiver, 40.8 pounds: third receiver, 9.5 pounds: vacuum, 22 inches; revolutions, average, 80.66: I. H. P.. high pressure cylinder, 888; first intermediate 411.5; second intermediate, 440.5: low Pressure 4525 total; 1,692; ref. M. E. P. to L. P. cyl., 37.44; horse power to grate surface. 16.58; heating surface ito horse power, 2.728; duration of test, 6 hours 3 min.; total coal burned, 15,250