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

22. DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT SHIPPING INTERESTS. COLLISION IN FoG.--A steamship, after passing out to sea from New York bay through Gedney channel, stopped to dis- charge her pilot some 800 to 1,000 feet outside of the entrance to the channel, which is about 1,150 feet wide. She lay to the north of the center of the channel extended, so that both she and the pilot boat which lay near were in the usual pathway of vessels approaching to enter the starboard side of the channel; her position being such that she presented an obstruction some 200 feet in width to an approaching vessel. There was a dense fog, and another steamship ap- - proaching to enter the channel at an ex- cessive speed came into collision with her. Under 'these facts the United States district court of New York, southern di- vision, held that -while it would have been a more prudent course for her to keep to the south side of the channel ex- tended, or to go entirely outside of it, yet, being in the open ocean, her failure to do so did not constitute a fault which - contributed to the collision, and that she was not liable therefor, no other fault being shown. ee The case also holds that a steamship navigating in a fog at such a rate of speed that when another vessel, which was practically motionless, came into view, she was unable to stop in time to avoid collision, was in fault for excessive "speed. ee LOSS OF TOW FROM MUTUAL FAULTS.--A 'tug which undertook the towage of two scows from Charleston to Baltimore, car- ried but one hawser, which parted twice in calm weather, and owing to the conse- quent delay the tow encotintered a storm when at a dangerous part of the coast, during which the hawser parted a third time, and the scows were lost. In a suit to recover for loss of the scows the Uni- ted States district court for the eastern district of Virginia held that the tug failed in her duty in using a hawser which was not in a suitable and sound condition, and in not being provided with an extra one for such a voyage; that the owner of the scows was also chargeable with fault contributing to the loss, in that they were not sufficiently seaworthy for the voyage, but leaked and were largely filled with water before the last breaking of the line, in consequence of which mutual faults the damages should be divided. SEAMAN'S LIEN FOR WAGES.--The United States district court for Indiana holds that seamen having liens for wages, on a vessel which was sunk, are entitled to enforce the same against insurance money paid on account of the loss to the owners or their assignees, subject only to claims for salvage service in raising and preserving the vessel, where the pro- "TAE. MarRINE REVIEW ceeds of the vessel when sold are insuf- ficient to pay the same. The case also holds that liens on a vessel for seamen's wages or supplies, given by the maritime law, or by state laws, have priority over mortgages, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PART OWNERS OF VESSELS (continued)--In the Uni- ted States the majority in interest of. the part owners control and may |, employ the ship as they see fit, sub- ject to the rights of a dissenting minor- ity part. owner to compel the giving of a stipulation by the majority so desiring to employ the vessel by which they bind themselves to effect its safe return, or in case of loss to reimburse the minority for the loss of their shares. If the ma- jority refuse to employ the vessel, a court of admiralty will deliver its pos- session to the other part owners willing to employ it. The rights of the majority in such case find ample protection in the power of the court,' on application being duly made, to compel the part own- ers who are sailing the vessel to give a stipulation for its safe return, such as is ordinarily given the dissenting minority. Still another case in which the right of part owners as between themselves to determine the employment of the ship arises where the disputant parties own equal interests. Where the question at issue in such case is whether the ship shall or shall not be employed, the inter- est desiring its employment is entitled to possession and control as against the - interest seeking to keep it in idleness. Where the conflict between an equality of interests is not as to the employment. or nonemployment of the vessel, but where each of the parties is equally willing to employ it, differing only as to the nature of such employment, the law does not presume to decide upon the merits of the controversy and award pos- session to one or the other accordingly. Neither is in such case entitled to pref- erence, and the remedy, if any exist, is to be found in a sale of the vessel. Not infrequently the bone of contention between part owners is the appointment of a master, rather than the advisability of a 'pafticular voyage. In such cases the rules above laid down with reference to the general mdnagement of the ship control. The part owner or owners en- titled to direct the employment. of the vessel are as an incident to that general power entitled to appoint and discharge its master and its. crew. The right of the majority in interest to remove a master who is himself a part owner arises in this connection, In this country the uniform weight of authority is to the ef- fect that the fact that the master is a 'part owner cannot affect the right of the majority to remove him at will, and the existence of any such thing in law as a "sailing or master's interest' is quite uniformly denied. The union of the po-- sition of master and the relation of part owner in the same person gives such person no peculiar rights in the control of the vessel, and unless he controls one-half or more of the shares.in the vessel, he may be removed from his po- sition of master at the will of the ma- jority, and though no. cause for removal is assigned. This power of the majority to appoint and remove the master is held to be bur- dened with a trust to exercise it for the benefit of other part owners, and _ its exercise in a free and impartial manner a service of such public concern, that any contract by which such control is sur- -- as rendered indefinitely is regarded against public policy and void. A con- tract that the right of appointing the master shall attach to a particular share or to continue a certain person in that position is' of this nature, and unenforce- able, : : ; The bond which is required of the part owners employing the vessel against the wishes of certain of their co-owners is merely a bond for the: safe return of the vessel. It should not be in the form of a bond to answer judgment in the action of restraint, nor should it guar- antee the dissenting owner against liabil- ities which may be incurred by the vessel before her safe return, nor for expenses advanced and against further loss. Where a part owner dissenting from a voyage which his co-owners are about to un- dertake applies for and secures a stipula- tion by them for the safe return of the vessel, the voyage so undertaken is made entirely at the risk and for the benefit of his co-owners. He is not chargeable with liabilities incurred, nor is he entitled to any profits earned in that adventure, and his co-owners are not liable to him for the use of his share of the vessel. THE RICHELIEU & ONTARIO NAVIGATION CO. At the meeting of the shareholders of the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. on Feb. 12 the directors submitted a very favorable report for the past year. The gross earnings amount- ed to $1,366,299.21 on an increase of $148,925.60 over 1905, and the net profit after providing for fixed charges, interest, etc., was $261,040.19. The oper- ating expenses including extraordinary repairs, were 79.70 per cent: of the gross earnings. A dividend of 1% Percent, amounting to $39,150 was paid Dec. 1, being at the rate of 5 per cent' per: annum. The bond: issue, originally $571,833.33 now stands at $323,146.71, the. company having re- deemed $28,266.64 of the issue during 1906. The Quebec been steamer has ft