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

30 THE MARINE RECORD. H. C. BURRELL, Marine Reporter. -F. W. WHEELER & COMPANY, BUILDERS OF ALL KINDS OF _ Boat on the river at all hours, Iron, Steel, ana night and day. * Wooden Ships Signal: 1 long 2 short. Our boats are white. We'll FOR LAKE OR OCEAN SERVICE. treat you white and deal with you on the square. OFFICE: FOOT WOODWARD AVENUE, DETROIT, MICH. West Bay City, Mich. ao H. T. WICKES, Y. P. Cc. W. STIVER, Sec’y. F. W. WHEELER, Pres. J. S. PORTER, Treas. PROM TIER Iron Works. MARINE ENGINES. DETROIT, MICH. WM. WILFORD’S*>— MATCHLESS WATER-PROOF CANVAS The best in the market for hatch . covers, is stronger, lighter, and more ‘gp.durable than any water-proof goods ‘yet produced. It is made of a twist- ed thread of pure flax, which renders it very strong. It will not crack like cotton goods, which is a: great advan- tage Sse ee Te Ue ee Ue ee Ue ee EDWARD A. BUNKER, Room 617 27 and 29 William St., New York. MARITIME LAW. (Collision While at Anchor.) A case of great interest has recently been decided by Judge Hanford in the United States District Court, at Seattle, Wash. A year ago, April 13, the steamship Tran- sit, a Norwegian vessel, of the Puget Sound and Central American Line, fouled the United States steamer Mont- erey, then lying near the dock where the freighter desired ‘to load. An attempt was made to hold the commander of the Monterey, Nicoll Ludlow, responsible in damages, on the ground that she was lying without a permit inside a line where she had no right to be without such a permit. The court dismissed the case, with costs taxed to the plaintiff. The court says: “The Transit did not respond to her helm, nor stop ther headway until she had struck the Monterey with great force, doing considerable damage. The amended libel shows affirmatively that the Transit was in fault, for she failed to obey her helm, which fact proves that she was an unmanageable vessel, and her officers should have kept at a safe distance from other vessels, or else they should have proceeded so cautiously that by use of her machinery the Transit could have stopped and re- versed in time to have avoided the collision. This fault on the part of the Transit, as shown by the amended libel, is sufficient in itself to account for the collision. It is not pretended that the Monterey did anything what- -ever to cause the collision, except to remain stationary in the way of the Transit; the libel, however, seeks to throw the blame upon her commander, by alleging that she was anchored at an improper place, and that a city ordinance of the city of Seattle was violated by anchor- ‘ing the vessel in the harbor without a permit from the harbormaster, and without being assigned to a place for ‘anchoring. The authorities cited by the libelant’s proc- tor do not sustain the position he has taken, I will refer to them briefly. .The Clara, 102 U. S. 200-203. In this case a small schooner, having no watch on deck, was lying at anchor inside the Delaware breakwater, on a very dark night, when vessels were constantly arriving, for shelter from an approaching storm, one of which, in proceeding to a proper anchorage, without any fault on her part, collided with and sunk the schooner. If a suf- ficient watch had been kept on deck of the latter, the col- PATENTED AND MANUFACTURED EXCLUSIVELY BY Peerless Rubber rifg. Co. 16 Warren St., . NEW YORK. 16-24 Woodward Avenue, DETROIT, MICH. lision might have been avoided. It was held that the ves- sel at anchor was wholly in fault. It appears by the opinion of the court that there was an entire failure to show that the other vessel was guilty of any fault of omission or commission, and so far from deciding that being anchored at an improper place was the controlling of the court that ‘the failure to keep a proper watch oun fact in fixing the liability, it is given as the conclusion deck of the Julia Newell, was the cause of the collision.’ ” In'the case of the Clara, 102 U. S., 200-203, the court shows that the controlling part fixing the liability on the vessel at anchor was that ‘the failure to keep a proper watch on the deck of the Julia Newell was the cause of the collision.” In the case of the Armoria, 67 Fed. Rep., 362-368, 17-290, Judge Butler held that the burden of proof was on the vessel at anchor in the night time to show that she was in a proper place, exhibited a proper light, and maintained a watch. In the case of the North Star, 106 U. S., 17-29, there is nothing to establish lia- bility upon a vessel at anchor if struck by another ves- sel, if her position was known to those in charge of the incoming vessel in time for them to have avoided the collision. The case of the Manitoba, 122, U. S., 97-111, cited, has no bearing on the questions at issue here. Con- cluding, the learned judge says: “A visible stationary object in any position cannot be regarded as the cause of an injury to a person, who, with full knowledge of its existence, unnecessarily comes in collision with it. The law does not authorize the appli- cation of destructive force against a wrong doer, when the wrong consists of a mere intrusion, without license, or a trespass upon uninclosed grounds or highways, whether public or private. I cannot regard the posses- sion by Captain Ludlow of a permit from the harbormas- ter, or the want of it, as a circumstance having any in- fluence whatever to cause or prevent the collision. I should be reluctant to hold the commander of a na- tional ship to be an intruder in any port of the United ‘States, in which she should choose to cast anchor, with- out permission previously obtained from the harbormas- ter, But it is unnecessary for me to pass upon the val- idity of the city ordinance, pleaded as a restriction upon FAC-SIMILE OF A 6-INCH SECTION OF ECLIPSE GASKET 193-195 Bank Street, CLEVELAND, O. & % FOR vt ut J Jt UNION vt vt STAND HOLES & % AND vt ut MAN HOLES ei 202=210 South Water Street, CHICAGO, ILL. : SHOWING NAME AND TRADE-MARK IMBEDDED, the freedom of a commanding officer to choose for him- self a place to anchor a public vessel of the United States. The most that could be claimed under the ordi- nance would be the right to have an intruding vessel re- moved to a place assigned to her by the harbormaster, or to collect from the offending captain the penalty. for violation, prescribed by the ordinance. The principle in- volved is the same as in the case of The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S., 371-394, in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that failure on the part of a steam tug to have on board a licensed mate, and to maintain a proper lookout while under way with a vessel in tow in the night time, in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, did not render the steam tug liable for damages caused by a collision, although the failure in the particulars mentioned was a flagrant violation of the positive requirements of United States statutes. The reason for the decision being that the violation of law was not the cause of the collision. In view of all the facts alleged, it is my conclusion that no actionable wrong on the part of the defendant is shown, therefore the libel will be dismissed with costs.” ro or LITERARY NOTE. “With Lake Michigan in its dooryard, Chicago has been cut off for almost forty years from many of the ad- vantages which cities usually derive from a water front. Extending from the mouth of the river southward nearly seven miles to Fifty-first street, a great railroad corpora- tion has maintained a barrier of tracks, spiked fences, and stone walls which effectually prevented the public from approaching the lake.” From this beginning the article on “Chicago’s Lake Front Parks,” contributed to Har- per’s Weekly of April 3, proceeds to outline the develop- ment of public spirit in Chicago which has led tothe re- claiming of the lake front, and to the present collossal undertaking, supervised by Mr. D. H. Burnham, director of works at the World’s Fair, which is to convert it into one of the most beautiful park systems of any city in the world. It is fully illustrated, one of the drawings giving an extended view of the Chicago’ water front as it will. appear when the work is completed.