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

THE MARINE RECORD. Ser JANUARY 25, 1900, IMPORTANT TREASURY DECISION. . SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES OF MASTERS OR PILOTS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS. Opinion of the Solicitor.—It is discretionary with local or supervising inspectors as to what witnesses shall be sub- poenaed in cases of investigation under sections 4450 and 4452, Revised Statutes. Treasury Department, January 8, 1900. Sir: Referring to your appeal from the decision of Mr. George H. Starbuck, supervising inspector, second. district, in the case of suspension of license of Capt. Henry H. Still- ings for alleged carelessness on June 19, 1899, in the man- agement of the United States Army steamer General Thayer, causing a collision between that steamer and the merchant steamer Favorite, for which alleged carelessness Captain Stillings’ license was suspended for ten days, the grounds of your appeal being, first, that Captain Stillings was not amenable to the steamboat-inspection laws, al- ‘though licensed by the inspectors at New York as master and pilot of steam vessels, whilst pursuing his duties as master and pilot of a Government vessel, stich vessels be- ing exempt from the provisions of the steamboat inspection laws: second, that the supervising inspector, at the investi- gation of the charges before him, refused to subpeena a certain witness, one Capt. Edward McClelland, the cap- ‘tain who was in charge of the steamer Favorite at the time - of the collision between that steamer and the steamer Gen- eral Thayer, on behalf of the Government, that you might ae “examine and cross-examine him.” ~ You are informed that upon your appeal being received by this Department it was submitted to the Solictor of the Treasury, who, after careful consideration of the same, has reached an opinion adverse to both parts of your ap- peal. A full copy of the text thereof is inclose! for your information, this Department concurring in said opinion. Respectfully, O. L. Spautprne, Assistant Secretary. Mr. George W. Dease, New York, N. Y. Department of Justice, Office of Solicitor of the Treasury, j Washington, D. C., January 5, 1900. _ Sir: I have the honor to return herewith the papers re- lating to an appeal to your Department from the decision of George H. Starbuck, Esq., supervising inspector of the 'Steamboat-Inspection Service for the second district of New York, sustaining the action of a local board of inspec- _ tors in said district who suspended, for a period of ten - days, the license granted to Capt. Henry H. Stillings as taster and pilot, for alleged carelessness, causing a collision - between the steamers General Thayer and Favorite on June 19 last, at Liberty Island, in port of New York. _ It appears that at the time of the collision Captain Still- ings was in the service of the Quartermaster’s Department _of the Army, and was in charge of the General Thayer, an - army steamer, proceeding on army business. _ It is contended that while Captain Stillings was acting on this occasion he was in the army service, a separate department, with which the Steamboat-Inspection Service could not interfere, and, further, that he was not, in fact, - “acting under the authority of his license” when the col- lision occurred, but was acting under the control and or- ders of the War Department. It is further contended that the supervising inspector _ erred in refusing to summon before him for examination and cross-examination, as requested by counsel for de- fendant, one Edward McClelland, whose evidence was tak- ~ en before the local inspectors when they held an examina- tion of the case. Upon this state of facts my opinion is requested : _ “First. As to whether or not the steamboat-inspection service has jurisdiction over one’ of its licensed officers when acting upon,a vessel of the United States in the ca- ‘pactity for which ‘he was licensed and was only employed as such, because of such license, though the vessel unon which he was employed was not required by, law to employ a licensed officer, attention being further called to the fact that the investigation in the case was made upon the re- censed officer was at the time of the occurrence referred to herein. The proceedings in this case were commenced under section 4450, Revised. Statutes, which provides that the local inspectors shall investigate all acts of incompetency ‘or misconduct committed bv licensed officers while acting under the authority of his license, and describes the mode in which such investigations shall be conducted. It further provides that if an officer shall be found in- competent or guilty of misbehavior, negligence or unskill- fulness or ‘has endangered life or has willfully violated any provision of this title (Title 52, R. S:, Regulation of Steam Vessels), they shall immediately suspend or revoke his license. _ This statute was enacted to afford a prompt and sum- mary remedy, as exigencies might arise, for the care and protection of human life. and should, therefore, be given a liberal interpretation in the interest of public safety. It has been held that a statute enacted for the public enefit shotld be construed in such manner that it may, as far as possible, attain the end proposed. Dwar. on Stat., . 234 and cases therein cited. _ Section 4430, Revised Statutes, provides that whenever any person applies to be licensed as master of any steam sel, or sailing vessel of over 700 tons, the inspectors hall make diligent inquiry as to his character, and if after guest of the Government office in whose employment said . careful inquiry they are satisfied that his capacity, experi- ence, habits of life, and character are such as to warrant the belief that he can be safely intrusted with the duties and responsibilities of master, they shall grant him license for the term of five years, but such license shall be sus- pended or revoked upon satisfactory proof of bad conduct, intemperate. habits, incapacity, inattention to his duties, or the willful violation of any provision of the title relating to the regulation of steam vessels. The purpose of this provision is to prevent men of intemperate habits, or who may be guilty of other bad conduct, as well as men who are wanting in experience or capacity, from acting as mas- ters of vessels. A man may possess all the requisite quali- fications when licensed, and afterwards become intemperate, or be guilty of bad conduct. Will it be seriously urged that his license as master can not be suspended or revoked be- cause of his intemperate habits or bad conduct unless he should be drunk or his conduct be bad while he was on board a vessel and actually acting as master? There can be no question that if, at any time during the life of a license, its holder should cease to posess the quali- fications required by law his license may be suspended or revoked, even though he may not be at the time acting as master. If it should be held that a master’s license could not be revoked for any cause that did not transpire while the holder was actually acting as master of some vessel, it might often happen that the holder of a license would be utterly unfit to discharge the duties of master. Under section 4442, Revised Statutes, trustworthy and faithful persons possessed of the requisite knowledge and skill may be licensed as pilots, but such license shall be suspended or revoked upon satisfactory evidence of negli- gence, unskillfulness, inattention to the duties of his sta- tion, or intemperance, or the willful violation of any pro- vision of the title in which said section is found. What I have said as to the right to suspend or revoke the license of a master applies to a pilot. Under section 4443, Revised Statutes, Captain Stillings was licensed in the double capacity of master and pilot. The investigation in this case was made at the request of the Government officer who had employed him. While it is a fact that Captain Stillings was at the time in the service of the Quartermaster’s Department, and in charge of an army steamer, and that he.could have been so employed even though he was not a licensed master or pilot, yet it is very certain that without such license he would not have been employed. No person should be per- mitted to hold such credentials when, for any reason, he is not a proper person, in contemplation of the law, to serve as master or pilot. j In Fisher v. Blight (6 U. S., 309), Justice Washington laid down this rule of construction: cea “Tf from a view of the whole law, the evident intention is different from the literal import of the terms employed to express it in a particular part of the law, that intention should prevail, for that, in fact, is the will of the legisla- ture.” (See also 1 Story, 255.) ; Tf Congress had intended that these licensed officers should not be liable for misbehavior, negligence. or unskill- fulness while in the discharge of their official duties on board a public vessel of the United States, it would have so expressed its intention. In my opinion such officers become liable to the provision of section 4450, Revised Statutes, when in the discharge of their official duties on board any steam vessel, public or private, and navigating any waters of the United States which are common highways of commerce or open to gen- eral or competitive navigation. I will now consider the second inquiry, relating to the duty of the Supervising Inspector to summon such wit- nesses as the officer charged with misconduct or incom- petency, or such as his counsel maly desire to have sum- moned. while he is examining anew the findings of a local hoard in this class of cases, provided for in section 4452, Revised Statutes. This section authorizes the Supervising Inspector, upon nroper application, to examine a case anew, where. as in this instance, the board of local inspectors have suspended a license. In so doing the law provides as follows: * * * “Such Supervising Inspector shall examine the case anew and he shall have the same powers to summon witnesses and com- nel their attendance * * * that are conferred on local inspectors. * * * The statutes make the investigation in either case im- nerative, and empowers the officers conducting the same to summon before them witnesses. and, after reasonable notice to the “alleged delinquent,” thev are required to proceed and examine the witnesses\ and if satisfied concerning the alleged incompetency or misconduct, they are directed by law to susnend or revoke the license. No provision is made in the statutes for making anv de- fense on the part of the delinquent officer beyond giving him_a reasonable notice in writing, of the time and place of the investigation. ‘The statutes only contemplate that the officers charged with making these investigations may summon such wit- nesses as they think best for the purpose of assisting them in arriving at the actual facts in any given case. I am therefore, of opinion that it would not be compulsory upon the part of stipervising inspectors, hearing a case on appeal, to stmmon a witness at the request of the alleged delinquent officer or his counsel. I foe ey sean ak AURICE D, ONNELL, ici The Secretary of the Treasury. 3 be Spicer Seti SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD. ) Admiralty Jurisdiction—Shipbuilding Contracts.—A con- tract for the building of a ship is not maritime, or within admiralty jurisdiction, and a lien given by a local statute for materials furnished in the building may be enforced in state courts. Globe Iron Works Co. vs. Huron Transp. Col oF Fed. Rep. (U. §.) 872. Wages—Advance Notes.—The owners of a fund derived from sale of a vessel cannot urge, as against the assignee of an advance note to seamen for a month’s wages, the wages thereafter having been earned, and not paid, the rule, made for benefit of seamen, that the assignee of such a note can- not recover thereon. The Staghound and The Gamecock (Scheuffler, Intervener), 97 Fed. Rep, (U. S.) 973- Negligence—Defective AUS Burden of Proof.—When a seaman alleges that an injury was caused by a defective appliance, the burden of proof is upon him to satisfy the court that such defect was the prox- imate cause of his injury; the respondent’s theory of the ac- cident being equally or more probably from the testimony, the libel will be dismissed. The Lydia M. Deering, 97 Fed. Rep. (U.S.)-971. . Collision—Computation of Damages—Interest.—In deter- mining the damages recoverable for a collision, where it ap- pears that the amount expended by the libelant for repairs was extravagant, and the vessel was placed in better condi- tion than before the collision, but under the settled rules there isno ground for disturbing the findings of the com- missioner, the court will closely scrutinize the other items of damages claimed, and withold any allowance for interest. The Syracuse, 97 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 978. Seamen—Wages.—Rev. St. 2 4527, providing that any sea- man who has signed an agreement, and is afterwards dis- charged before the commencement of the voyage, or before a month’s wages are earned, without fault on his part, is en- titled to a month’s wages in addition to wages earned, ap- plies to a vessel which was known to the owner to be wholly unfit for the voyage, and in a smooth sea, in pleasant weather, proved so unseaworthy that it could not proceed, and was compelled to return in a state of wreck. The Stag- hound and The Gamecock (Scheuffler, Intervener), 97 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 973. Maritime Liens—Ohio Statute—Ownership of Vessel while being Built.—A person contracting to have a vessel built to be paid in installments at fixed times, both before and after its completion,does not become the owner of such vessel until it is completed and delivered to. him by the builder, although by the contract he is to furnish machinery to be used therein; hence one who sells him such machinery, which is delivered to and placed in the vessel by the builder which is still in his hands, is not entitled to a lien on the: vessel therefor, under the Ohio statute relating to liens on water craft (Rev. St. Ohio, 2 5880), which gives a lien for debts contracted on account of a vessel by the ‘‘master, owner, steward, consignee or other agent.’? Globe Iron Works Co. vs. Huron Transp. Co, 97 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 873. or oe VISIBLE SUPPLY OF GRAIN. As compiled for THE MARINE RECORD, by George F. Stone, Secretary Chicago Board of Trade. CITIES WHERE WHEAT.} CORN. Oats. RYE. BARLEY STORED. Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels. 2,251,000 313,000 184,000 84,000} 1,013,000 753,000 BOS OOOH Nara ead ieee eel ey eee 15,411,900] 4,536,000] 1,339,000 227,000 32,000 85,000 932,000 E58, O00 |)2ia soc eats | ae weet ss 595.000 401,000 109,000 I1,000 56,000 ...| 7,068,000 2£7,000 182,000 357,000 148, 0co : BABSOOO Raveena ira cen mintts a hee Reinet en eee ayn pele William: (Ont 12) 802000) ac sereaies alee ca ac eee sae Milwaukee.......... 242,000 AOOOl hci sg II,000 OC Port Arthur, Ont.... RAB OOG brssrrar eran saa iaa sa: eas: [eaik Revers ye eng ae ee Poledo.e is ivi oes I, 292,000 917,000 274.000 G;000l oss Soe Toronto ivdsatwacy BQ {QOO aca Nalse ers 4,000} . 37,000 Grand Total..... 56,536,000] 14,144,000] 5,088,000] 1,213,000] 1,920,000 Corresponding Date, TBQQ. wise va what ee wens 28,273,000] 26,061,000) 6,986,000] 1,797,000] 3,354,000 Increase 3,000 126,000 1 $02) ere esperar LSE A oe fa Mecreage cst cdco cls ae oes CUE See GEG Moe 37,000] 112,000 While the stock of grain at lake ports only is here given, the total shows the figures for the entire country except the Pacific Slope. ep ci NOTICE TO MARINERS. 2 LiGHtT-Hovuské con, grat Dist} > OFFICE OF THE LIGHT-HousE INSPECTOR, 91TH Dis‘., CHICAGO, Ill., Jan. 22nd, rg00. Notice is hereby given that the Eagle Bluff Light Station, Green Bay, Wisconsin, has been closed for the winter. By order of the Light-house Board. Respectfully. F. M. Symonps, Commander, U. S. Navy, Inspector 9th Light-house District. —_—— SSD OO DS é “My husband is plain-spoken; he calls aspadeaspade.”’ So does mine; but I must decline to repeat what he calls the lawn mower.”’— Hardware Hints. Appliances—Proximate Cause—