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

APRIL, 18, Toot. arti DAMAGE TO VESSEL BY BRIDGE. "| “AMERICAN STEEL BARGE CO. SUED TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY.REASON.OF INTERSTATE DRAW. REFUSING TO. WORK. The United States court of appeals has affirmed the deci- sion of Judge Lochren, of the United States district court in the case of the American Steel Barge Company against G. G. Hartley as receiver of the Duluth-Superior Bridge Company. The case is one that excited considerable attention at the time of the accident in June, 1899. The tug. Record, in charge of Capt. Burnett, was towing the whaleback barge 134, from Missabe docks down St. Louis Bay toward the lake. The barge was loaded with iron ore and the draw of the interstate bridge did not begin to open immediately upon the signal from thetug. The bridge peo- ple contend that when the tug and barge were passing the draw of the Northern Pacific bridge upstream, the bridge tender signaled cars approaching, there being one going toward Superior and another coming toward Duluth, and upon the bridge. The tug and barge continued down toward the interstate bridge, and when the draw did not begin to open the Record blew another signal. It developed from the testimony that one of the cars safely passed the draw and that the other also had, but was derailed just beyond . the draw and so close that the vestibule hung over and pro- duced an obstruction. The man in charge immediately at- tempted to open the draw when he saw the last car pass off it, but it could not be swung on account of the vestibule of the derailed car. The steamship people contend that the bridge company’s man did not run up the ball signal that the draw was in trouble and as a warning for the boats to check.- It is contended, on the other hand, by the bridge company, that he did give this signal, and they point to the fact that the tug swung alongside the barge to check her, a sign that he must have understood. The steamship people claim that it was only when the tug saw the bridge was not beginning to open, and the vessels were getting so near as to make some action neces- sary, that the tug swung to the side of the barge. The master of the barge also dropped both of the anchors on his boat, but the heavy barge continued to press forward, wind and current assisting, and her upper works were damaged by coming in con- , tact with the bridge. It is alleged by the bridge company that the car had been gotten out of the way of the draw and it had begun to swing before the tug and barge came on, and that the draw. would have gotten out of the way had it not been for a sudden interruption of power. The bridge com- pany explains this loss of the power by the fact that the anchors of the barge dragged up the cables from which the bridge derived its electric current. The steamship company brought an action against the bridge company for a little more than $2,000, but the award in the United States district court was $1,043 and costs. Messrs. Searle & Spencer were proctors for the steamship company, and Thomas S. Wood, of Duluth, and M. H. Boutelle, Esq., represented the bridge company. ar or corr BIDS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. In the abstract of proposals for constructing Chanoine Dam No. 2, Ohio river, received in response to advertise- ment dated March 6, 1901, and opened at Cincinnati, O., on April so, by Major Wm. H. Bixby, Corps of Engineers, U.S. A., the following bids were made: C. I. McDonald, Pittsburg, Pa., $158,440; The Evansville Contract Co., Evansville, Ind., $118,967.50; Sheridan-Kirk Contract Co., Nicholasville, Ky., $135,910; Edward Helz, Louisville, Ky., $131,325. The difference between the highest and lowest bids (all of which will be submitted to Washington for final approval) amounts to $39,472.50 ———— OO Pilots—Penalty for Acting Without License—Suit to Re- cover.—A suit based upon Code N. C. % 3519, which pro- vides that, ‘‘if any person shall presume to act as pilot, who is not qualified and licensed in the manner herein prescribed, he shall forfeit and pay for the use of the commissioners forty dollars for every attempt at piloting,” is one for the recovery of a statutory penalty, which, by the terms of the statute, is imposed upon the individual. The statute creates no lien upon the vessel, nor does any arise under the mari- time law, and a libel in rem for the recovery of such penalty cannot be maintained. The Carrie L. Tyler, 106 Fed. Rep. THE MARINE RECORD. ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN BENDING ROLLS. (ILLUSTRATED. ) These rolls are solid wrought iron forgings arranged in pyramid form, and have a capacity for bending plates up to 12 inches in width and 5 of an inch thick. The lower rolls are geared together, while the upper or bending roll is revolved by the friction of the plate in pass- ing through. It is adjustable by power to suit the thickness of the plate and the radius to which it is to be bent. It has a hinged bearing at one end which may be turned down out of the way, while the other end has a long shank extending to a third support which retains the rollin position for the removal of rings or. flues. This will be found a great ad- vantage in boiler and other shops where plates are to be bent to a complete circle. Midway between the housings a set of supporting rollers are placed to give additional stiffness to the lower rolls. For very long machines additional sets of rollers are added. The machine is driven by an 18 H. P. reversible, constant speed Bullock motor. For controlling the motor, an auto- matic rheostat is used to prevent the operator from throw- ing on the full current too quickly and burning out the motor. The field consists of a circular yoke of special steel. While particular attention has been given to a reduction in weight, it has not been at the sacrifice of efficiency. The pole pieces, built up from soft sheet steel of the highest magnetic quality, are securely bolted to the yoke. The shape of the punchings are such as to produce a saturat- ed pole face, and this feature, coupled with carefully pro- portioned windings, is largely responsible for the sparkless operation of the motor, and is a feature greatly appreciated by engineers. The field coils are machine wound and carefully insulated. The shunt and series coils of compound wound machines ELECTRIC BENDING ROLLS. are separately wound. Thecoils are slipped over the pole before it is bolted to the yoke, and, should it be necessary, are readily removed. The armature core is built up from thin, carefully anneal- ed sheet steel, possessing a high magnetic permeability. These discs are again annealed and then japanned. They are mounted upon the shaft and held firmly together by malleable iron end plates. The windings, which are let into slots provided in the periphery of the armature core, are made of either copper bars or wire as best suits the requirements. The coils are machine formed, and after being formed are thoroughly in- sulated with mica and other high grade insulations. They are then baked in steam heated forms while under pressure, which removes all moisture and produces a perfect and very compact coil. The result is a coil that is less liable to be injured than when produced by the ordinary method, and one which requires no further insulation when placed in position on the core. The coils of aramatures are held in position by wedges of hard, thoroughly dried wood, driven into notches provided near the top of the slots. The commutators are built from drop forged bars of pure lake copper with selected mica insulation. They possess great durability and have an exceptionally even wearing surface for the brushes. The brush holder is simple and highly efficient, giving absolutely no trouble. It is of the reaction type; no adjust- ment of the brushes is necessary, and when they are once set the motor will operate in either direction without spark- ing and under all variations of load. a a or THE chief of the general staff of the Norwegian Navy asks $175,000 for a Holland submarine, holding that these boats are admirably adapted tothe needs of a country like Nor- way. SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD.) Collision—Credibility of Witnesses.—The fact that the testimony of witnesses to a collision was manifestly incor- rect as to certain matters of estimate or judgment, such as the distance between the vessels at a particular time, the length of time during which one of them kept a certain course, or the distance traversed on such course, does not: impeach their veracity, and is not sufficient to discredit their testimony as to other facts which were obvious, and about which they could not be mistaken. Jacobsen et al. vs. Dalles, P. & A, Nav. Co., 106 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 428. Pilots—Tender of Services—Right to Compensation— Barge in Tow.—The fact that a vessel is without power of her own, and is in tow of a tug having on board a licensed’ pilot, doeg not relieve her from the duty of taking a pilot, _ where all vessels of her tonnage and draught are required by, a state statute to have a licensed pilot; and under Code N. C. @ 4 3496, 3502, 3505, which require all vessels over a cer- tain tonnage, whose master or first mate is nota licensed pilot, to take a pilot in crossing the bat at the mouth of the Cape Fear river, and authorizes the recovery of pilotage by — any licensed pilot whose services are offered and refused, a barge of the requisite tonnage is liable for such pilotage although she is without propelling power, and in tow of a tug, whose master is a licensed pilot. The Carrie L. Tyler, 106 Fed. Rep. (U. S.)422. Damage to Cargo.—Iron drums of glycerine were stowed - in between decks of a steamship, one tier high. A platform was built over them, and heavy bales of. rags, extendin nearly to the deck beams, were stowed over them. Accord- ing to the testimony of all who observed the manner of the stowage of the cargo in between-decks, it was well secured and protected. When the vessel was a few days out it was found that the dunnage between some of the drums had worked loose, and it was replaced. On arrival in New York it was found that some of the drums had shifted from their original positions, and the glycerine had leaked on -the cargo. The weight of testimony was decidedly to the effect that not only was the between-decks. the proper place to’ carry the drums, but a proper place in respect to the distri- bution of the ballast. The evidence showed that, while the gales were not heavy, they came from different quarters, making cross seas of great violence, and the rolling and pitching of the vessel was excessive. Much of the time the crew could not. lie down or sit down, and no meals were served. Held to show that the steamship was properly trimmed and the cargo was properly stowed, and that the damage to it in’crossing the Atlantic was fairly attributable to a peril of the sea. The Frey, 106 Fed. Rep. (U.S ) 319. ° Trial—Requests—Instructions Already Given—Requested- Instruction Properly Refused.—In an action for damages to plaintiff’s canal boat, sustained while in tow of the defend- ant’s steamboat Kirk, by collision with the steamboat Alpha, the court instructed that if the pilot of the Kirk gave the~ - signal to pass to the left, and under the circumstances pru- dence required him to keep to the right. the defendant was guilty of negligence, but, if the pilot of the Alpha gave-the signals, it was the duty of the pilot of the Kirk to respond and pass to the left, unless there was imminent danger of a collision, in which case the pilot of the Kirk would be justi- fied in not responding to the signal. Held, that if was not error for the court to refuse the plaintiff’s instruction that the defendant was bound to exercise proper care and dili- gence, whether such care required an observance or depart- ure from the general rules of navigation, and the defendant should not have attempted to pass to the left of the Alpha, in compliance with its signals, if care and prudence for the safety of plaintiff's boat required the disregarding of the signal, and that the law does not require a boat to obey a signal to pass either to the right or left, when to do so en- dangers the boat so signaled or boats in tow, as such re- quested instruction was covered by that given by the court. Wagner vs. Buffalo & R. Transit Co., 69 N. Y., Supp. 113.’ Effect of Misstatement in Pleading—Steamer and Sail- boat.—A statement in the answer of a steamer to a libel for collision with a sailboat that the boatchanged her course when ‘‘some one hundred feet’’ off the steamer’s bow, is not of such absolute fact as to preclude the steamer from show- ing that in fact the sailboat changed her course, and at- tempted to cross ahead of the steamer, and that the cclli- sion was due to such fact, although, if the vessel had been in the positions and at the distance stated when the change was made, collision would have been impossible, having re- gard to the relative speed of the two vessels as shown by the evidence. The evidence showed that libelant was in a small sailboat, sailing in the same direction as the steamer. The evidence of libelant was that he continued his course until struck and sunk by the overtaking vessel. A passenger with him testified practically to the same fact, though his testimony was impeached by evidence of contradictory declar- ations. Testimony of persons on board the steamer was all to the effect that, just before they overtook the sailboat, libelant changed the course of the same so-as to go directly in front of the vessel. There was evidence that libelant was intoxicated at the time of the collision. Testimony for the defendant was is no way discredited, except by the contra- dictory testimony of libelant. Held, that it being very clear from the evidence that the fault of the steamer, if any there was, was slight compared with that of the libelant, a decree should be rendered in favor of the defendant. Jacobsen et al. vs. Dalles, P. & A. Nav. Co., 106 Fed. Rep. (U.-S.) 428,