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

MAY 30, Igor. GOLIATH AND GANTRY CRANES. The essential difference between the goliath and the gan- try crane, as the terms are understood in Great Britain, is that the first carries a crab on the horizontal beams, the second a jib crane. That distinction may not appear to be of much importance, yetit widely differentiates the functions of the two types. The term goliath crane in Great Britain denotes but one type—that in which a bridge, supported on tall end-framings, carries either acrab ora trolley. Though sometimes fixed, it far more frequently is portable. But the American gantry cranes correspond in their general features with the British goliaths, since they also have the end fram- ings, supporting a bridge, along which a trolley travels. In America and on the continent they are also termed bridge cranes; in Germany, portal cranes. True, gantry cranes are chiefly limited to wharf work, and some classes of erecting in which it is necessary that the range of hoisting shall cover an area larger than the span of the gantry. The crane jib extends beyond the span and lifts from, and lowers into, ships’ holds. It combines, there- fore, in one, the most valuable features of the traveller, and of the jib crane. The type is mostly operated by steam, but in recent years electricity also has been applied. The steam gantry crane consists of a crane superstructure, usually fixed on the beams of a goliath framing, though sometimes made to travelon this. The crane itself differs in no detail from THE MARINE RECORD, which this kind of crane is applied, and to the numerous conditions under which they are operated.—Joseph Horner, in Cassier’s Magazine for June. WHEN NIAGARA FALLS ARE DRY. No illusions as to the ultimate destiny of Niagara Falls are entertained by The Electric Review, and not only does it be- lieve, with most people who have given serious and practical consideration to the question whether the United States and Canada can afford to maintain the cataract as a spectacle, that the utilization of the power available there will continue until no water is left to run over the precipice, but it says so boldly and does not talk nonsense about ‘‘inappreciable’’ differences in the amount of water to make the plunge as one company after another diverts big fractions of it into under- ground channels, Already the town by the falls, once a vil- lage of hotels and curio shops, with no industries except those related to the exploitation of sightseers, has grown to an important manufacturing city, and a discussion which is not likely to remain facetious long has begun, as to whether Niagara Falls isa suburb of Buffalo or Buffalo a suburb of Niagara Falls. The river is a big one, however, and the cataract will be an impressive spectacle for many a year tocome, At pres- ent some half a million horse-power has been or soon will be developed, and as yet neither the beauty nor the megnifi- THE STEAMERS CITY OF ERIE AND TASHMOO. The Cleveland & Buffalo Transit Co.’s steel steamer City of Erie, built at the Wyandotte yards of the Detroit Dry Dock Co. Launched February 26, 1898. Hull dimensions, 324 feet in length and 78 feet extreme width. Engines, Fletcher’s compound beam type, high pressure cylinder, 52” diameter, 8 ft. stroke ; low pressure cylinder, 80” diameter, 12 ft. stroke Steam is supplied by 6 Scotch type boilers, diameter 126 ft., length 12 ft. Allowed a working pressure of 130 pounds. Licensed to carry 3,000 passengers. that of the common steam crane with ordinary side frames, post, jib and gearing. The post is usually fixed ina center bed, or base, bolted between, and on the main girders, and the crane slews around on it. The jib may, or may not, have derricking arrangements. The crane is almost invar- iably set at one end of the gantry beams, and but rarely in the center, so that the jib shall overhang the end to the fullest extent, while, when slewed around, its load can be deposited on trucks on a railway line between the span. Such cranes frequently have jibs of great length: The sin- gle term gantry is applied to any overhead bridge or canti- lever on which atrolley runs. Thus, a shipping gantry is used for hauling materials over ships or barges for transpor- tation. A block-loading gantry is a structure of this kind used in harbor work. Features which are possessed in common by goliath and gantry cranes are portability, and the leaving of a clear, open way between the supporting end-framings. The special value of these types consists in the combination of these features. Of the two, however, the goliath cranes have the larger range of service, and there are greater differences be- tween the true goliaths than exist between these and the gantry, or dock cranes. The construction of portable go- liath cranes would not, at first, seem to offer much scope for variation in design. Nevertheless, many differences are found. This is due to the extensive and varied services to be | cence of the cataract has been decreased to a degree noticea- ble to any except the most careful observers. Just the same, the falls are doomed as falls, and a few generations hence, if there are any sentimentalists left then, they will look with sorrow on a large, dry wall of rock which no man now alive has ever seen. Of course the change will be lamentable in some respects, but the cost of preserving the cataract as it is would be so enormous that the thought of paying it must pass away. The history of St. Mary’s Falls will be equally as positive, while the current at the mouth of St. Clair river is already being figured upon for utilization. DD SOO OS THE Criterion, Buffalo, N. Y., in a recent issue, referring to a well-known officer of the army, says: ‘‘Major Thomas W. Symons, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., one of the direc- tors of the Pan-American Exposition, was chairman of the committee on opening day ceremonies, and it was largely to his good judgment and tact that the successful opening exercises at the exposition were due. He has charge of all the government engineering work in western New York, and his services were invaluable in solving the engineering problems confronting the management in the selection of a site. Major Symons has served the government in many responsible positions. He has been chief engineer of the department of the Columbia, and has been on the staff of Lieutenant General Miles and the staff of General Howard. For several years he has had charge of the federal work in the rivers and harbors of New York state, and was appointed by Governor Roosevelt a member of the Erie Canal Advisory Board.”’ SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD, ) Apportionment of Salvage Among Tugs.—In apportioning such award among the tugs, there will be kept in view; (a) Their time of arrival; (b) their value, size, and power; (c) their position, and the presumptive effectiveness cf their services; (d) their aidin rescuing persons from the fire cr the water; and (e) their remaining by, as requested, after the principal service had been performed. The Kaiser Wil- helm Der Grosse, 106 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 963. . Agreement for Compensation by the Day for Salvage Ser- vices Enforced.—A contract by one party to pay at all events, and by the other to receive a fixed or deserved com- pensation for salvage services, is as conclusive and enforce- able as any valid contract. The burden of establishing such an agreement by a fair preponderance of evidence is upon the owners or claimants of the vessel or cargo who allege it. Elphicke ec al. vs. White Line Towing Co., 106 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 945. Salvage—Amount of Compensation—Rule for Determin- ing.—The admiralty law does not contain any scale by which to determine on a percentage basis the amount earned by salvors, but the rule should be to award such a sum as will give a moderately liberal compensation for the services ren- dered, considering the merit of the service, the value of the property saved, and all the other facts and circumstances appearing in the particularcase. The Elm Branch, 106 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 952. : Liability of Tug-—Injury to Tow.—Where the masts of a steamer in tow were evidently very high, and the captain of a tug, when twice requested to come up at low tide, with the vessel under the Brooklyn Bridge, had refused to do so, but took the vessel under the bridge at the top of the tide, having been informed that the masts were about 134 feet high, and believing the bridge to be 135 feet above mean high water, leaving only about a foot for contingencies, he assumed the risk of the uncertainty as to the exact height of the masts, and that, together with the fact that in warm weather the bridge drops from expansion of the steel cables, and that it varies with the loading, and that if from any cause the course of the vessel is forced to one side or the other from the center of the bridge, the bridge itself at the point of passage is lower, it rendered the owner of the tug liable for the breaking of the masts of the vessel in attempt- ing to tow her under the bridge. McMillan vs. Moran, 107 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 149. Collision—Steamer at Pier and Tow.—An ocean steamer was attempting to make her dock in the East river in the ebb tide. The bow of the steamer was made fast to the up- per corner of pier 29, her stern swinging down, and just -. clearing the upper corner of pier 28. Her stern was from 15 to 20 feet from the pier. A tug with a tow was coming up the river, and the tow struck the steamer on her port bow. The tug was not navigating in mid-stream, as the statute required, though nothing prevented her going in mid-river. She made no serious attempt to go to theright, as a tug with a tow just behind her did, though there was abundant time and opportunity for her to do so; nor did she stop and back in time; as she might have done had she not wished to go out into the river in her proper place. Held, that the col- lision was the fault of the tug. As the steamer had no rea- son to apprehend that vessels coming up from below against the tide, in plain sight of her, would run into her without cause, and until a few moments before collision had a right to assume that the tug would stop her headway, or go to the eastward of her, it was not contributory negligence to fail to reverse, which would have involved running into the pier with greater damage, and brought the bow of the steamer against the tow with greater force. The William E. Fergu- son, 107 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 155. Cargo Damages—Liability of Shipowners.—A cargo of hides and similar articles shipped from South American ports to New York was found at the conclusion of an unus- ually long voyage, during warm weather, to be seriously damaged from decay. The bills of lading recited that the cargo was received in apparent good order and condition. The cargo owners alleged that the damage was caused by sea water entering the ship through some defect or unfitness or by want of proper care, while the defence was that the injury resulted from sweating, heat, or natural decay, or latent defects or dampness existing prior to shipment. The voyage was without storms or unusual weather. Held, upon a consideration of all the evidence, that there was no damage by sea water through any leaks or imperfection of the ship, which was shown to be in good condition and thoroughly equipped for the removal of any accumulation of water in the bilges, which nothing in the circumstances of the voy- age rendered excessive; that the damage was due either to an excess of moisture in the cargo before shipment, which produced the decay during the long voyage, or to an accu- mulation of water in the bilges, because of their not having been given proper attention by reason of the sickness and death of three of the engineers from yellow fever during the voyage, in which case the failure to use the pumps was a fault in the management of the vessel, for which the owners were exempted from liability by section 3 of the Harter act. The Merida, 107 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 146.