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

SEPTEMBER 26, Igor. THE MARINE RECORD. —erenrnkes=evwngagssesSsSeEOE ooo sO—OoO—OEO ees OOo EE EA BSG 7A ESS SSE Sr SIFU AL a pss NEW IRON ORE MINES. The recent discovery of ore about one-fourth mile east of the first opening of the Champion mine, Champion, Mich., is a matter of comment in Lake Superior iron mining circles. The new deposit has been stripped for roo to 150 feet in length and shows from four to twenty feet in width, which is about as wide as the surface showing at the old Champion mine. If it should widen as the work deepens, as has been the history of the old workings, the life of the Champion property will be greatly prolonged. The Negaunee Iron Herald says: ‘The ore is practically an outcrop, there being but from one to four feet of stripping, and is shown to be of high gtade by a series of analyses. Preparations have been made for sinking, and until this work is somewhat advanced Supt. Fitch declines to express an opinion as to its extent, though the substantial equipment provided for the exploratory work may at least be taken as evidence that he has con- siderable confidence in the value of the new discovery, in spite of the fact that the constantly changing conditions of the old workings during his long connection with the com- pany, has caused him to become. conservative and cautious in any estimate of future prospects. The old mine is now looking better than for some years, the ore breadth at the bottom—1,900 feet from the surface—being about 100 feet, with every appearance of still widening as further depth is attained. Should it transpire that the new find will develop as the big end of the old Champion, as many are willing to predict, it will be but the strongest of evidence in support of the contention of many that the mining industries of the country are yet in their infancy. Besides this instance, other recent discoveries are’ not wanting. In this line may be cited the large deposits of ore recently located on the Hartford at Negaunee and on the more recently acquired mineral holdings of the Cleveland Cliffs Co. at the same place, but little more than a stone’s throw from the point where the first ore in the county was discovered nearly sixty years ago. Whatever may be the result of the dis- coveries here noted, it is perfectly safe to say that no ade- quate estimate can be made of the future possibilities of the country in respect to the production of all grades of ore of marketable value. a HEAVY ARCTIC ICE. Admiral Makaroff, of the Russian Navy, has failed to penetrate the Arctic Sea with the icé-breaker Ermack, and has reached Norway on his return voyage. He is convinced from his experience that it is utterly impossible for any steamer to penetrate the thick Arcticice. His plan of going poleward in an icebreaker was based on an idea that the average ice in the Arctic sea is only between five and ten feet thick.. Walter Wellman, whose Arctic experiences ex- tend over a comparatively short time, recently expressed an opinion that the Arctic ice is in the neighborhood of ten feet thick on the average, but it is evidently much thicker, although where there are no floes the figure may be ap- proximately correct. Dr. Nansen gave the subject of ice formation considerable attention during his drift on the Fram, and he says in his book ‘‘Farthest North,’ in regard to one of his observa- tions: ‘“‘This particular piece of ice began to form ona large opening in the night, between October 27 and 28, so it has frozen fifteen inches in fifteen days. I observed that it froze three inches the first night, and five inches alto- gether during the first three nights; soit has taken 12 days to the last ro inches. Even his small observation serves to show that the formation of ice goes on most easily where the crust is thin, becoming more and more difficult as the thickness increases, until at a certain thickness, as we ob- served later, it stops altogether.’? Of another observation says: ‘'The ice to starboard cracked yesterday, away veyond the air trap. The thickness of the solid floe was eleven and one-half feet, but besides this other ice was packed on it below.”” Hence, Dr. Nansen reached the con- clusion that the ice does not attain an enormous thickness by freezing, but the packing caused by pressure produces >/ocks and floes of varying thickness. The depth of the ice couse Fram became a subject of much speculation, and two of the crew finally made a wager and began boring to settle their dispute. The result of their work showed that the ice was thirty feet thick under the ship. It would be impossible for any steamer, however powerful she might be,-to do more than smash her own bows on ice like this. LOSS OF THE STEAMER HUDSON. The steel steamer Hudson, Capt. A. J. McDonald, owned by the Western Transit Co., Buffalo, foundered off Eagle harbor, Lake Superior, last week during a heavy blow with the loss of all hands. The Hudson clearedifrom Duluth for Buffalo Sunday, Sept. 15, with 69,000 bushels of wheat and 22,500 bushels of flax seed... The ship and cargo represented a valuation of nearly $300,000} the ship $200,000 and the grain $95,000. The grain was insured for $86,000, and it is supposed that the steamer was insured for something like $125,000, though her valuation for insurance purposes was placed at $160,000. The wheat was shipped by Ames-Brooks & Co., of Duluth, and the flax seed from the Consolidated Elevators for the Albert Dickinson Co., of Chicago. A list of the crew of the Hudson is as follows: A. J. Mc- Donald, captain; C. D. Brooks, rst mate; Moses Trouton, chief engineer’; George Vogt, 1st assistant; Donald Glass, 2d assistant : Edward Miller, wheelsman; Neils Peterson, wheelsman ; S. G. Brooks, wheelsman ; John Jansen, look- out; Peter Renning, oiler; Peter La Duke, steward; Ti Hulligan, waiter; Frank Webster, porter; W. Hummel, John Hughes, George Luck, P. Quinn, R. Meyer, W. Gregory, firemen ; S. D. Gee, James Sullivan, Joseph Turner, Charles Creek, deckhands. Second mate Thomas J. Reppenhagen, did not go on the last trip, and it is unknown who took his place. SS ee ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR A STEEL STEAMER. A contract has been placed with the American Ship Build- ing Co, by G. A. Tomlinson, of Duluth, fora steel freight steamer to cost $220,000, The new boat is to come out June I, 1902, and will be built in the Superior, Wis., yards, The dimensions of the craft will be 346 feet, 48 feet beam, and 28 feet deep. This is the second ship Mr. Tomlinson has ordered this season for delivery next year. eee we EASTERN FREIGHTS. Messrs. Funch, Edye & Co., New York, report the con- dition of the Eastern freight market as follows: The small volume of business reported in this issue is, no doubt, toa great extent, due to the cessation of business during the last few days, caused by the unfortunate demise of our late president. Aside from this, the freight market is in a most deplorable condition and with the liberal supply of tonnage still available, there is little chance of any ma- terial revival in rates. A promptsteamer at New Orleans has accepted the low figure of Is. 9d. per quarter thence to pick- ed ports U. K. or Continent, which reflects the situation more forcibly than we can express it. Coal shipments from this coast to the Mediterranean continue feasible, whilst the present low freights exist. The demand for cotton tonnage is exceedingly light and is likely to remain so until this staple moves more freely than at present. We cannot report any improvement in our market for sail’ tonnage, which remains quiet and neglected, with but few charters during the past week. Case oil freightsin partic- ular are weak, the best bid obtainable for Japan being 22c. while vessels are offering at 23c. DO OOO DS MARINE PATENTS. 680,491. Depth indicator for vessels. C. Mehlsen, Brook- lyn, N. Y. 682,631. Vessel or ship, Paul Mauchin and Louis Bou- dreaux, Paris, France. 680,671. Screw propeller. F. W. Brewster, London, Eng., assignor to the Myers’ Screw Propeller Syndicate, Ltd., Manchester, England. 682,213. Hydraulic propeller for ships. E. E, Marchand, Paris, France. _ 682,476. Rudder. J. Marolf, Tillamook, Oreg. 679.721. Life-preserver. Howard C. Bristol, East Tawes, Mich. 679,738. Dredging apparatus. Joshua I. Garwood, Butte, Mont. 680,289. Oar-lock. William L. Sutterlin, Trenton, N. J. 680,357. Wave-power apparatus. Warren IL, Rhoads, Lansdowne, Pa. 680,481. Rope-clamp. Lemuel Furman, Bay City, Mich., assignor of one-half to Charles Glave, same place. 680,491. Depth Indicator for Vessels. Christen Mehlsen, Brooklyn, N. Y. Design, 34,907. Ship’s Ventilator. John F. Ford, Philadelphia, Pa. Term of patent 14 years, 680,692. Cargosteamer. H. Burrell, Glasgow, Scotland. 680,823. Apparatus for raising or lowering ships, boats, etc. Axel Welin, London, England. ; 680,853. Apparatus for signaling. ©R. F. Foster, Brooklyn, N. Y., assignor to Hamilton, Foster Fog Signal Co., Ridgefield, Conn. 680,874. Fog: horn. Charles McVeety and I. D. Lothrop, Gloucester, Mass. SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD. Agreement after Knowledge of Loss.—Where plaintiff, who was the owrer ot the vessel which had been sunk, con- cluded ‘negotiations for insurance after he knew of the loss of the vessel, there was no property in existence to be the subject of insurance, and a contract to insure made at such time was invalid. Gauntlett et al. vs. Sea Ins. Co. et al., 86° N. W. Rep. (Mich. ) 1047. Loss of Goods in shipment—Measure of Damages.—The measure of damages for goods last in shipment, on which freight had been prepaid, is their market value at the place © of destination at the time when they should have been delivered, with interest from that date, and, in the absence of proof of such value, it will be presumed to have been their value at the place of shipment, with the freightadded. The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 167. Shipping—Loss of Cargo—Unseaworthiness.—The sinking of a barge, with cargo, six hours after starting on a voyage, having been towed in smooth water during the time, cannot be attributed to a ‘‘peril of the sea,’’ which has reference to such extraordinary perils as cannot be guarded against by the ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence, but must be presumed to’ have resulted from unseaworthiness at the beginning of the voyage. The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 167. ‘ ' Failure to Deliver Cargo—Evidence of Shortage.—Where the testimony of the officers and crew of a steamer concurred that all the lumber loaded by a charterer was delivered at the end of a voyage, a shortage cannot be established by testimony on behalf of the charterer as to the quantity loaded, based entirely on an estimate of the total quantity on the dock, from which the witnesses deducted the quantity catried by two other vessels. The Minnie E. Kelton, 109 Fed. Rep. (U.S.) 164. Bill of Lading—Ljimitation of Liability for Unseaworthi- ness.—Under a provision of a bill of lading for goods'to be. carried by water, limiting the warranty of unseaworthiness of the vessels to the exercise of reasonable efforts by the carrier to make them seaworthy, such carrier is not liable for the loss of the goods, through the unseaworthiness of a barge which it had built, where it exercised reaaonable care in the selection of the materials, and the designerand work- men by whom it was built. The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 167. Condition of Liability—Time for Presenting. Claim.—A carrier of goods has the right to provide by contract that any claim for damages on account of loss or injury to the goods in shipment shall be presented within a reasonable time therein fixed, as a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action thereon, and a provision of a bill of lad- ing requiring such presentation within ten days after the shipper has notice of the loss or injury is reasonable, and will be enforced. The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 167. Contract of Carriage-—Bill of Lading.— Where goods were delivered to and laden upon a vessel for shipment, and a -receipt given therefor, under a written contract for their carriage between the shipper’ and carrier, the terms of such contract cannot be changed, and new conditions and limita- tions favorable to the cariier edded, by a bill of lading sub- sequently delivered by it to the shipper, and accepted by him without reading, unless it is shown that his attention was called to such changes, so that he may be presumed to have assented thereto, The Arctic Bird, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 167. Shipping—Breach of Charter—Evidence Considered—The master of a steamer, which was required by the terms of a verbal charter to load as much of a cargo of lumber at the charterer’s dock as she could safely, with the privilege of completing her cargo at another port, held to have been justified in leaving the charterer’s dock with about one- third of a full cargo, where the weather was stormy, the dock exposed to the seas, and the water so shallow that the steamer began pounding on the bottom before she ceased loading, and the master, after leaving the dock, waited from 5 o’clock in the evening until 11:30 the next day, before leaving, during which time there were no signs of better weather. The Minnie E. Kelton, 109 Fed. Rep, (U.S.) 164. Marine Insurance—Conditional Agreement—Opinion of Inspector.—Plaintiff telegraphed the agent of defendant companies, requesting insurance on his vessel according to the rate and classification fixed by an inspector employed by defendants and other associated companies. Defendants replied that they had telegraphed such inspector for the class of the vessel, and that he had replied that the vessel had no class or value until repaired. In response to another telegram from plaintiff, stating that he had seen the inspec- tor,and been told that the vessel required only minor re- pairs, which would immediately be made, defendants agreed to issue the insurance if the inspector said the vessel was in condition to makethe voyage. Plaintiff did not see the in- spector, nor have any further communication with him, after the receipt of such conditional acceptance of the risk. Held, that the condition was not complied with, and hence that no valid contract to insure existed. Gauntlett et al. vs. Sea Ins. Co. et al , 86 N. W. Rep. ( Mich.) 1047.