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

| SHIPS AND SH1PPING—LIMITED LIABILITY OF VESSEL OWNERS—SECTION 4283, REV. ST., CONSTRUED. Leo District Court, N. D. Mlinois. January 6,1886, In re Petition of Vessel Owners’ Towing Company, to limit its liability. ete. A vessel must be engaged in interstate or | -- foreign commerce to entitle her owners to claim a limited liabilitv. A tug engaged in towing, in waters and ports of other states, vessels engaged in interstate com- merce is as much engaged in such commerce as are the vessels themselves. ‘he purpose of the act was to limit the liability of the vessel Owner, and it applies to any damage _ done by the vessel, irrexpective of the locality of the thing injured, if there be no fault or privity on the part of the owner or owners of the vessel. Sel s In Admiralty.. On exceptions to commis- sioner’s report. : Schuyler & Kremer, for petitioner, the Ves- sel Owners’ Towing Company. F. M. Williams and M. St. C. ‘Thomas, for Chalifoux, J. J. Flannery, for Murphy. Shufeldt & Westover, for Hanson. Clarence Knight, City Atty., tor the city of Chicago. _ W.H, Condon, for Clifford and Mary and James Foley. Blodgett, J. This is a petition of the Vessel Owners’ Towing Company for limitation of liability, as owner of the tug Thomas Hood, tor a col- lision with the west abutment of the Adams street bridge, on September 28, 1883, by the schooner David Vance while in tow of said tug. The result of the collision was the fall ef asection of the Adams street viaduct, resting on the abutment, and injuries were sustained by the city of Chicago, as the ‘owner of the abutment and viaduct, and by persons and property upon the viaduct at the time of its fall. This petition is filed under the act of congress passed March 3, 1851, to limlt the liability of ship owners, etc. The defense is that the tug was not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and was not, therefore, entitled to the bene- fit of the act. From the evidence presented, two ques- tions arise: First. Is the Hood such a vessel _as entitles her owner to the benefit of the act of congress which limits the liability of the owner to the value of the vessel and her freight then pending? Second. Is the lia- bility of petitioner for the damages in ques- tion such a liability as comes within the provisions of the law invoked;. the abut- ment and viaduct not being in the waters of Chicago river, but upon the bank of the river adjoining the water? As to the first question. The act of March 3, 1851, (section 4283, Rev. St.), pro vides that the owner of a vessel shall not be liable for any loss, damage, or injury by col- lision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner, beyond the value of. his in- terest in such vessel and her freight, then pending; and while the act does not, by its tering, limit its operation to vesse!s engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, undoubt- edly the power of congress to legislate upon the subject is to be found only in the provi- sions of section 8, art. 1, of the constitution, which authorizes it ‘*to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states;’’ and if the tug in question is not a vessel employedin the business of interstate or foreign commerce, then she is not within the terms of the actof congress, and her owners Cannot claim the benefit of its pro- vision. While this tug does not herself earry freight or passengers, the subject of interstate and foreign commerce, the facts, as found by the commissioner, show that her employment consists almost wholly in towing into and out of the Chicago harbor, and upon the waters of Luke Michigan, ves- sels that ure engaged in such commerce, and that her voyages in such empleyment often take her from Chicago, her home port, into the water and ports of other states, and it seems very clear that, aS an indispensable aid and adjunct to such vessels, she may be said to be employed in such commerce, and, while towing the grain, lumber, and coal laden vessels which ply between the port of Chieage and other ports upon the great lakes, this tug is as much engaged in com- merce as the vessels themselves; and in the the viaduct at the time. by colliding with anocher vessel, through the neglect or want of skill of the pilot or other employes, or by explosion, through the negligence or incompetency of an en- gineer, incur a heavy liability for damages, that is taken by the owners of vessels that ply from port to port upon the errands of inter-tate or foreign commerce, Therefore, it seems she is clearly within ‘the spirit and scope of the act ef congress. The supreme court has svid that ‘‘ihe object of this act was to enconrage the building of ships;’’ hy saying, in effect, that the ‘nly risk of the owner should be his investment in the ship.” -And why ought not this rule to extend to a man who builds a tug boat used in commerce, us well as to the Ship that carries the commodities in her hold ? : As to the second question. It is conceded that it a towing tug, like the Hood, be a ves- sel within the scope ot the law, and she had done damage, without the privity of her owner, while upon the waters of the Chi- cago river, to any veasel or property float- ing upen the river, the owner would not be liable beyond her value; but it is contended that as the thing damaged was not upon the river, aud did not pertain to commerce; such damage does not fall within the intent of the law. The terms of the act, however, are very bread: ‘For any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or tor any act, matter, or thing lost, damage, or forfeiture done, occasioned, or incurred without the privity or knowledge of the owner,” the owner shall only be liable to the extent of the value of his interest in the vessel and freight pending. But the situation of docks, walls of warehouses, and bridge abutments, rising up from the water’s edge renders collisions with them not only possible, but probable, and constitutes one of the perils of naviga- tion while vessels are upon the waters ot rivers or harbors. A steamer, for instance, is liable to explode at a dock in a harbor, and injure personsand property on the land to a far greater amount than her value; or a tug is liable to so handle her tow as to cause her to collide with the walls of a warehouse, or building, or bridge structure adjacent to the water’s edge. It seems to me the purpése of the act was to limit the liability of the owner as to any damage his vessel should do. without his privity or knowledge whethe?' the pegson or thing damaged was upon the water or the land, as the risk of @amaging things upon the land, especially with a steam vessel, is as great as that of damaging things upon the water. The commissioner’s report is therefore approved, and a decree will be entered lim- iting the liability of the petitioner to the value of the tug, SHIPS AND SHIPPING—LIMITED LIABILITY OF VESSEL OWNERS—SECTION 4283, REV. 8T., CONSTRUED. : District Court, N. D. Illinois. May 27, 1884. In re Petition of Vessel Owners’ Towing Company, to limit its liability, ete. Congress having, in express terms, lim- ited the liability of vessel owners, the pro- tection of the statute may be invoked, not- withstanding the fact that the thing injured is situated on land, if the damage in ques- tion be occasioned by the vessel, and with- out any fault or ,privity on the part of her owner or owners. The Plymouth. 3 Wall. 20, distinguished. In Admiralty. Blodgett, J. This isa petition by the Vessel Owners’ Towing Company, as owners of the tug Thomas Hood, for a limitation of liability under the provisions of section 4283 of the Revised Statutes, by reason of certain in- juries committed by the tug, as is alleged, without the fault or privity of petitioner. It appears from the petition that the tug is employ ed upon the waters of the Chicago river and Chicago harbor and vicinity as a towing tug, and that in that capacity, on the 28:h of September last, this tug took in tow the schooner David Vance to tow her from some point near Wells street bridge to an elevator near Sixteenth street, on the south branch of the Chicago river, and while so in tow of the tug the schooner struck thg abutment of the Adams street viaduct at the Adems street bridge, and broke it down and caused a portion of the viaduct to fall, thereby damaging, not only the viaduct, but several persons and some property on One ot the persons On demurrer. present mode ef business—especially through | who has been cited to show cause why a de- the agency of sail vessels employed upon | cree of limitation of liability should not be) these lakes—the tug boat is as much a part| entered is J. D. Chalifoux, who has demur- of the commercial marine as the vessels in| red to the petition upon the ground that it whose hulls the cargoes are actually car-|does not show a case coming within the ried. From the nature of her employment, | provisions of the section in question. this tug seems to come within the principle : . BR: . s . si ae of the law invoked. She, in pursuit of her | counsel for respondent, in their brief,seem to | | The question isan anomalousone. The business, is subject to all the risks and perils ; rely mainly on the case of the Plymouth, re of the sea incident to a commercial vessel, | ported in 3 Wall, 20. This case was wherea especially to risks of collision and explosion. | steamer lying alongside a dock in this city Her owner takes the same risk that she may,/ took fire and the fire commuricated to the Ihe Marine Recon. packing house of Hough & Company, and destroyed it. A libel in personam, against the owners of the steamer, was filed by Hough & Company, to recover damages by reason of the burning of their warehouse, on the ground that it was a marine tort, The case was first heard befure Judge Drummond, then district judge, who held that an injury by aship or vessel to any- thing upon land was not a marine tort, a therefore admiralty had no jurisdiction in the premises. This case was affirmed by Mr. Justice Davis, sitting as circuit judge, and subsequently by the supreme court. It ditfers frem the case now before me, in this: the only question there was whether that was a marine tort, and therefore within admiralty jurisdiction; but this case is essentially different in principle. It is upon a special statute limiting the liability of ship owners for damages done by their vessel. ‘The sec- tion under which it is brought reads as fol- lows: Sec, 4283. ‘*The liability of the owner of any vessel for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction by any: person of any pro- perty, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing lost, damage or for- feiture occasioned or incurred without the privity or knowledge of ‘such owner or own- ers, Shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel and her freight then pending.” It appears trom the petition that this schooner, while in tow of the tug, was, with- out the fault or privity of petitioner, so negligently or carelessly handled by the tug, that she struck the viaduct of the Adams street bridge, damaging the via:luct to some extent, and persons and property thereon, and that the aggregate of the dam- age to the viaduct, property, and persons exceeds the value of the tug. It.is claimed, as the property injured was upon the land, and the offending thing upon the water, that the injury is not one contemplated by the act; but the language of the statute is very broad, and the supreme court has several times interpreted the purpose of Con- gress in passing this act, which was to en- courage the building of ships, and to en- courage commerce by giving to those who should build ships the assurance that they can only be made liable to the extent of the yenture made in their ships; that if a man builds a ship for the purposes of commerce, equips and mans it in a proper manner, and sends it about the business of commerce, he shall only be liable to the extent of his investment in that property, unless the in- jury shall be occasioned by his privity or neglect. In entering the harbors of the lakes, and also upon the seaboard; vessels propelled by steam ccme in close proximity to the land; and. suppose a steam ship, properly built and equipped, explodes her boiler by the carelessness of the engineer, the boiler having been properly constructed so far as the owner is concerned, in the vicinity of a large warehouse, thereby caus- ing its destruction, through the negligence of the parties in charge ot the ship, is the owner of the ship to be held responsible, in the light of this act, for the destruction thereby occasioned? The injury would seem to be such as would come within the langnage of the statute, and although the, question is a new one, and has not been yet directly adjudicated upon, I am of opinion that the case made by the petition comes within the provisiens of the statute, and en- titles the petitioner to relief. The demurrer is therefore overruled. CHARACTERISTICS OF MISSISSIPPL RIVER STEAMBOAT MEN. BY THE SECOND ENGINEER. Written for the Marine Record. PART XIII. When an engineer ships a new ‘‘striker’’ the first instruction he gives him, after back- ing eut, is how to carry the water, and the order is generally worded something as fol- lows: ‘‘Carry two cocks scant,” or “carry two cocks flush,’”’ or “just keep the water in the top cock on the upper side,’’ these orders being given in accordance with the surroundings, combined with the special theory of the engineer. In setting steamboat boilers they usually, on packets, set them slightly by “the head”’ so that the forward end will be the lowest | when the boat is light. The engineer does this so that under all circumstances he will | have the greater body of water in the end | of the boiler where the most heat is, | necessary then, for the engineer to watch the loading of the boat, so that he may know just how to carry the water under every condition and with every kind of load. After the striker gets his orders he gener- ally regulates the “doctor” as it becomes necessary to do in order to carry water steady, and if he performs his duty carefully the engineer will say nothing to him al- though his ear and eye are ever on the alert to detect any dereliction of wrong act or It is | duty. ‘lo carly the water properly requires skill and takes close and careful watching, and the following points are always to be considered: How often is it necessary to blow out, and whether the boat makes steam easy or not, and the condition of the water, and lastly the number of landings to be made. A tow boat from New Orleans, bound up the river, -will often run forty, sixty and even a longer number of hours and never stop an engine, hence, the engineer can regulate the “doctor’’ and never touch it un- less he desires to ‘\pump up inorder to blow out.” The same can be said of a packet so long as “they hold ’er out.’ But supposing she is under way and they come te a bar and have torunslow? In this case the pressure in the heaters having been lessened the “doctor,” which exhausts into the same heaters as do the engines, naturally starts up a little taster, and the striker mnet at once run down from the foot box and slow her down, not tothe speed she was when the slow bell came, but slower than that, for the speed necessary to supply under a “strong bell’ will “pump up” under a“ slow bell.”” It must be remembered also that when the boat passes trom a strong bell to a slow bell, there is always a slight falling of the water in the boilers; hence, the changing of the speed of the “doctor” takes place at least at every landing and at many of the slow bells,” though often a slow bell will be taken off before one has time to change the speed of the “doctor.” I remember my early experience in carry- ing the water, that is, in ‘‘punching the gauge cocks.’’ I had learned to handle an engine, understood the bells, and had ship- ped striker on a three boiler boat, with twenty-two inch cylinders, eight-foot stroke. The boat was allowed one hundred and sixty-two pounds of steam, and it took it all to do the work. ‘'he three boilers were not enough for the engines. It was in, the Mis- souri river and in low water when I was on her, and having had only a very few weeks experience in the engineer profession every- thing waS new and -vonderful to me. The engineer of this boat never permitted the striker to carry the water, He wanted the striker to ‘punch the gauge cocks,’ but he would regulate the doctor himself. The boat made steam hard, hence, when she got into a deep bend the steam wenld go away down and the water would go with it. In absolute ignorance of the cause, I’d “try ‘the water?’ every few seconds, and look over at the engineer, who, it seemed to me, had forgotten or else never understood his busi- ness. Then I’d sometimes debate whether or not he would let the water go “plumb out ot sight,’? and maybe blow up the boat. Once or twice, in pure desperation, I slyly started the “‘doetor” upa little, only to have the boss deliberately ‘‘slow ’er down.”’ Just about the time I had concluded the engineer was crazy, there’d come a slow bell and at once the steam would rise to a blowing off point, and I always found about that time more water than I wanted. The boss never told me the reason why this strange condi- tion in the water took place, nor do [imag- ine he ever once suspected that many a time I doubted his sanity. It may have been that my doubt as to his ability was a benefit to him. for he got the water tested more fre- quently than he could possibly have done by one more enlightened as to the requirements of the business and informed as to the true condition of the water in the boilers. AMENDED STEAMBOAT RULES AND REGULATION. ‘TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Wasuineton, D. C. February 12,1886, § At the annual meeting of the Board of Supervising Inspectors of steam vessels, held in rooms 92 and94, Corcoran building, Washington D, C., January and February, 1886, in pursuance of Sections 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24, and 34 o0f Rule IL; Sections 20 and 23 of Rule III; Sections 1, 3, 9, and 11 of Rule V; and Section 7 of Rule VI. All the amendments to the rules and sections enumerated having received the approval of the Secretary of the ‘Treasury, (February 10 and 11,) have, under the provisions of Sec- tion 4405, Revised Statutes, all the force of law, und must be respected accordingly. The attention of steam ves-el owners is culled to the following resolutien of the Board, which, kowever, is recommendatory ; only: Resolved, ‘Chat this Board earnestly recom- mend, as an additional safeguard against accidents, that all steamers of twenty-five tons and over, navigating the waters of the United States flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be provided with tubes of proper size, so arrangea as to returo the sound of engine bells to the pilot house. The Board also adopted a new blank form of application for officers’ licenses on West- ern and Southern Rivers, which are to be used as soon as printed by the Department, to the exclusion ef the forms now In use, in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth, Supervisigg Inspection ‘Districts, | ‘They will be known as Form 2124a, (Western | Rivers,) fur masters, pilots, and mates; and Form 2124b, (Western Rivers,) for engineers. Local inspectors in the districts named will make special requisition tor a sufficient supply for their respective districts. The | Board authorized changes In the geographi- | cal division of the (Fifth) and (Fighth) 5u- pervising Luspection Districts,as indicated in in the following description of said districts : Fifth District embrates the Upper Mis- sissippi river and its tributaries, above Keokuk, lowa; the Red River of the North; aod that part of the Missouri river and its 2)