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

- from one passage to the other, MARITIME LAW. COLLISION—TUG AND DRAWBRIDGE—VESSEL APPROACHING AT AN ANGLE—DUTY OF ENGINEER OF DRAW—LIABILITY OF CITY CORPORATION—NEGLIGENCE OF SERVANT, U. 8S. District Court, Southern District of New York. 1. A tug with a float attempted to pass through a drawbridge on the Harlem River, but did not approach the draw ina line with the opening, whereby the pilot house of the tug struck the end of the draw and was damaged. The engineer of the draw per- ceived how the tow was approaching, but made no effort to favor the passage of the tow by revolving the draw beyond the middle line as was the practice to do when necessary. Held, that the tug was in fault for her manner of approaching the opening, and for not assisting the tow in her passage, the engineer of the draw was guilty of con- tributory negligence. 2. The duty to take the proper care ofa bridge includes the duty to make proper provision for the passage of vessels through the draw. ‘The custodians of the bridge are bound to the use of ordinary dilligenee to avoid accidents to vessels going through the draw ina customary manner, as one of the incidents of the management of the bridge. They are therefore responsible for the want of ordinary care on the part of their sevants, and the city corporation is liable for negli- gence in the employees of the department of parks. Brown, J. At about 8:30 a. m. on the 24th of February, 1884, as the steam tug James A. Langton, having, float No. 4 lashed on her starboard side, was going up the Harlem River with the flood tide; in attempting to pass through the eastern passage of the open draw of the 8rd Avenue Bridge, the pilot- house of the tug struck the corner of the draw causing various items of damage for which this libel was filed. The tug was about 70 feet long by 19 feet beam ; the float 190 feet long by 34 feet beam. The bridge is 55 feet wide. The whole span ot the draw, which revolves on its center so as to open two passages for vessels, is about 212 feet long; so that when it is fully open, each passageway for vessels is 78 1-2 feet in the clear. The abutment on the New York side is 134 feet long; that on the Westchester side, 212 feet, making the whole length of the bridge 490 feet. The whole width of the tug and tow was about 53 feet. The libelant contends that the draw was open by some 10 or 15 feet, and that of the collision; that he came the | in line with the east passage heading directly through it; and that tt went within three or four feet «f Westchester side. The respondents’. yitnesses allege that the draw was open ctly true; that the tug and float came’ up ‘York, or westerly side of the river, d appeared to be designing to go through @ west passage of the draw; but that when ear the bridge they sheered to the eastward attempting the east passage, and thus threw the boats quartering upon the corner of the draw, rendering the collision inevitable. I am satisfied that the truth lies between these two accounts. It would have been impossible for the tugif heading for the western passage within 250 or 300 feet, as the respondents’ witnesses allege, to have turned so cumbersome a float 134 feet to the eastward so as to enter the eastern passage atall, The tide was running flood at the rate of some three miles an hour; and the boat, thongh under a slow bell, must have had some considerable headway or she could not have been steered at all, nor have crossed A dis- interested witness standing on the dock about 700 feet below the bridge testified that the tug and float seemed to.be about in mid- river, heading for the east passage. ‘The east passage, however, was from two-thirds to three-fourths of the distance across the river; so that if this witness’s statement is to be accepted, the tug and float were not heading directly up river; but, mu:t have been heading to the eastward so as to reach and pass through the eastern passage. ‘I’o this extent the evidence of the respondents is therefore partially corroborated; although the distance is much greater than they state. The east passage was some 25 or 26 feet wider than the tug and float. Had they been heading from below ina straight line for the east passage, and gone, as the captain says, within three or four feet of the east abut- ment, they would have cleared the other side by over 20 feet; and the corner of the draw must have been nearly 25 feet less than fully open in order to have struck the pilot house, a distance nearly double the distance estimated by the libelant’s wit- nesses. ‘ From these considerations I am satisfied that the tug and float did not approach the draw in line with the opening, as they might and should have done; but that they ap- proached it somewhat upon an angle, and must be held in fault for doing so when he Man nothing constrained them. ‘The tide there flows about true; and they could not have been deflected by currents. On the part of those in charge of the bridge, itis clear from the evidence that they had abundant notice of the approach of the tug, and abundant time to give them all available space. he engineer thinks it was one or two minutes before the collision that he had the draw open. she was coming upon an angle, but made no effort to favor her passage by revolving the draw beyond the middle line as he testifies it was the practice to do when necessary. The open draw extended some 79 feet down the river. There were no guards beneath ot any kind to protect vessels approaching it, such as exist in many cases Reasonable consideration for the safety of vessels going through such a passage, where the tile is strong, would seem to demand that snch guards should be constructed cor- responding with the open projection. But without determining that point here, it seems Clear that where no such guards exist and where the tide is strong, and the vessel is seen approaching upon an angle and likely to hit the edge of the draw if it be not moved, ordinary care demands that the draw be moved farther in order to avoid aceidents The evidence shows that there was abundant time to do this, and that it might have been done with the utmost ease. Failure to per- form this simple and customary duty must be held contributory negligence on the part of the engineer. The mode of collision shows that had the draw been moved a few feet farther the collision would not have taken place. Both parties upon the facts must be held to have contributed to the collision; and the libelant. is, therefore, entitled to one-halt of his damages and costs, provided the corporation respondent is answerable for the neglect of the engineer to open the draw farther. 2. I deem it unnecessary to consider here the somewhat nice destinctions which have been made in the several cases decided in the court of appeals in this state as regards the liability of a city corporation for the negligent acts of the servants employed un- der its different heads of departments, as constituted by law. As respects negligence by the employees of the department of pub- lic charities and correction of the fire de- partment, and of the board of education, it has been adjudged that the corporation is not liable. (Maxmilian vs. The Mayor 63 N. Y. 166; Smith vs. City of Rochester, 76 N. Y. 506; Hatin vs. the Mayor, 70 do. 459.) The first of these cases was followed by this courtin the case of Haight vs. the Mayor, (24 Fed. Rep. 93) Inthe same case how- ever, Folger, J. says, page 170, “the duty’ of keeping in repair streets, bridges and other common ways of passage, and sewers, and a liability for a neglect to perform that duty, rests upon an express or implied ac- ceptance of the power, and an agreement so todo, It is the duty with which the city is charged for its own corporate benefit, to be ‘performed by its own agents, as its own cor. porate act.”” The Harlem bridge was declared by statute to be a publie highway, the care and custody of which devolved by the Act of 1857, Ch, 774, upon the counties of New York and Westchester. By the laws ot 1871, ch. 574, the custody and control of the bridge passed into the department of parks, ene of the departments of the respondents, and when in 1873 the southeast portion of Westchester county, including the territory about the bridge, was annexed to the city of New York, the exclusive control passed to the department of parks in precisely the same manner as that department had the care and control of the streets in the upper parts of the city andin the annexed ter- ritory. In the recent case of Ehrgott vs, the Mayor, (96 N. Y. 264,) the corporation was held answerable for an injury to the piaintiff through the negligence in the care of the streets in the annexed district in charge of the department of parks. The Coury says, p. 272, “Itis the duty of the city to keep its streets in repair, and that duty as to all the streets in the annexed territery is devolved upon the park com- missioners. Itisaduty which they dis- charge, not for themselves, not for the pub- lic generally, but for the city. ‘The duty is not taken away from the city. It is stil) bound to discharge the duty, and the park commissioners are the agency. through which it discharges it.”? There cau be no distinction in the obligations of the city as respects their care of the streets, and the care of the brieges, which by statute are declared a public highway. The court of appeal, moreover, in the case last cited, cite with approval the case of Richard vs, The Mayor, (16 Jones & Sp. 815,) where the city was held answerable for an injury through a defect in a bridge which was like the pres- ine Record. He saw that} OF FtGIAL NUMBERS AND SIGNATI. LETTERS. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON, June 22, 18 86 To the Editor of the Marine Record: Following isa list of merchant vessels of the United States to which official numbers and signal letters were assigned by the Bureau of Navigation, Treasury Department, during the week ended June 19. 1886: ficial Si : Tonnage. Number. Letters, Rig. Name of Vessel. Gross, Net. Home Port. i i SAIL VESSELS. i 106 420) 5 5.0562 000iSe Annie L, Greeny 3 es 61 55 Brooksville, Me, 106,421; 62. .5....:Se, ‘Anna R,, 41.27 35.57: Bayfield, Wis. 35347:- :Bonita, 14 44 13-72 San Franeisco. Cal, 120.641: . :Fevue Arland, 7.51 7.13 Galveston. Tex, 85,925: ..... ‘Garnet. 6.10: 80:New York, N. Y. 95.880: :Hattie F. Burcham, 6 60: .27| Patchogue. N. Y. 76,630: ‘J. I. Housman, 7.04: 6.69'Savville. N, Y. 14.446; ‘Kate L. Pray, 59.41 56.44: Eden, Me, 91,845: :Maud E,, 9 3u 8 85 Pascagoula, Miss, 155,127: ‘Osseo, 15.13} 14.37: Key West. Fla. TG Le ee :W.C_ Norcross, 72 26) 68,65: Rockport. Me. SA 8 9, | neat CL :Wahnipitae, 1431.54: 1359 97\ Buffalo, N. Y. SLUG! gigs :Widgeon, 9 95: 9 46:New York, N. Y. | STEAM VESSELS, H i Aalboa,® 79.75) 46.85 New York, N, Y, be 'Bigstone City, 22.65; 16.65:St. Paul, Minn, i :Beomerang, If 07: 9 07'Paducah, Ky, ; :City of Chartiers, 113 63! 85.12: Pittsburg, Pa, iG T D. Underwood, : 12697; 12607. %t. Paul, Minn, iS :Grace Pitt, Lvee aeaunt 87.89: Albany,N Y. be iGuide, 47.68: 28.77’Ogdensburg. N. Y. H :Gleaner, 34.28: 17 44:Seattle Wash. i. ‘Hanniel, 58 18: 29 09 Boston, Mass, i :Leo. 34.98: 17.49:Chicago, Il]. 846: iM. B. Shaw, i 34.59: 30.59: Forest City, Me. 145 421} .- iTemple Emery, i 155 06: 77 53:Buffalo, N. Y. ‘'UNRIGG’D VESSELS. 29, 900'-- cee. c: Bge ‘Annie, : 35-00 35 00:Galena, Ill. J ARVIS PATTEN. Commissioner ot Navigation * EL SS Se ent quder the eontrol of the departnent of parks, These cases seem to me to be equivalent to an express adjudication by the state courts that the corporation is liable for any negligence in the management of streets or bridges under the department of parks; and as an adjudication upon the relation of these officers under the state laws it must be adopted and followed by this court. The duty to take proper care of a bridge includes the duty to make proper provision for the passage of vessels through the draw. The waters of the Harlem river are public navigable waters of the United States. In constructing the bridge with a draw, and in undertaking to manage the draw as to allow vessels to pass, the State and the city have recognized the right of vessels to pass through, without any appeal to the national authority to protect that right.) People vs. Saratoga etc. R. R. Company 15 Wood, 118, 134, 136; Escanaba Co. vs. Chicago 107 U. 8. 678, 683; Miller vs. The Mayor 109 U.S. 385, 393. Having thus recognized the rights of commerce, and undertaking to provide accommodations for the passage of vessels, the custodians of the bridge are bound to the use of ordinary diligence to avoid ac- cidents to vessels going through the draw at customary hours and in the customary manner, as one of the incidents of the care, management and control of the bridge itself. They are responsible, therefore for the want of ordinary care and dilligence in their servants, and the consequent damage. Both being found in fault the libelant is entitled to one-half his damages and costs; and an order of reference may be taken to compute the amount if not agreed upon, April 5, 1886. THROUGH THE RAPIDS, Since the days of Captain Webb there have been many who have declared their inten- tion of going through the whirlpool rapids and the whirlpool of Niagara river, but none has attempted the feat. The latest seeker after fame in this line is C. D. Graham, a cooper, living on South 20th street, Phila: delphia, who bas been in the city for the past two months in anticipation of taking the perilous trip on July 5th. He isa well appearing young man, 32 years of age, and weighing one hundred and forty pounds. “The whirlpool is not as dangerous as has been imagined,”’ said he, “and I will show that it and the rapids can be passed in safety. I have been at the Falls every Sun- day since I have been here, and have studied the action of the water thoroughly. Six | weeks ago | took a barrel thirty inches long and similar in shape to the one which I will use, and, weighting it with fifty pounds of sand, dropped it off the old Suspension bridge. I had men watching it all along the banks, and its progress was carefully noted. Eight minutes sufficed for its pass- age through the rapids and whirtpool, and in that tiwe it did not go under water once. ‘The barrel was taken from the water and not a mark could be seen on it. “T am confident that I will be successful, and am not afraid to go through. I expect to be rowed down the river near where Webb went into the water, and then have the barrel dropped over the side into the river. It | am not allowed to go through the rapids in public, I will go through them in private, and convince the people that it can be done, If they give me a chance, and Tam successful in going through the whirl- pool, I will let them drop me from the old bridge into the water, a distance of one hun- dred and ninety feet, and then float through the rapids.’’ : A visit was paid to the cooper shop of Matt Land on Seneca street, where Graham | has been doing his work. There he showed the barrel which he expects will safely carry him through the seething waters of Niagara The barrel is built somewhat in the: of an egg, the top being 26 inches, tom 17 inches, :nd the swell 38 inehes in diameter. It is made of staves 1144 inches thick, the bottom being 21% inches thick, and the top, in which a manhole will be placed, 14g inches thick. ‘The barrel, which is 7 feet Jong, is protected on the bottom by twenty-three 134-1nch hoop iron bands, and the upper part by four 2-ineh bands, “This cask,’’ said he, ‘twill float bottom down and will be weighted to have adranght of four feet. I will enter it through a man hole on the top, and will be fastened on the inside by a six-inch canvas belt, which will Strap me to a bag-shaped hammock, which will keep me from striking the sides of the barrel. ‘T'wo valves will be prt on top with which I can get air when necessary, and also several holes which will be plugged and which I can open at pleasure. The bar- rel will be painted to-night, and will be on exhibition until Friday nex: at the store of Joseph Toms, No. 149 Selkirk street,?»— Buffalo Express. FULTION’s FIRST STEAMBOAT, The following letter, descriptive of the first voyage of the Clermont from Albany, was written by Robert Chancellor Robert R. ‘Livingston, grand- father, of Clermont Livingston, in whose keeping the letter now is: ‘ 1807.—Dear Sir: On Saturday I wrote you that I arrived here on Friday at 4 o’clock, which made my voyage trom Albany exactly thirty hours. We had a little wind on Fri- day morning, but no waves which produced any effect. I have been making every ex- ertion to get off on. Monday morning, but all the sides, decking over the boiler and works, finishing each cabin with twelve strengthening many parts of the iron work. So much to do, and the rain, which delays the calkers, will, I fear, not. let meo Wednesday morning. well organized, and I have nothing to do The first week, that is if she starts on Wednesday,she will make one trip to Albany and back, Every succeeding week she will run three trips—that is, two to Albany and one to New York one to Albany, four nights for ing for the usu but the steam because of the ments, sloop from Hudson. his passages For the stea certain, have no doubt will be very productive : Yours truly, Roperr Fi You may look for me Thursday 1 about 7 o’clock. I think it would be well write to your brother Edward to nf¢ ation on the velocity of the Mississippi size and form of the boats used, the nut current in twelve hours, and t tons which go up the river in this point beg of him to be accu son Republican. ms FOURTH OF JULY ON1 Desiring to promote frie aid in the celebration of sary of the day of o ence, the Bee Line passage, on July 3 all full-fare one-w. and dated Jul ept ‘h, 5th y local ticke Fulton and sent to — New York, Saturday, the 28th of Avgust, there has been much work to do—boarding _ berths to make them comfortable, and a till | _ Then, however, the | boat will be as complete as she can be made — —all strong and in good order and the men — but to run her for six weeks or two months. — “y i ne 4h