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

a Mhe Marine Record. MARITIME LAW. DYER ET AL, V. NATIONAL STEAM NAVIGA- TION CO. Supreme Court of the United States. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court, E, D. of New York, 1. The decision in the previous case of Place & als. v. The Norwich and N. Y. Trans- portation Co., repeated on the question re- lating to the time when the value of freight is to be taken for fixing the liability of the owner, and on the question ot insurance, 2. Where a collision oceurred by which the offending ship and her cargo were sunk at sea, but strippings from the ship were rescued before she went down, from which the owners afterwards realized several thousand dollars: Held, that in awarding damages against the owners, limited to the amount of their interest in the ship, the court i¢ not bound to allow interest on the proceeds of the wreck or strippings; but may, in its discretion, allow interest or not. 3. The circuit court is not bound to allow interest on costs awarded by the district court, although such costs are included in the decree of the circuit court. 4, The allowance of interest by way of damages in cases of collision and other cases of pure damage, as well as the allow- ance of costs, 1s in the discretion of the court, Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court. This case presents nearly the same ques- tions which have just been considered in the ease of Place & al. v. The Norwich and New York Transportation Company. It was be- fore this court in Ovtober term, 1881, and was decided in March, 1882. (See The Scot- land, 105 U.S., 24.) From the report of the case, but not from the record now before us, we learn that the ship Kate Dyer and the steamst ip Scotland (the latter belonging to the appellee) came into collision in De- cember ,1866, opposite Fire Island Light, and the former immediately sank and was lost. The Scotland, being badly injured, put back to New York, but sunk outside of Sandy Hook, only some strippings being rescued from her before she went down. The owners ot the Kate Dyer and others who had suffered loss, filed libels in perso- nam against the National Steam Navigation Company, respondent and now appellee, who filed an answer denying that the Scot- land was in fault, and pleading that sbe was sunk and destroyed, and, therefore, that there was no liability againet the respon- ent. The circuit court on appeal from the district court, found the Scotland in fault, and rendered a decree in favor of the libel- ants for the full amount of their damage, amounting with interest upwards of $250,- 000, besides the cost of the libelants in the district court, amounting to $2,173.10. The decree was reversed by this court in March, 1882, so far as it condemned the re- spondents to pay the whole amount of dam- ages sustained by the libelants and interve- nors, and affirmed.as to the residue, the court, in its opinion, holding that the amount of the respondent’s liability was the value of the ship’s strippings which were saved from the wreck. The case went back to the circuit court, but was not further prosecuted until June, 1883, when the libelants applied tor leave to file a supplemental allegation to their libel for the purpose of showing that the respondent had received a large amount of insurance for the loss of the Scotland, which the libelants claimed should be in- cluded inthe amount of the respondent’s liability. The amendment was allowed without prejudice to the respondent, and with a reservation of the question as to the legality of such amendment after the decree of this court had been rendered and a man- date sent down. The case was then re- ferred to ascertain the amount realized from the strippings, and from the insurance on the Scotland. ‘The finding of facts im the court below, based on the report of the commissioner, on evidence and on admis sions of the parties, states that the amount realized from the strippings was $4,929.85, received on or before the 27th of July, 1883; the freight for the voyage was $13,703.30, but no part of it was earned or received; that the passage money was $1,703.65, but was all absorbed in refunding part, and em- ploying the residue in transferring and re- shipping the passengers; that the value of the Scotland before the collision was £100,- 000; and that the insurance effected on her and received by the respondent was £61,647, equal to $299,807.42. Asconclusions of law, the court beld that the proper amount to be paid by the respondent, as depending upon the value of the articles saved, was $4,927,.- 85; and that the insurance received by the respondent formed no part of its interest in the steamship to be surrendered in limita- tion of its liability under the statute. A de- cree was thereupon made that the respon- dent pay into the registry of the court the sum of $4,927.85 as the value of the strip- pings and remnants of the Scotland; and the sum of $2,173.10, the costs of the libellante in the distiret court and the costs in the cireuit court, and that upon such _pay- ment the resnondent should be discharged from all liability to the libellants and inter- venore, To the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the circuit court the libellante ex- | cepted on the following grounds, to-wit: : 1. That the interest shonld have been, allowed on the sum of $4 927.85: 2. That all freight and passage money should have been, udded: 3. That the amount of insurance received should have been added: 4. That the libellants should have had a decree for their entire lose. On the argument it was also claimed that interest should have beep allowed on the costs of the district court ($2,173 10). These points are all disposed of in the previous case of Place & al. v. National Steam Navigation Company, except the ques- tion of interest. Were the libellants entitled to interest on the amount received froin the strippings? In answering this question it must be borne in mind that this is not a question of debt but of damages, The limi- tation of those damages to the value of the ship does not make them cease to be dam- ages. The allowance of interest on dama- ges is not an absolute right. Whether it ought or ought not to.be allowed depends upon the circumstsnces of each case, and rests very muchin the discretion of the tribunal which has to pass upon the subject, whether it be a court ora jury. The record now laid before us contains no part of the pleadings or proceedings in the cause prior to the first decree of the circuit court. We are without any means of knowing the cir. cumstances in the pleadings or the evidence upon which the court was called upon to act, except the bare facts stited in the find- ing of facts before referred to. The right to a limitation of liability seems to have been denied to the respondent from the beginning. It is offered to pay the value of the strip- OFFICIAL NUMBERS AND SIGNAI, LETTERS. TREASURKY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON. Jone 30, 1886 To the Editor of the Marine Record: Following ia alist of merchant vessels of the United States to which officiad numbers and signalletters were assigned by the Bureau of Navigation, Treasury Department, during the i week ended Jniv 3.: 1886: ss Offer! Signa! eee | s { onnage, Number.) Letters. Rig. Name of Vessel. | Gross Net. | Home Port. _—---—— — ee, CO — —_ SAIL VESSELS. 135,887] aioe gee. se (Se. Ella K , 26.27 24.96) Shieldsboro, Miss. +. 135,500 wana cvs. s [Cat Edna H. Hulse, 6.43 6.11| Patchogue. N. Y. ; 85,924] .ssc00e---- [SC Genesta, 9.21 8.75\Crisfield. Md. 70,633 ésvcset se PuSoy \James C. Clifford, 377 52| 358.65| Newport, R. I. 140.830)... 50s Lageuns |Lagonda ” 10. 12 9 62|Kennebupk, Me, 116.106)... eniee \Sarah W. Lawrence, 1369 76] 1301.28)/Taunton, Mass, « A 426,108|-...c5060500. | SI |Startle. 9 85 9-36|New York, N. Y, SL 187) oa sees. Cat |Wm. H. Sharp, 6 13 5 83) Patchogue, N. Y. < 91,847|........--|Se |Michigan, | 129065) 1227.83/Alpena, Mich, | STEAM VESSELS, | ‘ 126.355 : 8s jCommodore Jack Barry, | 57 30 28 95|Muskegon Mich, 126 35 st. S. |Char'emaghe Tower, Jr, 1825 45] 1543 82/Cleveland, O. * 76 654 s \J I, Van Doren, 68 64 35.11| Philadelphia, Pa, 140.829 Pp Lotus, 19. 30} 19-30] LaCrosse, Wis, 91,848 S. May A. Minter, 23.58 11.79!Chicago, Til, *. 91,849'. s Maud Preston, 63.56 46.38)St Joseph, Mich, 116,107). . st. p She ter Island. 648.20) 489 49) Wilmington, Del, 145 422) p- Troy S. & 1.Co. No. 1 156.30! 117,20.New York. N. Y, {UNRIGG’D VESSELS | 28.990) pe cenes LDBE Emma, 16, 44) 16,44|LaCrosse, Wis, RSs5G3| oasis Sock Bge. Lil y Mav 187,21} 187.21} do do Baza ee AO Orbe Thomas W, Diamond, 140.44 133 42\Oswego, N. Y. RL, APOLeSs. SUE Le Oe be: Bartholomay Brew. Co 140,65 133 62|\Buffalo, N. Y, SOAS rk = Shays C.bt. TT. H. Westfall, 140, 65 133 62' do do JaRVIS PaTren. Commissioner of Navigation. eens t STEAMBARGE MILWAUKEE SUNK PIRACY WILL NOL APPLY. { BY COLLISION. A di patch from Chicago gives the follow- ing account of the disaster: The steambarge Milwaukee, which left Chicago for Muskegon Thursday, the 9th inst., lies on the bottom of Lake Michigan. She is buried forty fathoms deep, and is lost forever. Dennis Harrington, one of her crew, is buried with her. The twelve sur- ‘vivors reached Chicago on the steambarge C. Hickox. Itamediately on their arrival Captain William Armstrong, master of the Milwaukee, and Captain Simon Oday, mas- ter of the Hickox, made their way to the office of the government steamboat inspec tors and related the details of a collision be- tween the Milwaukee and Hickox and told how the Milwaukee went to the bottom de- pings into court in its discharge from lia- bility, or desired to do so, it is evident that the court wou'd not allow it to do so, and that the libellants resisted it with all their power. The respondent was obliged to wait till the decision of the court in March, 1882, before getting a declaration of its rights in the matter; and the first move afterward made was the attempt of the li- bellants to change the whole form of the controversy by setting up the new claim to the insurance money received by the re- spondent, Without stopping to decide whether this amendment of the proceedings was lawfully allowed ‘after the decision of this court, it is sufficient to say that the cir- cuit court, so far as we have anything before us to show to the contrary, may have had very good reasons for net allowing interest’ on tke value of the strippings. We are not disposed to disturb its decree in this respect. The qnestion relating to interest on the costs requires but brief examination? Costs in admiralty, as well as in equity, are in the’ discretion of the court. © (Benedict’s Adm., §549.) Appeals in matter of. costs only are. not usually entertained; but when the en- tire case is before the.appellate court, it has control of the subject of costs, as well as of merits. (Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. 8. 527; 2 Conk. Adm, Pr. 373.) In the present case, the circuit court by its original decree, made in 1878, adjudged to the libellants their costs in the district court, amounting: to $2,178.10, In March, 1882, we affirmed this part of the decree, but without interest. In affirming a decree in admiralty in this court, if interest is not expressly allowed, it if not ,included. (Hemmenway v. Fisher, 20 How. 268.) No interest on these costs, therefore can be claimed up to the date of our decree. ‘The new departure then taken by the libellants in claiming the: insurance, | open the matter so as to postpone a final de- cree in the case in the cireuit court until the decree now appealed from was made. This decree adjudges to the libellants their costs in the district court precisely in accordance withvour mandate. All delay in entering the decree was caused by the libellants themselves. If any interest was allowable on the costs in question, it would only have been that accruing from the date of our de- cree, March 20th, 1882, to the time of rend- ering the decree appealed from, September 22d, 1884, In view of the circumstances of the litigation which took place in that period, we do not think that the decree of the cireuit court is open to objection. De. cree Affirmed. May 10th, 1886. Justices Matthews, Miller, Harland and Gray dissented in the above case. General Passenger Agent Singleton, of the Goodrich line, says there has been a genuine boom in lake travel since the hot weather began. He has placed a band aboard of the day steamer Sheboygan, and it is proving an excellent thing. spite their exertions tosave her, ‘The colli- sion occurred about eighty miles northeast of Chicago shortly before midnight Thurs- day night. ‘The Milwaukee was heading tor Muskegon, without cargo, to load lum- ber. ‘Fhe Hickox was lumber laden and bound from Muskegon to Chicago. She also had the schooner Apprentice Boy in tow, the latter having sprung aleak just be- fore leaving port. The wind was blowing a gentle breeze from the eastward, and the lake was quite smooth when the steamers Captain Armstrong,’ and came together. Harrington, who was the watchman, were standing together on the pilot house of the Milwaukee. Harrington run over to the lee- ward side of the vessel, and it is supposed he must have been knocked’ overboard by the shock, as "he was not seen afterward. He was an unmarried man, ahd hailed from Milwaukee. ‘Then the steamers drifted apart. Alfred Green, engineer of the Milwaukee, ran to the after hatch when he heard the crash occasioned by the collision and saw the water rushing into the hold. He sang out to the captain that the steamer was siuking, and at once started the syphons working. As soon as he got them open the fireman crawled out of the hold with the startling report that the water had extin- guished the fires. ‘Then the engineer went forward and assisted in getting the boat ready and in throwing overboard the hatches and such limited life saving appliances as were aboard the steamer. All this time the captain remained on the pilot-house sound- ing signals of distress, The Hickox had disappeared, and some of the crew of the sinking steamer began to believe they had been deserted. Cuptain Oday, however, has not an ounce of coward- ice in his makeup, and, as soon as he could determine the locality of the Milwaukee he steamed alongside of her. Then an effort was made to save the steamer, which had already begun to settle. The sail was cut from the mast, slung over the side that was wounded and hauled tight under the bottom so as to form what, in marine parlance, is called a canvas jacket. But she kept set- tling, and although bedding was brought from the Hickox and stuffed into the hole, it failed tocheck the steady flow. of water, While both crews were working like beavers to save the vessel, the steambarge City of New York heard the signal of dis- tress and came to their assistance. It was thought that by running lines under the Milwaukee and making them fast to the New York and Hickox they could hold her up until the leaking could be stopped Accordingly this was done, but she kent settling by the stern until the sea began to wash over her afterdeck, and out of selt preservation it became necessary for the steamers to cut loose and let the Mil- waukee sink. They moved ahead a few lengths, and io the bright starlight watched her gradually settle and finally disappear. The Hickox had her stern twisted off in the collision. ; The Milwaukee was built at Ogdensburg in 1866 by Keating, and formerly ran as a pas- senger boat in the old Northern line. She measured 192 tons, and hailed from Mil- waukee, where she was owned by L. G. Mason. She was valued at $10,000, and was uot insured. ‘l'wo years ago she collidid with the new breakwater while Jeaving Chicago, and there is now pending in the United States court a suit against her,which was brought by the government to recover damages. One interesting feature in the statement made by the engineer of the Mil- waukee is that she had but one boat aboard. Her owners are C Van Slyke, of Detr For the same reason that Captain Gorman could not be prosecuted in the United States courts for a crime commirted on Lake Michi- gan, the penalty of which, if committed on the high seas, is death, the three men charged with piracy for stealing the yacht Mamie were discharged by the United States commission at Milsy*aukee last week. They were subseqnently arrested and will be prosecuted under the laws of the state ot Wisconsin on a charge of larceny. Insum- ming up the piracy case Commissioner Bloodgood stated that the laws under which the men were arrested were passed in 1820, and in defining piracy it confines the crime to water affected by the ebb and flow of the sea. Up to 1820, the commissioner went on to say, the courts never held that the mari- time jurisdiction of the country extended beyond the ebb and flow of the sea, and congress observed the same burrier. Ac- cording to the English maritime law, the question of the navigability of a body of water, depends npon whether it is aftected by the ebb and flow of the tide, and that — was the rule accepted by the supreme court 4+ in the early years ot the republic. When : Ae the navigation ot the great lakes and rivers _ i d became an important feature of the economy ‘of the country then the supreme court, upon a full review of the question, determined that the question of navigability depends . upon the actual navigability of a streaiw or — other body of water. ‘This country has great rivers running thousands of miles and lakes that are really seas that are not affected by the tide, and some time in 1842 accepted the new rule laid dow ; ress It was only intended to — apply to waters connected with the ocean and as it has not been amended soas to apply to the great lakes and rivers it is evident hat | the legislative power of the country does not intend that it shall beso extended. » Accord cording to all principles of and p sity it should not be so nded. At th time of the passage of the act piracy upo the great lakes would have been impractica- ble; now, in these days of steam, t ‘tele- graph and the telephone, and in vie ; rp vast population on the shores of. the and the want of practical connection piratical purposes with the great seas, pi On the great lakes would not be attemp except by idiots and lunatics, Vessels coming-down from Lake uperior — report many accidents in the Sault river especially in Lake George; even more than getinto the papers, This is partly laid wautof dreéging and partly to the uni namber of tows passing through thi tain channel. ‘The propeller S. L and tow is reported to have been floa raising the waves from shore. Pu dredging and lightering are all-in The tug and lighter at work on the Sheld are able to avoid passing craft by their light draft allowing them to lie on the shore side _ of her, : The propeller Oconto, sunk ne: is aC _ Sith very valuable carg several more ca aptain M. oit. es