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

‘- y _ of collision, as much as any other item of _ amount of cargo sold, and none found, I see “no reason why the lost freight should not be 6) the Marine Record. MARITIME LAW. FREIGHT LOST THROUGH COLLISION—SHIP- OWNER’S RIGHT TO RECOVER IT AS ITEM OF HIS DAMAGE—REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN SECURING NEW CARGO REQUIRED. Brown etal. vs. steam tug C. P. Ray- mond. U. S. District Court, Southern, District of New York. 1. The loss of freight 1s a loss to be made be by the wrong doer in a case of col- ision. é 2. But dead freight cannot be recovered unless it is shown that reasonable efforts have been made to supply the place of cargo sold as damaged on account of such collision. Exceptions to commissioner’s report. Brown, J. On the 11th of January, 1885 the bark Magarett Mitchell was so damaged by col- lision when on her way out to sea that her cargo of grain had to be discharged and a part of it sold. 26 Fed. Rep. 231. Maritime Register, Feb 3, 1886. She was sailing un- der charter, and after the sale of the dam- aged portion of her cargo, the master applied to the charterers for additional grain to sup- ply the place of that sold. It was not furnished, and without turther effort to pro- cure additional cargo elsewhere, the bark, after being repaired, proceeding on her voy- age. The damages reported by the commis- sioner arein all $6,535.00. The libelants claimed dead freight to the amount. of $490.55 additional for loss of the freight on. the grain necessarily sold in consequence of the collision. The commissioner disallowed this item on the ground that the libelants admitted that they did not seek to obtain freight from outside parties. The loss of freight is undoubtedly a loss to be made good by the wrong doer in a case damage of which the collision is the direct and proximate cause. The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270. But this rule does not dispense with reasonable diligence on the part of the ves- sel injured. Her legal damage is that which arises notwithstanding the use of reason- able diligence and judgment. Very re- cently this court has applied this qualifi- cation to the duty to raise and repair; and has disallowed the additional estimated cost of repair arising from unreasonable neglect to raise the sunken boat earlier. The Thomas P, Way, 28 Fed. Rep. Maritime Register September 1, 1886. The same rule must be applied to dead freight. Had reasonable efforts been made to supply the recovered. The libelants claim that the burden of proof is upon the defendants to w that cargo might have been obtained other parties than the charterer. But in rdinary conditions of trade, shipments or other cargo at same rates, at ied to be procurable within a reasonable time, in the absence of all proof on the subject. As the libelants’ have - not shown any lack of ready freight in the market, and either applied to the defendants or to any other parties than the -charterers, nor gave the defendants any notice or op- portunity to supply the cargo to the bark, in place of that lost, the presumption is that the loss of dead freight was rather from the mas- ters neglect to seek it than the necessary and direct consequence of the collision. It would be inequitable to impose upon the de- fendants a loss which presumably might have been avoided and which they were given no opportunity of preventing. The ruling of that commissioner is in this respect sustained. ‘ The defendants have excepted to the num- ber of days for which demurrage is allowed and also to the allowance of the charge for wharfage in addition to demurrage. Upon consideration of all the circum- stances I am not satisfied that the number of days allowed for is excessive. The wharf- age as an additional item should, I think, be disallowed ;—not because it is not in itself proper and recoverable, but because it ought to be deemed included in the rate charged tor demurrage. The rate allowed is $57 per day. Thag is the rate of demurrage stipu- lated in the charter, and it is testified to as reasonable for this bark. It is conceded that under the charter the rate specified would include wharfage. It1is a mere question of the modejof estimating the damage caused by the delay. When the damage is com- puted independently of wharfage, then wharfage is tobe allowed as a separate item, otherwise not. The adoption of the charter rate of demurrage in this case and the want of any intimation in the testimony that the charter rate was not a full equivalent, at the time of the injury, for all the items that the charter rate usually covers, lead me to the conclusion that the rate should be deemed to cover wharfage. [In other respects the report is confirmed. September 25, 186. COLLISION—LIMITED LIABILITY—TERMINA- TION OF VOYAGE—OFFENDING SHIP, Thommessen & al vy. Whitwill. Supreme Court of the United States. Appeal Jrom the United States Circuit Court, E. D, of New York. 1. The decision in Place & als. v. the Norwich & New York Transportation Com- pany, in relation to the time when the value of the owner’s interest in the ship is to be taken for fixing the amount of his liability, applied to a case where the offending ship did not sink in consequence of the collision, but was afterwards sunk and wrecked in the same voyage by the negligent navigation of those in charge of her, the sinking being held to be the termination of the voyage. 2. The decision in the same case as to in- surance repeated, 3. Limited liability may be claimed, 1st, merely by way of defence to an action; or, 2nd, by surrendering the ship or paying her value into court. he latter method is only necessury when the ship owner desires to bring all the creditors claiming damage into concourse for distribution. Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court. The case grew out of acollision which oc- curred on the 25th of March, 1876, on the high seas, 150 miles from Sandy Hook, be- tween the Norwegian bark Daphne, belong- ing to the appellantsand bouud to Marseilles, and the British steamship Great Western, belonging to the respondent and others and bound to New York. The Daphne was in- jured about $7,000 worth, and:the court be- low found that, the Great Western was in fault, and was worth $150,000 both before and immediately after the collision; but that after the collision, and on the same day, the steamer, while still on her voyage to New York, was stranded and wrecked on the south coast of Long Island by the careless navigation and fault of those in charge of her, and from no cause connected with the collision. No freight was received by her Owners. On the 29th of March they aban- doned her to the underwriters, and received from them insurance to the amount of £34,- 000 as for a total loss. After this the wreck and materials saved were sold for account of the underwriters and by direction of the own ers, and realized $1,796.14. On the 27th of March 1876, the libel was filed in this case on account of the owners of the Daphne, and Whitwill, the respondent, appeared and answered, denying that the Great Western was in fault, and claiming that if she should be found in fault, the owner’s liability was limited to the amount or value of his inter- est in the vessel and her freight; and that this interest was of no value whatever, and to this he added by lcave of the court during the trial, the following words: ‘And he hereby surrenders the same to the libel- ants. He also during the trial tendered an assignment of his interest to the libelants, and offered to give another assignment to a | trustee for the benefit of the libelants under Section 4285 of the Revised Statutes of the | United States. The court below held that | the owners of the Great Western were only liable for the proceeds of the wreck, amount- | ing to $1,796.14, and gave a decree for that amouut and interest, and for the costs of the | libelants in the district court, The errors assigned for the reversal of this decree are substantially as follows, to wit: First. That the limitation of the respond- ent’s liability to the value of the ship and freight in the condition in which they were after the stranding and wreck is contrary to the rule contained in section 4283 of the Re- vised Statutes. Secondly. Because, the in- surance received by the owners was not in- cluded in the value of their interest in the ship, liable to be surrendered in order to ob- tain'a limitation of liability, and was not taken into account in fixing the measure of such liability. Thirdly. Because the cqurt allowed the respondent to amend his answer by the words ‘‘and he hereby surrenders the same to the libellants;’’ and pern.itted him to give in evidence his written surrender of his interest in the steamer to the libelants; and his offer to make a like surrender toa trustee for the benefit of the defendants. Fourthly. Because, without proof that the laws of Sweden and Great Britain are the same on the subject, the only law applicable to the case was the law of the forum, of which the general admiralty law forms no part. The points raised in the first and second assignments have been already discussed and decided in the case of Place & als. v. the Norwich and New York Transportation Company. There is nothing pecaliar in the present case, unless it be that the Great Western was not sunk or wrecked by means of the collision, but afterwards, by the care- lessness of her master or crew. This can make no difference. We showed in the opinion referred to that the termination ot the voyage is the point of time at which the value of the offending vessels to be taken. | report, as the best type of coast and harbor The voyage in the present case was not ter- minated until the vessel was sunk and stranded on the Long Island coast. The carelessness of the master and crew cannot vary the result. It is against their faults and negligence that the law was intended to protect the ship owner, provided the loss and damage sustained were caused without his privity or knowledge. The third assignment of error cannot be maintained, because the evidence referred to therein, which the court allowed to be given on the trial, could not affect the result; nor was the amendment of the answer material. The answer, as originally framed, set up the defence that the liability of the respondent was limited to the amount or value of his in- terest in the Great Western and her freight upon the voyage, and averred that the interest was of no value. The issue being thus raised, the respondent was entitled to bave the de- cree against him in that cause limited to the amonnt which should be shown, by the proofs on the trial, to be the value of said steamer and freight at the termination of the voyage.. He did hot need to make any surrender or attempts at a surrender. A surrender of the vessel, or payment of her proceeds, or value, into court would have been necessary in order to bring other creditors into concourse with the libelants; but for the mere defence of that cause it was not necessary. This disposes of the supposed difficulty in making an abandonment to the libelants after a surrender or abandonment to the insurers; a difficulty which we have already shown to be groundless in the opinion referred to. The fourth assignment of error is not weil taken, because the case was altogether de- cided according to the maritime law of this country, which is the law of the forum, The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. May 10th. 1886, OUR NEW NAVY. Chief Constructor Wilson estimates the active life of the wooden war ships of our present navy, as follows: The Tennessee (the only one classed as first rate), six months; the Trenton, Omaha, and Van- dalia, second rates, and the Michigan, third rates, ten years; the Lancaster and Brook- lyn, second rates, and the Adams, Alliance, Essex, Enterprise, Nipsic, ‘l'allapoosa, and Yantic, third rates, six years; the Hartford, Richmond, and Pensacola, second rates, and the Juniata, Ossipee, Quinnebaug, Swartara, Galena, Marion, Iroquois, and Kearsage, third rate, five years. These, together with the iron ships, Monocacy, Alert, and Ranger, third rates, and the Michigan, Palos, and Pinta, fourth rates, constitute the available fighting force of the present navy. ‘The most powerful of their weapons are the con- verted guns, having a range ot, perhaps, two miles, excellent arms for operations against wooden ships and ancient fortifica- tions, or for shelling; towns, but inefficient against the modern armor. The very best of these ships is held by our naval authori- ties to be far behind the times as a reliance for offense or defense in actual warfare. |The listiof ironclads comprises more than a dozen, monitors, but none of them is in con- dition for service at this time. With this showing, the United States is placed by her own authorities at the foot of the list of naval powers in the essential matter of vessels and guns, there being three South American, two Asiatic, and fifteen or sixteen European powers which outrank us. That portion of our prospective ‘‘new navy,’’ whose construction has already been sanctioned by congress, numbers eighteen ships of all classes, to cost an aggregate of something more than twenty million dollars, and the list ot which, barring accidents, or the failure of appropriations,'is expected to be afloat tour years hence. They are re- quired to be built entirely of metal,and every device known and approved, at the date of their planning, to secure efficiency as fight- ing machines, has been, or is to be admitted in their construction. Their armament throughout will be of the modern high pow- ers, the largest Weapons at present contem- plated being the twelve-inch breech-loading rifle, carrying a missile which weighs more than eight hundred pounds, and requiring more than four hundred pounds of powder for each discharge. The theoretical range of such weapons is abont twelve miles, but difficulties in the matter of elevation .and otherwise serve to reduce this somewhat in practice. Seven of these ships are to be armored, the heaviest probably carrying six- teen inches of steel as a protection. Three will be ‘‘protected cruisers;’’? that is, ves- sels whose thick lower decks of steel dip their edges below the water line and serve as a protection to the machinery, magazines, and other vital parts of the vessels. ‘The others will be four steel cruisers, two gun- boats, one first-class torpedo boat, and one dynamite gun cruiser, Of the steel cruisers, the Dolphin, 1,500 tons displacement, is al ready completed, and receiving her arma- meut. The Atlanta, 3,000 tons, is on her trial trip, and her artnament is being tested, while the Boston, 3,000 tons, and the Chi- cago, 4.500, are well advanced in cunstruc- tion. Five of the armored vessels are of the double. turret monitor class, each de- signed to carry four heavy high-powered guns throwing five hundred pound shells with a possible range of ten miles. These ships were planned ten years ago. Doubr- less if planned to-day some change would be made, but they are nevertheless spoken of by Commodore Wilson, in his last annual defense vessels ina existence. Though not designed for cruising they can in emergency be sent abroad, their seaworthiness having been well tested in the past. Congress has now supplied the means for furnishing these ships and the work is progressing rapidly. The Miantono nab, 3,815 tons, will be ready for service this year; the Puritan, 6,000 tons, has her engines in place, and is nearly ready for her armor; while the Ter- ror, Amostrite, and Amadnock, 3,185 each, are now receiving their machinery. The other. two armored ships have not yet en- tered upon their first stage of existence, their construction having only been an- thorized by congress at the end of its last session, They are to be of 6,000 tons dis- placement, to have double bottoms, engines designed to drive them at the rate of sixteen knots an hour, and complete torpedo outfits and armaments of the most effective kind, and are to cost not more than two and a half millions each, In the mere matter of dis- placement, these ships will exeeed by nearly one-fourth the best and largest of our present naval vessels, while in speed and effective- ness they are intended to compare favorably with the better class of European cruising war ships. ‘The cruiser will be a novelty, comparable probably to nothing now in ex- istence. The secretary of the navy is au- thorized to make a contract with its invent- ors for its construction; and the department will have little or nothing to do with the work beyond pussing judgment upon the plans in advance, and the result at its com pletion will be’ a vessel! 180 feet long, pro- portionately very narrow, and of very light draft, with exceedingly powerful engines, guaranteed to be capable of producing a speed of twenty knots. In-brief, the plans of this craft are understood to look to the placing of the machinery and other ordinary appliances of the ship toward the bow or stern, leaving the region atnidships for the magazines and pneumatic guns, the latter being fixed in position and having a high elevation. ‘The dynamite missiles will be thrown like bombs from an ordinary mor- tar. With all these vessels afloat the United States, as a naval power, will outrank Brazil, Chili, the Argentine Republic, China,Japan, Greece, Norway; Portugal, and Sweden, and will be abreast of ‘l'urkey, Spain, Hol- land and Denmark. She will still be out- ranked by England, France, Germany,Aus- tria, Italy and Rassia. KNOTS AND MILEs, There are probably no two words in the English language having entirely different meanings, that are more commonly used to express the same thing than the terms knots and miles. ‘Io one having constant reference to marine reports, it is not only troublesome toconvert these terms to the same standard for comparing results, but it is often quite impossible to determine which is meant, especially in relation to the speed of vessels in inland waters. It may be interesting to our readers to know exactly what is meant by a knot or sea mile, so we publish the fol- lowing statement, which is accepted by the United States naval service as the standard measurement. At the high speeds now maintained by some of our ocean steamships, and especially at the still higher rates at- tained by torpedo boats, it is not a little sur- prising when we turn their velocity into miles to notice how nearly they approach average railroad time. The length of the nautical mile is defined as the one-sixth part of a degree of the great circle of the earth. Ifthe earth were a per- fect sphere of known dimensions, the length of a nautical mile, according to the above definition, would be a definite and invari- /able quantity. : i SCS TSE | Owing, however, to the earth’s com- | pression at the poles, and the consequent difference in the lengths of the radi of curvature at difterent points of its surfa ce much diversity has arisen in usage and in books of reference, in assigning the length ofa nautical mile. Thus, it is variously given as equal to the mean length of & minute of latitude on the meridian, and the length of a minute of the meridian corres- ponding to the radius of curvature ot the particular latitude, and the length ofa minute of longitude on the equator, the latter definition being probably due to com- mon use among mariners, of Mercator’s pro- jection in which. degrees of the successive parallels of latitude are equal to those on the equator, : OAS: aig nee . In order to remove all uncertainty, and to introduce uniformity, the service adopted, several years ago, the value which resulta from considering the nautical mile as equal to the one-sixtieth part of the length of a degree on the great circle of a sphere whose surface is equal to the surface of the earth. This value, computed on Clark’s spheriod, is: One nautical mile=1853,248 meters=6080 27 feet, a value which corresponds to the — see length of the admiralty knot=6080 eet. nod} 1B eTF ; In the following tables are given the numercial results of the discussion relating to this subjeer: ; oS z Meters, Feet. Length of 1’ on the equator. .1855.345 6087.15 Length of 1’ of latitude at the at ae equator... ooo... 522. .22. 1842.787 6045.95. Length of 1’ of latitude at the stl ; ie fy POE. oe an ioee ewer conse TSOELOSE Length of 1’ of latitude 4 0..1852, 181 Length of 1’ on the surface of a sph Radius equalto the meanuf ss the semi axes of the earth,.1852.200 Area of a great circle equalto area of plane of meridian of the sarth 22S Radius equal to average radius of curvature of meridian of 3