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

Z MARITIME LAW. AXD TOW—NFGLIGENCE— OR BOTH VES- COLLISION—TUG RECOVERY AGAINST ONE SELS. District Court, N. D. New York. 1886. When a collision is caused by the negli- gence of two vessels, proof that the disaster could have been prevented by one of them is rot sufficient to exculpate the other. ‘The entire daimage may be recoyered trom one vessel] though both be in fault, if one ouly is served, In Admiralty. George Clinton, for libelant. S. B, Porter, for claimant. Coxe, J. The owner of the canal boat S. H. Fish brings this action against the steam- tug Troy to recover damages occasioned by her negligence in causing, or contributing to cause, a collision between the canal boat and the steam tug Rambler. - In the libel, which was filed July 13, 1880, both tugs were made parties, and the collision is there attributed to their joint negligence. For some reason not fully explained, the Ramb- ler was not served with process, and is now beyond the jurisdiction of the court. On the morning of the first of November, 1879, the libelant employed the Troy to tow his canal boat, from a point in the Erie ca- nal near Baker’s dock, to the Niagara ele- vator, on the Buffalo river, where she was to take in a cargo of wheat. ‘'he route lay through slip No. 1 and the Erie basin. The channel in the basin at this point, owing to a sunken barge and shallow water opposite the slip, is about 238 teet wide. On the day in. question three vessels were lying at the southerly corner of the slip, projecting into the basin some 85 feet; thus reducing the width of the channel to 158 teet. ‘I'wo ves- sels of about similar dimensions were lying abreast at the northerly corner of the slip. The canal boat was about 97 feet in length, the Troy 48 feet, and the line between them 7 feet, so that the distance from the stem of the tug to the stern of the canal-boat was 152 feet, or but a foot less than the width of the channel between the vessels and the sunken barge. The Rambler, a larger tug than the Troy, was proceeding at the usual rate of four miles an hour down the Erie basin, when the Troy, with her tow, headed west, and going at the rate of three miles an hour, emerged from the slip. The Troy ‘proceeded on her course, and when she was within a short distance of the snnuken barge, the canal-boat, which then was mov- ing directly across the channel, was struck by the Rambler on her port side; forward of amidships, and nearly opposite the for- ward hatch, The blow caused her to sink ‘soon afterwards. _ ¥he collision took place between 9 and 10 - p’elock, in broad daylight. The weather was clear, and there was but little wind. October 9, There is some dispute as to whether the tug | Troy gave any signal while in the slip. Those on the Rambler and the Fish heard ‘none. The claimant’s postive testimony that she blew three blasts when opposite the Exchange elevator, uear the entrance to the slip, should however, be accepted as true. It is conceded by all that the eanal boat wus helpless, and therefore without fault. It may also be regarded as proved that the Rambler was guilty of negligence. The court 80 intimated at the argument, and no reason is seen for changing the opinion then formed. That a powerful tug, unincum- bered by a tow, could have avoided sucha collision, isa proposition almost self evident. But the Rambler is not now before the court, and the inquiry must therefore be wholly confined to the Troy. Was she at fault? Could she have avoided the collision ? The theory of the claimants apparently is that they are exculpated when it is shown that the Rambler could have prevented the accident; that, because the proper way fora tug with a tow to pass out of slip No, 1 is to go straight across the channel, it follows as a necessary conclusion, that this course must be pursued in all circumstances, and without reference to the danger confronting her. This proposition cannot be maintained, A party who is compelled to cross a railroad track in order to reach his destination, and who, without making the slightest effort to ascertain whether the track is clear, drives his team in front of an advancing train, and wrecks his wagon, cannot escape the charge of negligence by, proving that the engineer, by reversing his engine and ap- plying tho air brakes, might have avoided the accident. Tbe channel through the basin was the regularly traveled route where vessels were constantly passing and repassing. Slip No 1 was a comparatively untraveled water way. Ou the day in question, egress was rendered particularly dangerous by reason of the vessels lying abreast at each siae of at it aE NA I A Ihe Marine Recon. the entranoe. The sunken barge opposite made the channel a narrow one at all times» but these obstructions reduced it to 153 feet. The master of the Troy knew all this. He krew that, in order to take his tow up the basin, it Was necessary for him to run across and completely block the ehannel. He could | ee neither north or south until the tug had | passed the outmost vessel. He did not know | slip for the purpose of landing her tow. On| ment upon this part of the case, I think for but a tug with a heavy tow, or a large ves-| the opposite side of the slip were two car- | the reason above suggested, namely, because sel, not easily controlled, was about passing | goes moored abreast, leaving a clear space , the place of the collision was so tar under the slip; and yet, without taking any ex- traordinary means to ascertain the situation, without slackening his speed, without giving any but the ordinary signal, which indicated that a tug was in the slip, and nothing more, he ran out directly across the channel. The The canal boat was thus caught in a trap wi. hout power to protect herself. The situa- tion was unusual, I, demanded unueual precautions, ‘The failure to take them was negligence. The testimony is undisputed that the Troy was handled precisely as she would have been if the channel had been clear. But, even after the tug had reached the middle of the channel, she might, it seems, have prevented the collision. The Rambler did not know that the Troy had a tow until the line became visible. She was not called upon to stop until this’ fact was apparent. It was entirely obvious that the Troy alone could have cros<ed, as she did cross, with entire safety. But the Troy kuew that she hadatow. She saw the Rambler bearing down upon her, without diminution of speed or change of course, until she was about 100 feet away. The Rambler was then informed that the Troy had a tow, and the Rambler was reversed. Why was not the Troy reversed? ‘The evi- dence on the part of the libelant is not as full upon this point as it might have been. The court, however, being frequently called upon to deal with the relations of tugs to their tows, may take judicial notice of what a tug can do in certain circumstances, It is in evidence that the Rambler, a much larger tug, and going ata greater rate of speed, could hive been stopped in from 15 to 20 feet. The Troy certainly could have been stopped within the same space. If, on emerging into the basin, the Troy had given the danger signal, im- mediately reversed, and stopped the canal boat which was unloaded, and therefore more easily controlled, it is quite certain that the injury would have been averted. So, too, she might have ported and gone to the north. In this way the blow would have been avoided altogether, or, it received it would have been a glancing blow, und com- paratively harmless. [t is true that the situa- tion after the Troy had passed into the chan. nel was a difficult and an embarrassing one. Almost any maneuver suggested might have been attended with some injury to the canal boat, and to the jibbooms and headgearing of the adjacent vessels, but any course was preferable to running directly across the bows of a large and powerful tug which was rapidly approachiny, and which had shown no inclination to stop or change her course. In the one case the danger was imminent, and the consequence of a collision serious; in the other, it was contingent and remote, and in any event but slight injury could ensue, There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of the court that the collision was caused by the fault of both tugs; but as the Troy is the only one proceeded against, and as the Rambler is not now within the juris- diction of the court, the recovery, so far as the present cause is concerned, must be against the Troy alone. The Alas, 93 U.S. 302. : There should be a decree for the libelant, with costs, and a reference to compute the amount due. COLLISION—-STEAMER AT PIER—CANAL BOAT IN TOW OF TUG STRIKING 8SLEAMER’S PROPELLER—UNUSUAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROPELLER — LIABILITY OF STEAMER— LIABILITY OF TUG, | Brown, J. On the 9th day of May, 1885 between 10 and 11 a. m. as the steamship Ludgate Rill was lying along the upper side of the slip, between piers 42 and 43 North River, with her stern about 30 feet inside the end of the pier the tag Willie with the libelants canal | boat lashed on her port side came into the} between the barges and the steamship ot | xbont 60 feet. The Willie had previously landed another tow, at pier 36, and then ;came up the river in the slack water near | the piers, the tide being ebb, and undertook | to land the tow through the narrow space |above stated. In doing so s!e first headed | towards the quarter of the steamship, and backed her engines when about a dozen feet from it. The boats continued under head wav, and the swing of the bows brought the libelants boat against the propeller blade of the steamship, which was broken. The bropeller blade stove a hole through the Pboat so that the latter sank ina few min- utes. The steamer had double screw propellers each 15 feet in diameter. Measurements show that the blade when perpendicular as These steamers had upon each rail in line with the propeller blades a semi-circular sponson two and a half teet in diameter pro- jecting out beyond the rail and designed to fend the propeller off from the lines of the wharf; a conspicuous peculiarity not likely long to escape the attention of those fre- quenting the slip. But without further com- the counter as to be tinjustifiable in reference {3 even to any propeller, that the tug must he held alone in fault, Hud the tug kept with- in the line that ordinary prudence and ordi- nary practice require no injury would have been done. The steamer was properly moored at her wharf; she did nothing to lead the tug beyond that line, and therefore F canoot be held iu faut. Granite State, 3 Wall. 310. ‘The libelant is entitled to a de- cree against the Willie with costs; and the libel should be dismissed with costs as against the Ludgate Hull. Novembei 19, 1886. AN EXCENTRIC DIVER. Jobn Miller, better known as “Pig [ron’’ Miller, has been a well known character in Cleveland torty years. He eame to this city from Oswego, N. Y., when a young man she was then loaded would be about three feet tnder the water line, and that when horizontal the blade would project within about seven or eight inches of the line of the vessel’s side. The tug claims that the steamship was in fault because double screw propellers are aliogether unusual In this port; that the tug had no notice that the steamer had double screws; that such screws project at least four or five feet farther towards the side ot the ship than the blade of the largest single propeller; and’ that they were entitled to notice from the steamer of the danger from construction, or else that the steamer should have furnished guards against collision as is sometime done, ‘The evidence shows that the blow received by the canal boat was upwards of four fvet below the water line. This being so, and the top of the propeller blude when perpen- dicular being three feet below the water level, it follows that the position of the blade at the time of the accident must have been so near upright as to be about four and one balf feet inside of the line of the vessel. This confirms what some of the other wirnesses testify to that the tow went considerably under the steamer’s counter. As the blow was severe, it is clear that she would have swung considerably farther inward if she had not encountered the propeller blade. This position of the tow at the time of. col- hsion considerably inside of the line of the steamer’s side, and under her counter, very nearly approached the position of the blades ot.a single propeller. Ihave no doubt there- fore that the canal boat was swung under the steamer’s stern to an improper and dan- gerous degree even in referenve to single screw propellers. ‘This was not made neces sary or excusable by any of the circum. stances, or the necessities of the tug and the tow in entering the slip; and it was therefore at the risk of the tug, It was brought about doubtless by another and prior fault, viz: in coming up so near to the piers. After land- ing the other tow, the tug should have gone out into the river far enough to enable her to make a turn into the slip less sharp in landing the libelant’s boat, Considering that the tug had brought the canal boat so far under the steamer’s counter and into a place where she had no_ business to be, [ think it would be unjust to impose any part of the loss upon the steamer, notwithstanding the’ considerations that have been so ably urged. Had the collision. occurred, as was first charged, outside of the line of the steamer’s side, or even within a short distance only inside of that line, and where it was not unusual for tugs to go, in the necessary close navigation of the slips, the case would have been different. It would seem rea- sonable to require that vessels of new de- U. S&S. District Court, Southern District of signs having concealed parts beneath the New York. The tug Willie, with libelant’s canal boat in tow; attempted to enter the slip between iers 42 and 43, North River. The steamship Euaeats Hill lay along the upper side of the slip, and two barges were moored abreast on the lower side, leaving a space of about 60 feet between the steamer and the barges. The tug, in attempting to go through this space, brought libelant’s boat so close to the Ludgate Hill that she struck the steamer’s propeller blade and sank in a few min- utes. The steamer had double screw pro- pellers, which are unusual in this port and of which the tug claimed that she had no notice and for this reason that the steamship was in fault. But the evidence indicated that the tug had swung the canal boat under the steamer’s stern to an improper and dan- water dangerous to ordinary shipping should give some notice of their peculiar qualities or have fenders to prevent injury to innocent persons having no suspicion of the concealed dangers. See, however, the Bellerophon, 3 Asp. Mar. L, Cas. (N. 8.) 58. This steamer was, however one of a line of three that had come into this same slip for at least six or seven months before this accident, and the tug had been accustomed to go to the French steamers on the opposite side of the slip very frequently during this time. The pilot of the tug says that he had no knowledge that any of the three steamers of this line were double screw propellers. It seems almost in- gerous degree, even in reference to single credible that notice of this fact should have screw propeller. collision. Spohn alain aoa For that reasont it was | escaped him, held that the tag was solely in tault tor the | the usual knowledge of what is about them |sh Itis notin accordance with that men derive in their daily business, | and thereafrer called Cleveland his home. He began his career tere as a diver in searching for drowned men and continued that cecupation until his death. He used to fish valuable articles out of the river with a pair of grappling tongs and then he would sell the treasure trove. Atter he would fish all day without getting anything, and when the shades of evening fell afrer such a day, he would push off the dock piles of coal. pigs of iron or other articles of value, which he would find in the river the next day and perhaps sell back to the original owners. For several years he succeeded this way in selling Silas Merchant his own pig iron, but in an evil hour for Miller his knavery was discovered and Merchant caused Miller to be sent to the penitentiary. This pig iron affair gave him his sobriquet, After he was set free from prison he re- turned to his old haunts and his vocation of water man. Every school boy remembers Miller and can recall the shiver of excite- ment he felt as he watebed Miller in his boat with his grappling tongs, feeling about the bottom of the river for lost articles or the ghastly remains of some one drowned. Miller, as statad, used to make a business of slyly throwing things into the river and then offering to dive for them. One day at the Detroit boat dock he fell asleep ona truck. ‘The captain of the boat which lay alongside had been one of Miller’s victins, , and seeing him asleep caught up the handles ot the truck quickly and wheeled truck and Miller into the river. Of course the truck sank, much to the captain’s chagrin, and he bad to pay Miller $5 for getting it out. Miller was a most ingenious liar, and many are the stories told of his ability to stretch the truth. Four some time he circulated a petition among his friends to raise money to buy him a diving suit. Or course he never bought the suit and, in fact, he was remarkable in that he never used one in his work. After he had exhausted the patience of his triends with the diving suit project he discovered that he was in need of a set of false teeth. Another petition was circulated and enongh money raised to buy an artificial tusk for an elephant, but Miller’s toothless gums were still conspicuous when he laughea—as he often did—and he never aided mastication with the products of the dentist’s art. : One day, becoming desperate for want of funds, he staggered into Alva Bradley’s office and with real tears gushing from his eyes said: i “‘She’s gone, Mr. Bradley.” *Who’s gone?” said Bradley. “My wife,” said Miller. ‘She died last night and [ haven’t a cent to bury her with,”’ ; ‘*Never mind the money, my man; here’s $5 tor the present and 1’ll see what can be done tor you.”’ Miller left and Bradley made inquiries— sent Rev. Mr. Jones of the floating bethel to investigate. Inafew moments Joneg re- turned, saying: “I didn’t go to Miller’s house. I found his wife, though. She’s the liveliest corpse you ever saw and was walking down Division street with aswinging gate as if she was hunting somebody.” Bradley sighed, but laughed nevertheless at the “cuteness” of old Miller. — aaa This was the bad side of Miller’s life; a humorous side it was, too, and humor seldom belongs to the character of a totally bad man. : Miller saved many lives, and his death was doubtless hastened by exposure and colds — caught in rescuing people. ‘‘Pig Iron,” us his tamiliars called him, saved at least a dozen persons from drowning and receive for his heroism a gold medal from the Cleve- land board of trade. Last fall a drunken man. the last person rescued by him, fell off the Main street bridge. Miller plunged in and carried the insensible body ashore. ‘The water at that time was intensely cold. Miller became chilled and never was a well man afterward: He died of q::ick consumption a the age, as he said, of 62 years, He made himself invaluable to vessel men by and often saved vessels from a soj the dryduck by his skill in repairing ders or in disentangling ropes o obstructions trom propeller whe iy ‘Lewis’ Manual is an excellent w ould be in the hands of all marine. THos. HaRporru