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

Important Decision in a Raft Collision Case. oo decision rendered last week by J udge Ricks, sitting in the United States district court at Cleveland, is of general interest to the lake marine at this time, on account of agitation in _ the matter of raft towing. The case was that of C. E. Benham _and others, owners of the schooner H. C. Richards, against the tug Niagara, and was fully tried and argued by Harvey D. _ Goulder, of Cleveland, proctor of the owners of the Richards, and Judge Swan and F. R. Gillette, of Detroit, for the respond- ents. The decree is for the libelants and United States District Clerk H F. Charlton has been appointed as commissioner to take testimony and assess damages. On August 20, the pro- peller Britannic, bound up the St. Clair river with the schooners Woolson and H.C. Richards in tow, had proceded as far as a point below Southeast bend in the night and exchanged with the tug Niagara, then approaching from above and descending the river, passing signals of two blasts with the appropriate signal for passing to starboard, which signals were exchanged at a proper and appropriate distance, and the said tow and the said tug approached each other with no notice to those in the tow that any circumstance existed to make the passage danger- ous. The Britannic and tow duly starboarded their helms, and made over to and kept the port-hand side of the channel, and were in proper position to pass. the Niagara was passing said tow it was discovered that she had in tow a raft of unusual shape and size, which was occupying substantially the whole channel, and was coming down the ae of the tow were theretipon starboarded, and they kept in just as close as they could to the port bank, and the Britannic then checked down. It further alleges that there was a dock which made out a little from the shore ahead and on the port bow of the Britannic, and the Richards ran into the bank below with her helm starboarded, notwithstanding which the raft caught the Woolson, (which was the first vessel in the tow) and brought her stern down upon the Richards as the latter lay against the bank, tearing out the rail, stringers and stanchions, and carrying away some of her headgear and her rigging on the starboard side and otherwise damaging her. short time previous to meeting the Britannic and tow, been in collision with some other vessel and been badly broken and dis- arranged, so that instead of being in the usual and ordinary shape and of the usual size and condition proper for being towed through said river the same was unwieldy, and to a considerable extent unmanageable and innavigable so that it occupied nearly the whole channel at the point of the collision, and was not in ready command of the Niagara and the tug Saugatuck, the other tug astern and attached to said raft, and was not in condition to be towed in that place. The libel avers that the Richards was i wholly without fault and that the Niagara was guilty of fault in the following respects aid particulars: 1. That she was attempt- ing to navigate said river, having in tow a raft not of proper size and condition to be towed through said river, and was not mak- ing a reasonable and ordinary use of said river. 2. That having said raft in tow in its broken, unmanageable and innavigable con- dition, she gave no notice of these facts to the approaching tow. 3. That, having such a tow, she exchanged the ordinary passing signals with the Britannic, and continued to approach without warning of the dangerous tow she had. 4. In not stopping the raft by means of the tug at the stern of said raft and holding . said raft over against the bank of the river and warning approach- ing craft of the dangerous character and condition of the obstruction when said raft was above Southeast bend, where it could have readily been done and said raft put in condition to ’ proceed. ; | : The testimony in the case very clearly established all that the libel charged in relation to the unmanagable condition of the raft. ‘The owners of the raft had already brought suit in another court against the owners of the propeller Kitty M. Forbes and schooner Mabel Wilson for colliding with the raft previous to the occurrance on which the present case was based and, in the opin- renureerecnicniemetmaammnerainainea seis MARINE REVIEW. The libel alleges that when channel, towed by the Niagara with good headway. ‘The helms The libel says that said raft so towed by the Niagara had, a. £T ion of the court, the respondents rather insisted in their presen- tation of their detense that the raft was so unmanageable and unweildy by. reason of a previous collision and damage thereto that it could neither be stopped for repairs nor for a more favor- able time for descending the river, nor controlled in such a bend as that where this accident took place. The defense seemed to rely largely upon their utter helplessness to control the move- ments of this raft as sufficient reason for not being held liable for injuries caused thereby. ‘The mate, who was in charge of the tug Niagara at the time of the collision, admits that he had not examined the raft to ascertain its condition after the collision with the Kitty M. Forbes, neither had he been advised by the rear tug or the man in charge of the raft of the damages arising from said collision. Seeing the Britannic and her tow approach- ing, he says he went first to the port side ot his tug and looking back saw the port side of the raft dragging along the rushes on the Canada bank, and then going to the starboard side of the tug he says he remarked to the watchman: “ That fellow (referring. to the Britannic and tow) can get through there hole right through there.” passageway as a ‘hole’,” says the court, “is significant in itself. Immediately he sounded two blasts of the. whistle as an invita- tion to the Britannic and tow to approach: It was clearly the duty of the commanding officer of that tug, before the signal was given, to know that there was a sufficient space upon the starboard side of that raft to permit that tow to pass in safety. His signal was an invitation to the steamer to approach, and a There is a notice to her that in the judgment of the master of said tug there -was sufficient channel for the tow to pass in safety. ‘Without undertaking to determine here the legal relations of the tug Ni-- agara and the tug Saugatuck, assisting in navigating that raft at its rear end, or the agent in charge of that raft, I am clearly of the opinion that, primarily, it was the duty of the Niagara to know that a sufficient space in the channel was unobstructed and open to the tow to pass before the two-blast whistle was given. — I am just as well satisfied from the evidence in this case that | there was not a sufficient space to have justified the master of the tug in inviting the Britannic to pass. It was clearly his duty under the circumstances, to have given a danger signal the mo- ment the headlights of the Britannic came in view. With such ' adanger signal the Britannic and her tow could have safely stopped below the bend at several places where the raft could have passed without danger.” In conclusion the decision says: ‘‘ When the Niagara pur- sued her journey down the river with the raft in the condition described, she took upon herself all the risks that might follow from such a dangerous course. There was nothing in the law to prevent her making the attempt, but she did it at her own risk and peril, and every injury and loss occasioned by the innaviga- ble and unmanageable condition of the raft she ought in justice to pay. I think, under all circumstances developed by the testi- ‘mony in this case, that the master of the Niagara was censurable for proceeding with his journey. He is especially censurable for having failed in sounding the danger signal, or in not giving no- tice by sending a tug in advance of him, and at a sufficient dis- tance to notify vessels of the character of the raft he had in tow so as to enable them to seek shelter in such places as the river bank afforded, or choose passing places at such points where the width of the river would make it safe for all concerned. If there had been a reasonable channel on the starboard side of the raft through which the Britannic and her tow could have passed with safety if they had skilfully managed their tow, it might then be proper to consider the claim now made that this collision was caused by the want of care on the part of the Richards. But the master of the Niagara having deliberately invited the Brit- annic to try her luck in getting through what he called a “hole,” he cannot now claim a slight sheer or change in the course of any of the tow as having caused the collision complained of. It mav not be improper for the court here to remark that in view of the great value of the tonnage daily passing through these rivers and canals connecting our lakes, and in the absence of proper legislation, tugs and parties in charge of rafts must be held to a high degree of care, in the first place as to the proper construc- tion of the rafts, so as to make them manageable and navigable, and in the second place as to the proper care and diligence in transporting them through the lakes and rivers with reference not only to the time and character of the weather when they shall undertake to pass through, but also with reference to their proper handling.” j Captains kdward Kelly and John Nelson sat with the court as nautical assessors. “The master’s characterizing the’