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

ESTABLISHED 1878. VOL. XV. Cireuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Dec, 14, 1891. 1, Towage—Loss of Barge in Tow—incompetence of Pilot.— A barge, while being towed through a channel with a hawser 100 fathoms long, sheered from the course of the tug, struck on submerged rocks, causing her to sink. The pilot of the tug was unfamiliar with the obstructions of the channel, and allowed the tug to go too far to westward of the safe course. Held, that the loss of the barge was properly found to be due to the negligence of the tug. . Same—Salvaga—Remissness of Owner.—The owner the barge gave the utiderwriters notice of abandon- ment, and that he should claim a total loss. They sent a contracting salvor to the wreck, who made an exam- nation, to ascertain whether the barge could be raised or her eargo of coal recovered, and reported that the barge was not worth raising, and that the expense of recovering the coal would equal its value. Held, that the owner of the barge, in seeking to recover for her loss, was not charge- able with remissness, in making no attempt to raise the barge or save ber cargo. . Same—Weakness of Lost Tow—Apportionment.—There having been no concealment of the barge in order to induce the towage contract, and her loss having been in no wise brought about by that condition, the fact that she was too rotten about the decks to admit of her being raised did not affect the owner’s right to recover, nor was respondent entitled to an apportionment of the loss on the ground that, but for the weakness of the barge, the loss would have been comparatively small. Same—Fraudulent Overvaluation—Costs.—A libelant who is entitled to recover for the loss of a barge through the negligeace of a tug having her in tow, but who, being an expert, falsely testifies as to her yalue, and procures other witnesses to make statements as to her value which he knows to be incorrect, for the purpose of enhancing the amount of his recovery, should be required to pay the costs of a refer- ence to ascertain such value. 44 Fed. Rep. 382, modified. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 1, Collision—Mutual Fault—Eyvidence. two biasts of her whistle to the ferry-boat, indicating her intention to cross the bows of the ferry-boat, as required by rule 1 of the supervising inspectors, aud put her helm some- what to the starboard, and, after ranning a short distance under her starboard helm, sounded two more blasts to the ferry-boat. The ferry-boat did not hear any of the siznals of the propeller, the last of which was given when the ves- sels were about a quarter of a mile distant, and therefore did not respond to them as required by rule 2 of the in- spectors, but at the same time with the lust signal of the propeller, blew one blast, indicating her purpose to pass to the right of the propeller. Neither vessel changed her course after the giving of these signals, until too Jate to avoid a collision. Held, that the propriety of the course of the ferry-boat was to be determined by the rules of the navigation act, (Rev. St. U. 8. 2 4233,) and that having the propeller on her starboard side, and being entitled to keep her course as provided by rule 25, and the propeller being required by rule 19 to keep out of the way, the ferry-boat could not be held liable with the propeller for the collision that ensued, even if she had heard the signals of the pro- pelier. Sume—Conflict of Local and Federal Navigation Rules,— The rule of the supervising inspectors governing naviga- tion in New York harbor, that a steam vessel approaching another on a crossing course, so as to endanger collision, shall signify by a blast or blasts of the whistle what course she proposes to take, cannot be held to deprive a vessel hay- ing another on her starboard side ot her right to keep on her course, as provided by rule 23 of the navigation act, (Rev. St. U, S. Z 4283.) 8. Same—Reversing Engines—Evidence.—Rule 21 of the navigation act (Rev. St. U, 8. 4 4233) provides that every steam vessel approaching another so as to involve risk of collision shall slacken her speed, and, if necessary, reverse her engines. After the propeller signalled her intention to cross the bows of the ferry-boat, there was an interval of 80scconds, during which the ferry-boat hada right to ex- . pect that the propeller would make the proper movement to avoid collision, by altering her course to starboard, in which ease it would have been as dangerous to reverse as to go forward. Held, that the ferry-boat was not at fault for not re of 4, Dec. 14, 1891. the weak condition of | ‘A propeller sounded | | ered by the rules of navigation as enacted by congress, | reversing her engines until it was clear that the propeller did not intend to alter her course. TuE learned district judge, from whose decision this appeal is brought, thought the first signal from the pro- peller was given when the two vessels were somewhat further apart than we find them to have been. He found both vessels in fault, and decreed a division of the loss; holding the propeller in fault for undertaking to go to the left, or across the bows of the ferry-boat, instead of to the right, or under her stern, as required by the rules of the supervising inspectors; and holding the ferry-boat in fault for not answering the first signal given by the propeller, or giving any timely signal herself to the pro- peller to denote her own intentions, as required by rules land 2 of the inspectors. As we understand the rules of the supervising inspectors, they mean to require steamers at all times, when passing or meeting at a dis- tance within a half mile of one another, to give and answer signals by blasts of the steam-whistle to indicate what course they propose to take; and the signal which indicates a purpose to pass tothe right of the other is one blast, and that which indicates a purpose to pass to the left of the other is two blasts; nd, when the rules say the other steamer shall promptly answer a sig- nal, they mean that the answer shall be one which indi- cates her proposed course. Rule 1 prescribes that the | answering steamer “shall answer promptly by a similar blast of the steam-whistle.” If this means that she must give a response indicating that she will conform her movements to the proposed course of the other, we think the rule transcends the authority of the inspectors. We do not mean to be understood that the inspectors may not lawfully require a steamer to give a signal to another indicating that she observes her, and proposes to perform her duty properly in passing or meeting; but the inspectors cannot lawfully require the other steamer to assent from a departure from the statute in cases coy- and the inspector’s rules are not to be construed as mean- ing to do so. When vessels are meeting head on, or nearly so, they are under an imperative obligation to pass | to the right, by the lav of congress, unJess soma special circumstances justify a departure pursuant to rule 24; and neither can be obliged to depart from the statute at the request of the other. So, when two steam vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her starboard side must keep out of the way, and the other must keep her course, unless a departure is necessary pursuant to rule 24; and the vessel which is required to keep her course eannot be compelled to depart from it at the instance of the other. The rules of navigation en- acted by congress are obligatory upon vessels approach- ing each other from the time necessity for caution be- gins, and from that time, as the vessels advance, so long as the means and opportunity to avoid danger of collision remain. Until the necessity for precaution begins, ob- viously there can be no fault on the part of either vessel —rules of the inspectors to the contrary, notwithstand- ing, of which the other can justly complain. If a propo- sition is given proposing a departure by one vessel, and is consented to by the other vessel, undoubtedly the for- mer is justified in assuming that the other understands that a departure is to be attempted, and will govern her- self accordingly. Inasmuch as the ferry-boat knew that thc pir, vuU% proposed to cross her bows, and that unless te 2 changed that purpose the situation involved 1,s« of col- lision, the question arises whether the ferry-Lvat should not have stopped and backed, in obedience to the require- ments of rule 21. As the vessels were nearing wach other at a speed of 2,500 feet a minute, there was but little if NO. 19 any more than 30 seconds between safety and collision after the second signal of the propeller. But there was still an interval, during which the ferry-boat had a right to expect that the propeller would make the proper mance- uver to avoid her; and, as she could not know that the propeller would not alter her course to starboard, it would have been as perilous for the ferry-boat to stop and back as to proceed. We think that she properly delayed stop- ping and backing until it became obyious that the pro- peller was not going to clear her; and, in the short inter- vening distance, this was not obvious until the propeller gave the alarm signals, and then the ferry-boat did all that she could. The case is one for the application of the rule that a vessel which is primarily in fault for a collision cannot shift its consequences in part upon the other vessel, without clear proof of the contributing negligence or fault of the latter. Her own negligence sufficiently accounts for the disaster. The Comet, 9 Blatchf, 323. There should be a reversal, and a decree dismissing the libel, with costs of the district court and and of this appeal to be paid by the libelants. The cause is remanded, with instructions accordingly. Fed. Rep. Vol. 49. rr LAKE SHIP-BUILDING. Nearly $6,000,000 up to date marks the investments for this season in new lake-built tonnage, chiefly steam. The largest steamer building is for the Eddy Transporta- tion Co. of Bay City, Mich.,and the Detroit Dry Dock Co. have this contract now well along. She will be 3621 feet in length, and carry 4,000 tons on a sixteen feet draft. The above figures are suflicient for builders to judge of the co-efficient of fineness in the lines of such a carrier. Her cost is to be $225,000. The Chicago Shipbuilding Co. Colehour, Ill.,a suburd of Chicago, will launch the handsome steel steamer Mariposa in about two <veeks- Her hull dimensions are 250 feet, 45 feet, and 24 feet; to cost, $240,009, and to be fitted with all modern facilities for handling ship and cargo. Without cessation, ten whalebacks are to be launched, aad the first of this fleet will load grain next week, as at Superior, Wis., it is the custom to load a whaleoack within a day ortwo after she is launched; 320 feet in length is the scale on which this last batch of lake freight carriers are being constructed. At tne yards of F. W. Wheeler & Co. four steel light- ships for the Light-house Board are being constructed for coast service. The Globe Iron Works Co. have nearly completed two light-house tenders for the ocean service, and the Lighthouse Board have just accepted the tender Amaranth, built by the Cleveland Shipbuilding Co, for lake service. Building is brisk at Superior, Bay City, Chicago. De- troit, Wyandotte, Toledo, Cleveland and Buffalo. ED Or ee RETALIATORY MEASURES. Private advices from Washington state that the several interests at work to obtain the deepening of the great lake channels and deep water navigation from Duluth to the sea coast, indicate that there is a strong probability that retaliatory measures will be taken against Canada, because of the imposition of tolls on American vessels passing the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. When this spring the Canadian government reimposed tolls on American vessels passing these canals the attention of Seeretary Blaine was brought to the matter, and retal- awry measures by charging tsll on all Canadian vessels yassing the grea Sault caral into Lake Superior were proposed. Secretary wine was at once interested in the matter, and after a numpver —_ conferences hs came to she conclusion at once to take steps toward a system of tells. In a few days, it is said, the matter will probably ; be made public from Washir gon. ? : ae rs