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

THE LUMBER 'TRADE. Referring to the lumber trade, the Chica- go Tribune says: Up to the present time there has not been any noticeable activity among the lumbermen regarding lake freights, and it is scarcely probable that any thing definite will be settled before the first of next month. Thus far the few vessels that have been chartered in the lumber trade were secured at the prevailing rate of last season, although the vesselmen are con fident that as soon. as the lumber trade is fairly opened rates will be somewhat better than they were last year. ‘lhe timber har vest during the winter has been one of the largest for many years, and there will un- doubtedly be a heavy demand for vessels, al- though at present the Chicago dealers say that they are well stocked with most grades aud will only need but tew sorts for some time to come. ‘The lumber trade, however, is growing more brisk every day, and the recent reductions made by the railroads on lumber freights to Missourl river points, will wake the trade still livelier, as Chicago merchants are now better able to compete with theriver trade. ‘Che Wisconsin timber cut, as reported from the best authorities- will nat vary much from the following tab- ulated statement: Wisconsin river, . Black river ....... Chippewa and: Flambeau St. Croix river.. Menowinee river. Wolf river .... 352,000,000 212,500,000 Scattered camps .. Total... THE GREAT SHIP CANAL. When Napoleon.sent his engineers to take) thé levels across the'isthmus ot Suez in order to determine the practicability of digging a eanal through the sand for commercial pur- poses, they made out that the surface of. the Gulf of Suez was thirty feet higher than the Mediterranean, and so the project was for the time given up. ‘The blunder in the sur- ‘vey was'not discovered until 1840, when a new scheme began to be agitated for cutting a ship channel that would shorten the voy- age from Europe to India and the east by almost the entire distance around the conti- nent of Africa. In 1854 M. DelLesseps formed a canal company and obtained a grant from the viceroy of Egypt for ninety-nine years. ‘The scheme was looked upon with suspicion . by British engineers and British capitalists, and the inception and prosecution of the enterprise were largely due to the French, In 1859 the work was begun, and ten years later the Red Sea and the Mediterreanean met in the Bitter Lakes. The total length of the canal is not far from 100 miles about seventy-five miles of the course being tormed by excavation and twenty-five miles lying through the shallow lakes of the’ isthmus, which, in many places, require deepening. The ordinary width of the canal is 325 feet atsurface and seventy-two feet at the bottom, the depth of the water being twenty-six, feet. here are no locks throughout its course, and its termini are Suez, at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez on the south from which point there are railroads to Cario and Alexandria and a “fresh wate! eanal’?’ to the Nile, and Port Said at the margin of the Mediterranean on the north. The building of an artificial harbor at each terminus, with the necessary protections, was'reckoned a greater undertaking than the excavation of the canal itself. The work was formally opened on the 17 of November, 1869, and on the 25 it was publicly announced that ‘Lord Beaconfield had purchased from Ismail Pasha, who had pécome viceroy of Egypt under the title of Khedive, 176,602 out ot the 400,000 shares of £20 each. The sum paid was £4,080,000 and the commissions to the Rothschilds and other expenses of the transaction amounted to about £100,000 more. By the terms of transfer the government received interest at five per cent on shares till the year 1894, after which itis to receive the full dividends. There are three members of the board of di- rectors representing the interest of the British government, one of whom is a resi- dent director in Paris, where he has hitherto acted in perfect accord with the French majority in the directory. ‘ —_$—— ‘The Fero is to be decked over and convert- ec into a barge at once. STEAMSHIP COM- PANY. ‘Phe announcement is made that Messrs. Charles and Henry Maclver have retired from the management of the Cunard Steam- ship Company, which some three years ago was formed into a limited company. lmn- portant divergences of opinion have existed ever since the new departure, between the general body of divectors and the Messrs. Maclver. ‘The board of directors have pur- sued the policy of building steamers of an enormous size at a proportionately heavy yt beth of construction and maintainance whereas the Messrs. Maclver state that their own experience is strongly in the direction that such steamers are te large and costly to be worked at a profit. ‘The director’s re- port on the operations of the past year states that the profit amount to 219,744/; but after various deductions for depreciation, in- surance, etc., and 10,0002 to the reserve fund, the available balance is 67,0612 11s 10d, out of which the directors propose a dividend of 4l per cent. on the capital of 1,600,0002, leav- ing a balance of 3,0617 11s 10d _ to be carried forward... The directors report that, not- withstanding the adverse. conditions of the trade which prevaiied throughout the earlier months of 1882, the revenue shows a con- siderable advance on that of 1881. ‘lhe re- port then says :—‘‘Arrangements have been made for the determination of all managing agencies of the company as from the 31 of March, by which a substantile saving will be effected. As part of these arrangements, the agreement with the vendors to the com- pany has been moditied so as to permit the Messrs. Maclver to dispose of a large portion of the shares whith they had engaged to hold for tive years from the 81 March, 1880. Phese shares have been taken over by directors of the company. THE CUNARD MARINE LAW. COLLISION—PROPELLER ENTERING HARBOR. Circuit Court. N. D. Illinois. Jan. 1883. Where a propeller was entering a harbor ona dark night ata rate of speed, she was held liable for a collision with a schooner leaving such harbor, notwithstanding the evidence was conflicting as to the position of the lights of the schooner, or the period at which a torch—light had been flashed on the schooner, and although the propeller may have had a proper lookout. Drummond, J. This is a libel tiled by the owner of the schooner Helen Blood to re- cover damages caused by a collision of the propeller Badger State with the schooner on the evening of October 9, 1877. A tug took the schooner in tow on that evening to start out on her voyage from Chicago to Muskegon, Michigan, which, after towing Lher out a short distance from the harbor, let her go, and the schooner was then proceed- ing to make ‘sail, and while doing so, the hour being about 9 o’clock, the propeller was observed some distance off, making for for the harbor of Chicago. ‘There is some diflerence of opinion among the witnessess as to the precise course of the vessels, but it ‘seems sufficent to say that the course of the schooner was about N. by W., and that of the propeller about 5.1-2 E. ‘The wind was not far from 5. W. ‘The collision took place only ashort distance from the harbor, pro- bably less than a mile from the pier. ‘The propeller struck the schooner a glancing blow on the starboard side. ‘The night was not very dark, and a light properly displayed on a vessel could. be seen ata distance of several miles. - The rule of law in a case like this is well settled. It was the duty of the propeller to avoid the schooner, and not having done so, and the collision having taken place, it is incumbent on the propeller to establish by competent evidence that the collision was caused, in whole or in part, by some fault on the part of the schooner. It is claimed by the defendant that the schooner was in fault in three particulars; that the schooner did not, just. before the time of the collision, show a starboard or green light, as law requires; that she had no sufficient lookout; and that she was not properly navigated at the time. ‘lhe princi- pal dificulty grows out of the first defense alleged. Was the collision caused tn con- sequence of a green light not having been displayed by the schooner at a proper time and in a proper place? ‘The law of congress required that there should be ‘fon the star- board side, a green light of such Character as to be visable on a dark night, with aclear atmosphere, at a distance of at Jeast two miles, and so constructed as to show a uni- form und unbroken, light over an are of the horizon of 10 points of the compass, and so fixed us to throw the ligkt from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the star- board side’ ‘There seems to be no doubt but that the lights required by the statute were placed upon the schooner before she was released by the tug. ‘There is the cvon- current testimony of several of the witnesses that the lights were properly placed prior to that time. The doubt about the green light arises from the testimony of one or two of the witnesses on the part of the defense, and from the fact, as alleged by some of the defendant’s witnesses, that the green light was not seen until immediately before the collision by those who were on the lookout on board the propeller. A witness who was on the tug testifies that just as they started out with the tow, and aman was about to put up the lights, he asked him not to put up the green light in its place until they got outside, because it would glare in his face, and he says that it was then put on the top or forward hatch, and was not put up on the vessel betore he let go of her; and in this he is corrobrated by the engineer of the tug. Some of the witnesses on the propeller, and who were on the lookout, ‘state that if the green light had been in its proper place in the rigging it could have been seen from the propeller for a considerable time before the collision, and in season to have avoided it. ‘These statements of the witnesses on the tug are distinctly contradicted by several wit- nesses op the schooner, who state that the lights, including the green light, were both in their proper places in the rigging, where they were distinctly visible; and the state- ment made by these- witnesses on board of the tug that the green light was put upon the deck and turned away from the tug, does not seem to be very consistent with that made by several of the witnesses on the propeller, that they saw the green light; one of whom, especially, asserts that it was in the rigging, because if it had been turned away on the deck, as mentioned by the wit- nesses o1 board of the tug, it could hardly have been visible in the manner stated by witnesses on board of the propeller. If the green light was on the deck, and it was put in the rigging after that it must have been some person ou board of the schoorier; and we have no testimony from any one on board of the schooner indicating a change of the position of the lights from the time they were first. taken and-put in place. It is distinctly stated by several witnesses that after the schooner returned to the harbor in consequence of the injury, the lights includ- the green light; were suspended in the rig- ging. Itis claimed on the part of the de- fense that those on board of the propeller consituting the lookout, among whom was the captain, must have necessarily seen the green light if it.had been in its proper place. That would seem to be so, provided they did keep a proper lookcut. It seems rather singular that the captain should first see : dark object, the vessel itself, and not the lights of the vessel or either of thei. ‘There are others on board of the propeller who state that they did see the lights, including the green light; but, as has already been stated, not long before the collision. > Lt may have been in consequence of the fact of mak- ing sail, or the course of the two vessels in thus approaching each other, that the light was obscured fora time. It seems. however, very clear that there were not on board of the propeller sufficient precautions taken to avoid the collision. propeller was running too fast; she had not slackened her speed in approaching the har- bor, which was nine miles an hour, Being so near the harbor after dark, she should have slackened her speed and kept a speci- ally vigilant lookout for approaching vessels, This appears not to have been done. In the conflict of evidenceas to the condition of the green light a short time before the collision, the statements made by the captain on the following day are not without a certain significance. It is true, he denies those statements, and a witness or two present say they were not heard; but another wit- ness present, entirely disinterested, says that the statements were made, namely, that the lights of the schooner were seen, In the first place, the and no satisfactory explanation was then given why the schooner was not avoided by the propeller, Admitting that this part of the case is not free from difficulty, still lam inelined to think the weight of the evidence is that tae green ight of the schooner was in its prpper place and could have been seen, and the schooner avoided by the propeller, if proper care had been taken. In any event, I think it cannot be asserted, with any degree of cone that the absence of a green light in its proper fidence that the absence of a gréen light in its proper place contributed to the collision. It is claimed, on the part of the defense, that there was no sufficient lookout on board of the schooner. It may be admitted that there was not anyone stationed as a regular lookout at a proper place prior to the col- lision ; but, if there had been, what difference would it have made? ‘he object: of x look- out was to ascertain and-guard against ap- proaching vessels. ‘There was many men on board of the schooner who saw the light of the propeller a long way off. The object of the lookout, therefore, was fully accom. plished. ‘Che light of the propeller was seen, and it was known that it was a propeller approaching. ‘The duty of the schooner, un- der such circumstances, was to keep on her course without change; and I think the evidence establishes, beyond all doubt that she did keep on her course, and that if there were any change of the schooner, it wag when the collision was so imminent that the change did not contribute in any degree to the collision. . Some of the witnesses on the part of the propeller state while some of the sails ‘were full-just at the point of collision, others were shaking in the wind, which, it is claimed, would not have been the’ case provided she had kept on her course, as she had the wind free.. How far this may have been effected, if true, by any chance of course at the moment, or by the fact that the schooner had not made full sail on her, I do not think it is necessary to inquire. There is nothing in the other point, that the schooner was not properly) navigated. As already said, it was her duty to keep. her course, and the evidence shows that she did; or, if there were any change, it was one that did not cause the collision. Witnesses on board of the schooner state that after the propeller had been observed for some time, }and the indications were that proper measures were not being taken to avoid the schooner, a torch was litand shown from the vessel, in order that additional evidence might be given to the approaching propeller of the danger of collision. ‘Those on board of the schooner declare that this torch was shown in ample time to enable the propeller to avoid the schooner; while those on board: of the propeller state that it was shown when the collision was unavoidable. I do not place any great stress upon the exhibition of the torch under the circumstances; because ot the conflict of evidence in relation to the time when it was shown. In looking at the whole case, it seems to me that the necessary vigilance required of the propeller at the time and under the. cireumstances was not shown, and that the collision may be fairly said to have been the coisequence of this want of vigilance on her part. There seems to be no question about the damages, and the decree of the district court is affirmed, $$ A torpedo boat has just been satisfactorily tried at Constantinople, in which a Siemens electro-motor drives two screw propellers in the rear of the boat. The vessel is cigar- shaped, and moves under water at the rate of eight milesan hour. Uts path is traced in the day time by a wire which projects above the surface, and is followed by a telescope; in the night by a lantern having an opening only towards the shore, and a light too fee- ble to betray itself to the enemy by reflec- tion. The place in which the torpedo boat was tried furnished a severe test, on acconnt of the strong currents, which vary in direc- tion in different parts of the channel, and in strength from one part ot the day to another, The wires conveying the explosive discharge are, of course, distinct trom those carrying the motive current. ———_—e—___ A new steambarge being built for Hull & Amandinger was launched at Benton Ha r- bor Saturday. Her dimensions are: Length of keel, 102 feet; breadth of beam, 2416 feet; depth of hold, 91g feet. Her engine, which is 18x20 inches, was built by Anderson & Coleman, St. Joseph, Her boiler is 7x14 feet, and her wheel 7 feet in diameter 1] feet lead. * » With