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

MARITIME LAW. WEST ADAMS STREET VIADUCT COLLISION— _OFF¥Y OF CHICAGO Ve. THE TUG THOMAS ‘, District Court N. D, Mich, "Blodgett Judge. On petition of the Vessel Owners’ Towing company for hmitation of liability for the collision with the west abut- ment of the Adams street bridge on Septem ber 28, 1883, by their tug Thomas Hood, hav- ing in tow theevhooner David Vance. ‘The re- sultof the collision was the fall of a section of the Adams street viaduct reating on the abut- iient, and logs of life and injuries were sus- tained by persons then being on and under the viaduct. ‘I'o save themselves from lability for damages beyond the value of the tug and tow this petition is filed under the act of Congress passed March 8, 1851, to limit the Hability of ship owners, etc. . The defense was that the tug was not engaged in inter-state or foreign commerce and was not entitled to the benefit of the act. ~ ‘The court said that from the evidence pre- sented two questions arose: 1. Is the Hood such a vessel as entitles her owner to the benefit of the act of Congress which = limits the liabitity of the owner to the value of the vessel and her freight then pending? 2. 1s the liability of petitioner, for the damages caused to persons and property by the col- /lision of the Vance while in tow of this tug with this bridge abutment, the abutment itself not being in the navigable waters of the Chicago river, but upon the bank of the river direotly adjvining.the water, sucha liability as comes within ule provisions of the law invoked? - As to te firet question, the act of March 8, 1851, provides that the owner of x vessel shall not be liable for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture done, oc- casione:], or incurred, without the privity or the knowledge of such owner, beyond the value of bis interest in such vessel and her |- freight, then pending; and while the act does ot by its terms limit its operation to vessels engaged in inter-state or foreign commerce, undoubtedly the power ot Con- gress tu, legislate on the subject is to be found only. in the provisions of section 8, article lof the Constitution, which authorizes it to regulate the commerce with foreign states und among the several states, and, if the tug in question is nota vessel employedin the business, of inter-state or torelgn com- merce, then she is not. within the terms of the act of Congress, and her owners can not claim the benefit of its provision. ‘While this tug does not herself carry freight or passengers, the subject of inter-state and foreign commerce, the tacts as found by the commissioner show that her employment consista almost wholly in taking into and out of the Chicago harbor, and upon the waters of Lake Michigan, vessels that are engaged in such commerce, and that her voyages in such employment often take her from Chi- cago, her home port, into the waters and porte of other states, and it seems very clear that as an indispensible aid and adjunct to such vessels, she may be eaid to be employed in such commerce, and while towing the grain, lumber, and coal-laden vessels which ply between the port of Chicago and the other ports upon the great lakes, this tug is as much engaged in commerce as the vessels themselves, and in the present mode of doing business, especially through the agency of sail vessels employed upon these lakes, the tug boat is as much a part ot the commercial marine us the vessels in whose hulls the car” goes are actually carried, From the nature of her employment, this tug seems to come within the principle of the law invoked. She in the pursuit of her business is subject to all the riska and perils of the sea incident to a commercial vessel, especially to risks of collision, having to be out on the open lake in the night-time, in foggy and tempestuous weather. Her owner takes the same tisk that she may by colliding with another ves- sel, through the neglect or want of ekill of the pilot or other employes incur a heavy liability for damages that is taken by the owners of vessels that ply from port to port upon the errands of inter-state or foreign commerce. So It seems she is clearly within the spirit and scope of the act of Congress, The Supreme court had said that ‘the object of this act was to encourage the building of ships by saying, in effect, that his only risk should be his THE MARINE RECORD. investment.in the ship,” and why ought not this rule to extend to a man who builds a tug boat used in commerce, as well as to the ship that carries the commodity in her bold? As to the second question, ‘the court said that it was conceded that if a towing tug like the Hood is a veseel within the scope of the law, and she had done damage while upon the waters of the Chicago river to any other thing floating upon the river, the owner would not be liable beyond her value, but it was contended that as the thing damaged was not upon the river, and did not pertain to commerce, such dumage did not fall with- in the intent of the law. The terms of the act, however, are very broad: ‘For any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing lost, damaged, or forfeiture done, occasioned, or incurred with- out the privity or knowledge of the owner,” he owner shall only be liable to the extent of the value of his interest in the vessel ang freight pending. But the situations of the dovk, walls or warehouses, ete., rising up from the water render collisions with them not only possible but probable, and con- stitute one of the perils of navigation. Soa steamer of navigation. A steamer for in- stance, was liable to explode at a dock in a harbor and injure persons and property on the land toa far greater amount than her value. “It seems to me the purpose of the act was to limit the liability ot the owner as to any damage his vessel should do without his privity or knowledge whether the person or thing damaged was upon the water or the land, as the risk of damaging things upon the land, especially with a steam vegsel, is a8 great as that of damaging things upon the water. ‘Ihe petitioner is therefore entitled to the decree prayed ror.” THE PHGENIX INNURANCE COMPANY V8, THE PROPELLER AVON. Blodgett, Judge. In this case the Phosnix.Insutance Com- pany were the underwriters on the hull of the barge Thomas A. Scott as insurers and reinaurers in the sum of $4,000. On the 29th of October, 1880, the barge Scott, with a cargo of 44,000 bushels of corn, in tow of the propeller Connemaugh, while on a voyage from Chicago to Erie, anchored a half mile off the purt of Milwaukee, east from the piers of the harbor, The propeller left the barge and proceeded alone into the harbor. Upon coming to anchor the barge immediately hoisted her anchor light in the fore rigging and an anchor watch was duly set. This was about 6 0’clock in the after- noon, About two hours afterward the propeller Avon, who had been unloading her cargo at Milwaukee, left the harbor for the port of Chicago and ran down the barge, sinking her. The claimants for the Avon set up the following defense: 1. Vhat the barge lay at an improper place, being right athwart the course of ves- sels coming in and going out of the harbor of Milwaukee. 2. hat she improperly displayed two anchor lights, and thirdly and last, that her officers or crew did not when they saw the Avon approaching her, display a torch light. The court found, that the course for ves- sels bound from Milwaukee to Chicago, or from Milwaukee to the lower lakes, was southward in one case and northward in the other case of the point where the barge lay anchored, and there was ample sea-room on either side of the barge to have safely laid their course. That for vessels so bound, there wus no danger to them by reason of the place where the barge lay anchored if pro- vided witha proper lookout vigilantly attend- ing to his duty. The court further found, that the lookout on the Avon, was negligent and incom- petent, and that a lookout ought to be one that could timely-discern vessels lying in the path of the propeller, at a sufficient dis- tance to have notified the master, so that he safely could keep clear of it with the use of his eyes, without the aid of an opera or fleld glues. Both the master and the lookout onthe Avon were in.fault for their tardy movements in ascertaining the position of the barge, and that much valuable time was lost in procuring and adjusting the opera glass and in handing it backward and for- ward from one to the other. That while there was smokein the harbor, caused by | the cost of the suit. the rolling mils a mile and a half ‘south of the harbor the wind being from the sotith- ward, the condition of atmosphere was such that it did not obscure lights in the harbor in such a manner they could not be seen at safe distancé and in time to »vold a collision ; and as the lights of the Avon were plainly discernable to those on the barge xt more thap a half a mile dietant, there was no rea- son why thoge on the Avon could not see the light on the barge, and, therefore, the barge could not be suid to be anchored in an improper place. As to the second point that the barge im- properly displayed two anchor lights when the statutes of the United States allow no more than one, the court found that there was nothing in the statute to make it im- proper. for a vessel to display two anchor lights under cirenmstances where the office” of the deck in his judgment was of an opinion that it was necessary to do so. ‘That cases could be easily imagined when the officer of the anchor watch ought go to do, it is found, however, as a question of fact, the barge displayed but one ancher light. As to the last point—that the toreblight should have been exhibited—the court found that a vessel at anchor with her proper signal light displayed had a right to rely on vessels navigating near her that they would, with a proper lookout, give her a wide berth, and not approach her so near ag to involve risk of collision. ‘he court found as a matter or fact that the barge displayed a globe lamp to the Avon, and had the Avon been properly managed ehe would have avoided the barge; but in any event, the display of a globe lamp instead of a torehlight did not in any way contribute to the collision, The Avon was compelled to pay about $5,500 damages and An appeal was prayed for by the Avon and allowed upon giving a bond for $10,000. Robert Rue for the in- surance company snd C. C. Clark and Williams & Potter for the propeller Avon. ec a ape es GENERAL NEWS. Messrs. Wolff & Harland launched at Bel- fast, Ireland, on January 31 the new steamer Belgie for the White Stur line. The American Electric Light and INuvi- nating Company, the Brush Electric Light- ing Company, and the New England Weat ern Electric Lighting Company, sre con- sidering the advisability of consolidating. The superiority of American dredging machines, which has been shown inthe work on the Panama canal, has led to orders for them by foreign governments. The last of these are from Spain. A drag-boat, with a screw propeller of 100-horse power, five iron barges, and two tow-boats have been called for to be used at the port of San Juan, Porto Rico. Three months are allowed for send iug in proposals, and eight months thereafter for building the apparatus. * The House committee on rivera and har- bors will complete their bill this week and report as coon thereafter as possible. North. western appropriations remain unchanged from the figures reported two weeks ago. Under the rules the river and harbor com- mittee will retain control of the bill, and the committee on appropriations will have no supervision. ‘The committee will try to pass the bill under the rules, and so cut off debate- Under no possible plea will the committee consent to an increase of the items of ap- propriations fixed in the bill. The aggregate asked is comparatively emall this year. There isn’t a single creek improvement allowed. Messrs. Ogleby, the millionaire Canadian miller of Montreal, representing a syndicate with capital of $4,000,000; Kerr, general traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific, and Barlow Cumberland, general manager of the Lake Superior steamboat company, passed through St. Paul last Thursday en route to Winnipeg to arrange for the trans- portation of 2,000,000 bushels of wheat from Manitoba to Montreal, and place agents throughout Manitoba and Dakota to pur- chase wheat for Canadian mille, shipments to be made via Port Arthur and the lakes ag soon as navigation opens. The gentleman above named deny emphatically the recent rumor that the Canadian Pacifle will ask thirty millions of money at the next session of Parliament. Ashland will be left out of the river and harbor bill now being prepared. Oongress- man Stephenson had expected to have a sur vey made in person to seoure’a swall ap, propriation, perhaps as much as $25,000, but Colonel Barlow, who was ordered to survey Ashland harbor and report an eatimate for the necessary improvements, replied to Gen- eral Parke, Assiatant Chief of Engineers, that ice now prevents a survey being com- pleted, and he does not think It advisable to attempt to do soin the expectation of getting an estimate before Congress this seasion, General Parke says be will not order Col- one! Barlow to go on with the survey, as he has already ordered him to make it, and that is as far as he desired to act in the matter. This consequently will be that Ashland har- bor will be left out in the cold. Judge Gardner is hearing the case of the Calumet and Chicago Canal and Dock Com- pany against Jacob Bremer, which involves the title to the Lronworkers’ Addition to South Chicago, and this bill ts filed to quiet the title. In March, 1874, the Canal and Dock Co. deeded the west 3¢ ofthe new 14 of section 17, 87, 15, Hyde Park, to Charles G. Harris for $40,000, $10,000 being paid down and three notes for $10,000 each being given for the balance, secured by a truet deed on the land, given to General George W. Smith as trustee. Harris in November, 1875, subdivided the eighty-ucre tract into the Ironworkers’ Addition to South Chicago, and November 6, 1875, conveyed the whole to William H, Colebour. On default being made Smith on April 25, 1876, as trustee sold the eighty-xere subdivision to the Canal aud Duck Company, who bought it in and tookadeed. Jacob Bremer had bought two lots in the subdivison, ‘The land was vacant and the company had paid taxes on those lots. ‘Io this bill Coletiour filed a cross bill, setting up that Sinith’s foreclosure was void because in 1874, after the trust deed to him and before the sale, a new arrangement had been made, new notes given, and # new trust deed executed to the Canal and Dock Com- pany which had never been recorded owing to their neglect. A REVIEW OF 1884. Special Correspondence Marine Record. Derrort, January 12. There are many facts of an incidental character which transpire during each season of navigation that are well worthy of repetition. ‘l'ake for example the losses and damages of grain cargoes, to say nothing of other commodities, is beyond comprehension, utless facts and figures are placed before the public, an then, and not until then, is realized the value of property thus lost. It is beyond the precincts of a reporter to ever ascerain, even by the most minute inquiry, the damage to grain cargoes, either by leukage, overheating, or otherwise, and only in cases of the total loss of the car- go are the facts really made manifest. As a partial resume of the season of 1884 the following exhibit may be found recorded: Propeller Enterprise damaged 4,000 bush- els of wheat on Lake Huron. Propeller Calitornia damaged 26,500 bush- els of corn on Lake Huron. Schoouer N. P. Downie sunk in Lake On- tario 6,700 bushels of rye. Propeller Georgian, sunk at Peninsular Harbor, oats, say 20,000 bushels. Schooner Erie Queen damaged 15,000 bushels of wheat on Lake Ontario. Schooner Mary Collins damaged 5,000 bushels of corn, en route to Collingwood. Schooner Defiance, sunk at Port Dal- housie, damaged 5,000 bushels of wheat. Schooner Mary D. Ayer, damaged 6,000 bushels of corn on Lake Michigan. Propeller J. L. Hurd damaged 12,000 bushels of oats near Detour. Schooner Ei. B. Maxwell threw over 2,000 bushels of corn at Cove Island. Propeller Colorado damaged 1,000 bushels of corn en route to Buffalo. Schooner Arabia, sunk at the entrance to Georgian Bay, 20,000 bushels of corn. Schooner King Sisters, wrecked on Gull Island, Lake Erie, 18.000 bushels of wheat. Schooner Golden West, wrecked in Geor- gian Bay, 30.000 bushels of corn. Schooner Millard Filmore, stranded near Waugoschance, damaged 25,565 bushels of oats. Schooner Jura, wrecked near Port Stan- ley, Lake Erie, damaged 6,600 bushels of wheat. Schooner C, P. Minch, stranded near Col- lingwood, damaged 24,000 bushels of corn, Schooner Fellowcraft damaged 5,000 bush- els of wheat on Lake Erie. Schooner St. Lawrence threw over 800 bushels of wheat in Lake Ontario, Steambarge Morley, stranded in Lake Su- perlor, damaged 560,000 bushels of wheat, Schooner Hannah Butler, ashore st Co-