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

me LRT Late Decisions in Mariti Legal Tips F or Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for The Marine Review HE right to construct bridges over navigable streams was the point in issue in the case of Chicago Transportation Co. v. Penn- -syivania Co., 246 Federal Peporter 190 The court said that the power of the states to legislate with reference to navigable streams wholly within their jurisdiction, where congress has not already legislated to the contrary, is supreme. The Chicago ‘Transportation Co. had erected a bridge across the Chicago river, and, speaking with refer- ence to this river, the court said, “The Chicago river is wholly within the state of Illinois. In 1890 congress assumed jurisdiction and control over the Chi- ‘cago river for the purposes of com- merce and navigation. ‘The power to permit the construction of a bridge over the river still remains in the state of Illinois, or its municipal agents, but under act Sept. 19, 1890, c. 907, 7, 26 Stat. 454, congress having assumed con- trol over the river, a bridze could not be constructed until the proposed loca- tion and the plans therefor were first submitted to and approved by the secre- tary of war, in the interest cf commerce and fiavieation, *. * -* The state has the power to authorize the con- struction of the bridge; the secretary of war had the power to permit or to refuse to permit the bridge to be built, his. discretion being controlled by the effect the proposed bridge would have upon commerce and_ navigation. It follows that two permits are essential to the construction of such _ bridges, one by the state or its authorized agent, and the other by the United States government, through the secretary of war. The respondents kave_ secured both. The bridge was therefore duly authorized, and was a lawful structure.” * * * In the case of ELLEN Litt Le, reported in 246 Federal Reporter 151, it appeared that owing to, conditions created by the European war, there were in Pernam- buco, Brazil, whence the boat sailed, many Germans who were desirous of getting to this country. The probability of stowaways being recognized by the master of the boat he directed the mate to search the vessel for them before sailing, which search was made. After several days at sea the mate learned of the presence of a stowaway who. had been secreted in the boat by two German members of the crew, but he did not report the fact to the master, and on arrival of the boat at a port in this country the German siowaway was smuggled ashore without the maite’s knowledge. The master suspicioned the presence of a stowaway but took no steps to ascertain the truth. Federal officers learned of the landing of the German, arrests of members of the crew were made, and the boat delayed By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law AOC —<ccccccccAncce EON a few days and put to expense. . The duestion involved was whether the action of the mate in allowing a small boat in which the stowaway was landed to lie alongside the schooner, and in not reporting the stowaway, was such misconduct as to constitute an offense under revised statutes, section 4596, and to therefore work a forfeiture of wages. The court held that in view of the fact that the master did not discharge the mate, and that no entry was made in the log, and the further fact of the master’s failure to follow up his sus- picion about a stowaway, it could not be said that the mate was guilty of any offense, and hence there could be no forfeiture of wages. However, the court said that “considering that, as he knew, a substantial crime, involving his vessel, was likely to be committed and that he did nothine to prevent it, I do not think his neglect can be passed over.” The court then decided that of the loss which the vessel sustained by being delayed, $50 might be charged against him and be deducted from his wages. * ok Ox Under the Harter act, in order. for shipowners to avail themselves of the exemption from liability tor errors and management of navigation, the burden is on them to prove affirmatively that the vessel was seaworthy at the begin- ning of the voyage or that due dili- gence had been used to make her so. The theory of the law, it was held in the case of CARISBROOK, 247 Federal Reporter 583, is that when the owner can show that he has discharged his duty of providing a ship that is in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied for the voyage, or that he has used due diligence to this end, he shall then be relieved from errors of navigation and management on the voyage. The question of sea- worthiness is held to be whether or not the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport. was held to show that due diligence was exercised by the owner to make the vessel seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. * * * Article 16 of the international rules requires that vessels navigating in a fog shall go at a moderaze speed, hav- ing careful regard to the existing cir- cumstances and conditions. The steamer SAGAMorE, length 430 feet, beam 47 feet, normal speed “42 or 13 kncts, ran into a dense fog about half an hour before collision with a fishing schooner, and being in part of the ocean where her officers well knew that fishing vessels were usually found, and where special precautions for discovering and avoiding 312 OR The evidence in this case . LL ie Law LN acl them were necessary, her speed was reduced from 12 or 13 knots to slow speed until a single blast of the horn of the fishing schooner was heard, a few moments before the collision. In the opinion reported in 247 Federal Reporter 743, it was said that under the international rules a steamer is bound to use only such precautions as will enable her to stop in time to avoid a collision, after the approaching vessel comes in sight, provided such approach- ing vessel is herself going at the moder- ate speed required by law, and that the lowest rate of speed consistent with good steerageway seems to be regarded as the “moderate speed” required. Speak- ing further, with reference to a lookout, it was said that a lookout is both the “eyes and ears of a ship,” and that the denser the fog and the worse the weather the greater the cause for vigil- ance. A ship can not be heard to sav that a lookout was of no use because the weather was so thick that. another ship could not be seen unt il actualty in collision. Great difficulty in seeing does not justify abandonment of efforts to see, but, on the contrary, requires the stationing of men “to see if they can ” o* * * The tug JoHN Scutty took out two barges, and, on the tail barge going adrift, abandoned it and went ahead, the captain being convinced that any other procedure would result in the loss of the forward barge, which had been leaking since commencement of _ the voyage, with all on board. In the case of Atkinson v. Scully, 246 Federal Re- porter 463, it was said: “The sole question is whether the master should have started on his journey with the Sraecee that the tail barge was leaking. * * JT think the trouble in this case is that some men of the sea become indifferent to danger. They do some- thing so many times without disaster that they no longer appreciate its dan- ders, just as the seasoned New Yorker in crossing a busy thoroughfare will take a chance which would horrify a country visitor. And.so in this case the captain evidently was _ indifferent to possible danger when he started from Hampton roads with a leaky barge.” It was held that tugs are held to a high degree of diligence in endeavoring to save a tow which has gone adrift, and that it is. ne excuse that weather at beginning of the journey and for some time thereafter was good, as no one can surely predict what the weather at sea will be three days hence. Pru- dence requires foresight and safeguard- ing against bad weather and rough seas; if a tug takes out a leaky barge, she must be held to all the proximate results of such conduct.