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

7 MARINE REVIEW. Sault and Suez Canal Traffic. A recent number of Industries, one of the leading trade pub- lications of London, gives a return, year by year, of the tonnage passing through the Suez canal from its opening in 1869 to the year 1890 inclusive, and we have taken advantage of the state- ment to make the following comparison for a similar period of years with the tonnage passing through the Sault Ste. Marie canal, the great waterway connecting Lake Superior with the lower lakes : : SUEZ CANAL. SAULT CANAL. 7 No. of Net r No. of t Year Vessels. Tonnage. Year. Vessels. Tonnage. 1869 10 6,576 1869 1,338 523,885 i 1870 486 436,609 1870 1,828 690,826 1871 765 761,467 1871 1,637 7 22,101 i 1872 1,082 1,160,743 1872 2,004 914, 135 f 1873 1,178 1,367,767 1873 2,517 1,204,446 1874 1,264 1,631,650 1874 1,734 1,070,857 1875 1,494 2,009,984. 1875 2,033 | 1 1259,534 1876 1,457 2,096,771 1876 2,417 1,541,676 1877 1,663 2,355,447 1877 2,451 | 1,439,216 1878 1,593 2,269,678 1878 2,587 1,667,136 1879 1,477 2,263,332 1879 3,121 1,677,071 1880 2,026 3,057,421 1880 3,503 1,734,890 1881 DF 20- 4,136,779 1881 4,004 1,567,741 1882 3,198 5,074,808 1882 4,774 *2.029,521 1883 3,307 5,775,861 1883 4,315 *2,267,105 1884 3,284 5,871,500 1884 5,689 *2 874,507 1885 3,624 6,335,752 1885 5,380 *3,,256,628 1886 3,100 5,767,655 1886 7,424 *4,527,759 1887 3,137 “5,903,024 1887 9,355 4,897,598 1888 3,440 6,640,8 1888 7,803 5,130,659 1889 3,425 6,783,187 1889 9,579 7,221,935 1890 3,389 6 890,014 1890 10,557 8,454,485 * Actual freight tonnage. The figures in the above table are taken from official records in both cases. The great gain in traffic made by the Sault during 1889 and 1890 is a fair indication of the wonderful growth of lake commerce, and the showing is especially favorable to the lake waterway when it is considered that the Sault canal was open to navigation for only 234 days in 1889 and 228 days in 1890 as against free navigation at all times in the Suez. Transfers of Vessel Property. J. H. Gillett, of Marquette, has sold the tug James Fisk to the Smith-Fee Company, of Duluth, for $9,000, and has about concluded the sale of another tug, the F. W. Gillett, also to Du- -luth parties. He is now engaged in an effort to purchase in Cleveland two larger tugs for service at Marquette. Other trans- fers of vessels reported recently are: Schooner Riverside, P. F. Thrall and Omer L. Harder, of Milwaukee, to Frederick Hurlbut, of Green Bay, $4,000; schooner Morning Star, Walter S. John- son to Charles Ellis, of Milwaukee, $2,750; schooner Elgin, Frank Boden to Josiah Greenwood, of Chicago, $7,000; propel- ler City of Green Bay, M. C. Hayes to Daniel H Tolman, of Chi- cago, consideration nominal; propeller City of Marquette, one- third interest, Charles W. Endres to Emil G. and Richard F. En- dres, of Whitefish Point, Mich., consideration nominal; tug Vol- unteer, of Ludington, to Capt. G. Muntinga, of Sheboygan, Wis., $1,800; steamer A. Wehrle, Jr, A. Wehrle, Jr. to Cedar Point Navigation Company, of Sandusky, $36,000; schooner Lady Macdonald, Capt. Hargraves to Capt. Ewart, of Coburg, Ont., $4,250; propeller C. Hickox, Muskegon parties to C. Foster ns Lumber Company, of Milwaukee, private terms. Affairs in Admiralty. AN INTERESTING LAKE CASE. On Sept. 1, 1889, the steamer R. A. Packer, of the Lehigh Valley Line, took fire when on Lake Michigan about thirty miles from the Straits. The R. P. Fitzgerald and H. E. Packer, of the same line, went to her assistance and in about one hour suc- ceeded in subduing the fire. The injury to the burned steamer was such that she could not use her machinery and the H. KE, Packer towed her with her cargo to Port Huron, as the nearest port of repair. The R. P. Fitzgerald and H. E. Packer each claimed $1,000 for services in putting out the fire, and the H. E Packer $1,000 for towing the burned steamer to Port Huron. ‘The damage to the hull and machinery was adjusted by arbitrators, mutually chosen, at the sum of $5,244.94. The salvage claims, ‘pilot house on the spot and at the time is more relia $3,000, were adjusted as general average claims, the underwriters of the cargo policies paying their proportions and the R.A. Packer’s proportion. About $2,000 was made a claim with the amount of damage to hull and machinery against the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, under its fire policy upon the steamer. The insurance company refused to pay the general average claim, and suit was brought by the Lehigh Val- ley Line in the United States circuit court at Detroit. The case was tried before Judge Severens anda jury on Wednesday and Thursday, Aprilt5 and16. ‘The court held that the salvage ser- vices of the Fitzgerald and H. E. Packer in putting out the fire could not be recovered, under the fire policy; that the insurance company was liable only for the damage to hull and machinery, and for the steamer’s proportion of a reasonable charge for towing to the nearest port of repair. The last item was submitted to the jury which was instructed to and did, after finding the amount, adjust the same on the principle of general average among all the interests receiving the benefit of the towage, the share of the burned steamer being $535.85, which with the dam- age to hull and machinery, made the verdict $6,147.94. Moore & Canfield were the attorneys for the Lehigh Valley Transporta- tion Company and H. C. Wisner was attorney for the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company. , In the district court E. D., North Carolina, it was stated that in case of a collision between vessels, one of which has been guilty of a clear fault, there must also be clear evidence of con- tributing fault on the part of the other to divide damages. ‘he case was that of a schooner colliding with the yacht Nydia in Neuse river. ‘The yacht was lying at anchor in the channel and it was shown that she displayed no lights at the time, and there was no watch on deck. ‘There were three men on the deck of the schooner. The libelant claimed the schooner should have seen the yacht early enough to have avoided her, but it was de- cided the yacht was responsible for the damages and that the schooner was without fault. The libel of the owner of the Nydia was dismissed with costs and the owners of the schooner were given judgment for $100 and costs. ee In district court, D. New Jersey, it was decided that admi- ralty jurisdiction of the federal courts extended to a libel in per- sonam for an injury to a vessel resulting from negligence in the management of a draw bridge over navigable tide-waters of the United States. The freeholders or board of commissioners of the county were made respondents in the case of a propeller be- ing damaged by the careless swinging of a bridge. ‘They moved to have the libel dismissed upon the question of jurisdiction. But the above decision decreed differently. The Ohio-Siberia-Mather Case. EDITOR MARINE REVIEW: I have just finished reading Mr. Wisner’s article in the issue of the REviEw of April 9 I do not care to enter upon a discussion of the question of “suction or no suction,” but I feel that upon this question Mr. Wisner is in the position of the juryman, who de- nounced the other eleven as a pack of fools for not agreeing with him as to the decision to be rendered by the jury. I desire, however, to say that as the proctor of the Ohio, I was in a position to know whether there was a combination between the Ohio and Siberia or not, and I-now say, as I said in court, that there was no such combination or agreement of any kind between the Ohio and the Siberia, but on the contrary, every effort was made to place the fault of the collision upon both the Siberia and the Mather. ae Mr. Wisner doubtless inferred from the fact that the Siberia people charged no fault against the Ohio, that therefore there must have been some combination, But the truth is that with the exception of the proc- tors for the Mather and Judge Hammond, not three persons could be found on or around the lakes that would say that the Ohio was in any way at fault for the collision. The difficulty in all cases of this kind, is that the average judge is only familiar with “paper navigation,” and a rule of navigation to him is like a rule in mathematics, to be followed to the letter or no correct result can be obtained. Andto him even the most technical violation of arule must necessarily bring about disaster. — It certainly did surprise the masters who were present at the trial of the Ohio case that with no other testimony than a lawyer's and a book against him, a judge should find one of the best navigators on the lakes guilty of the violation of a well known rule gatic , inc be strange if they did not think that the Ohio could be better n master than by the court, and that the master’s judgmen x ae the judge’s judgment while in a chair in a cout ho after hy Ags , of navigation. It would, indeed, be — vigated by her xercisedon the — and trustworthy — e nine months