THE LONE STAB.
yalue of the services rendered by the respective tugs, and the amount of property saved to the ship-owners by the exertions of the salvors. In determining these questions it will be convenient to consider in the first place the amount of money saved to the ship-owner by the exertions of the salvors. It is conceded that the steamer was so injured by the fire as to render it proper to sell her as a wreck, and that the proceeds of her sale were $37,500. This sum, the salvors claim, should be taken to be the value of the property saved, in compnting the amount of the salvage award. But in a case like this, where the only danger was of fire, and where the vessel, being of iron, would not be wholly destroyed by fire, and where the vessel, if she had received no assistance, would certainly have been sunk in the slip, and as certainly have been raised therefrom as old iron, it seems to me proper in ascertaining the value to the ship-owner of the services rendered by the Elalvors, for the purpoEle ordllterinining the amount of salvage to be awarded, to deduct from the proceeds of the sale afthe steamer as a wreck the amount that her oWllers would have realized from her sale as old iron if she had burned and sunk in the slip.' It is not necessary for the purpose of the computation il) hand to determine with accuracy the amount thus saved to the owners of this steamer. It is safe to consider that amount to be somewhere from $22,000 to $29,000. The case, therefore, is not one where amount of the salvage 81warcl is enhanced by the. large value of the .property The risk to which this property wa3 exposed is next to be considered. The steamer was all on fire. Several tugs applied to by the superiotendent to go into the slip r.efused to do so. If aid had been refused by the tugs that did go into the slip, it is highly probable, although not perhaps actually certain, that all that was eombustible in the steamer would have burned, and the hulk sunk in the slip. It is hardly a case of derelict property saved to the ship-owner, but the ship-owner was in such great danger of losing from $22,000 to $29,000 that that sum m,ay be considered as representing the value to the owner of the steam.er oithe services in question· .Next will be considered the extent and value of the services rendered by these various tugs, and I remark first that I consider the case one of continuous salvage service from the time the steamer began to move out of the slip until the fire was extinguished at Weehawken, participated in by different tugs at different times and under different circumstanceEl. These services may well be divided into three classes: First. Services rendered in moving the vessel from the burning pier out of the slip. These I consider the most important services rendered on this occasion, and they were attended with some danger to the tugs engaged. Second.. 3ervices rendered in towing the steamer after she had been towed out of the slip, -ancI the Pioneer's line was cut, until she was beached at Weehawken. These services were attended with little or no danger to the .tugs, and many other tugs were present ready and willing to tow steamer, the services differing little in character from ordinary . . T'lird. Services which consisted in pumping water to extinguish the nre. This was a necessary service to prevent the from sinking.
Itinvolved imine danger,to.the vesse1s .eogagedin its performance, and some.hard labor and.exposure in. freezing weather. In regard to the services rendered thesteamet out oBhe slip from the burning pier,aserious dispute has arisen respecting the part taken by Harry Roussel. Those on the Pioneer say that the Harry Roussel went in the slip: for the purpose of saving the Angeline Anderson and her cargo of cotton, then on fire, and, while so engaged, got herself into a position aorossthe slip" from which, in that wind and tide, she could not escape without assistance, so that she would have been herself caught and destroyedby ,the 'burning steamer when her fasts burned off, if the steamer had not been removed by the Pioneerj that the Pioneer pulled the Roussel into position by It line, and enabled her to swing along-side of the steamer i £0 that she,with the lighter Angeline Anderson attached to her, was in fact towed outofthe slip by the Pioneer, instead of assisting the Pioneei'to tow the steamer out. 011 the other hand, it is contended in behalf of-the·Roussel that her line.was on board oLthe steamer before the line of any other tug,. and that not only didshe'pour water into the began to .move, 'but also rendered efficient service by her motive (power in keeping' the steamer up to the tide as she moved qut of the slip. ' The case contains considerable testimony corroborative of the story told by the Pioneer in respect to the of the Roussel, and much to the contrary:. . COnBidering the oircumstances, confusion in the testimonY is not to beiwondered at. Upon the whole, I incline to believe. thnt the P-.ousselwent into the Slip for the purpose of taking out the burning lighterjthatafterwardss,he did get a line to the steamer, and did throw water:into the steamer before she began to move from the slip, and then, when the steamer did move, she was to some extent aided by the motive power of the Roussel: :'But I do·not consider the services of the Roussel,equai in value to thdse rendered by the Pioneer. Her position made itl 1II1pOIlSible for her to'ronder important towing service. The ser,vices of the Pioneer, in my opinion, were of the most value to the steamer on thisooeasion. She was efficient to carry out the wishes of thesuperintendentoHhepier, and it was at his request that she put herself alongside thebtlTIiing' steamer; Her line run to the steamer's bows furnished the steamet the means of escape, and when, through no fault of hers, the line parted, she dropped back,and took a position where she could aid by pumping, and did pump under the direction of the superintendent of the pietor master of the steamer until the fire was extinguished at Weehawken. She received damage to her paint amounting to about $125, :l,lld she lost anew hawser. To her isawardpd thesumof$1,800. The Roussel Was a vessel twioe as large as the Pioneer, but from her position :1t the stern of,the steamer she was unable to afford much nece...<lSary aid in the towing service. Still, she 'was in the slip,-a position attended with sOme dRnger.-andshe threw water from the first into the steamer. She was occupied about seven:hours. To her the sum of $900 is awarded. MissisquoiwRs'& more powerful boat than the Pioneer. She rendered to the 'Pioneer in getting the steamer
,THE LONE STAR.
out of the slip, and she did not obtrude her services, but waited the request of the Pioneer before she took: hold; After the Pioneer's line had parted she assisted the Runyon in towing the steamer over to Weehawken. To her is awarded the sum 01$1,000. The steam-tug Charles Runyon was a powerful boat, valued at some $20,000. ,She rendered efficient service in getting the steamer away from the Guion pier, on which she drifted after the Pioneer's line had parted, and she towed her to Weehawken by her hawser. When the fire broke out, she' gave up a job worth $40 to go to the steamer, and she lost a line worth $30. What she did was done under direction of the superintendent of the pier, or_ the master of the steamer. To her is awarded the sum of $650. The Reba, valued at $6,000, assisted in towing the over to Weehawken. She acted under the direction of the superintendent of the pier, or the master of the steamer. To herisawarded thesumof$250.. The Egbert Myers and the Coffin also assisted in towingtlie steamer to Weehawken, under the of the superintendent of the pier. The service involved no risk to speak of. To each of these tugs is awarded the sum of $250. The William J. McCaldin was a steam4ug of considerable power. She claims to have rendered assistance in towing the steamer out of the slip, but I am unable to discover any services of much value rendered by her, except pumping water into the steamer. That, as I have said, was an important service. She was the largest tug prcsent. She abandoned a tow to go to the assistance of the steamer, and a length of her hose was destroyed by fire, and' she was put to expense in all about $300. To her the sum of$800 is awarded. The steam-tugs Nellie, John Fuller, Alice Hegarty, James A. Garfield, George H. Dentz all.rendered service in pumping water iIfto the steamer after she had been taken out of the slip. None of them went into the slip. Their aid in towing was not important, and there is SOlDe evidence tending to show that in their anxiety to put water on the tire they embarrassed to some extent the operation of towing the steamerafter she reached the mouth of the slip. To the Nellie is awarded the sum of $800; to the Fuller is awarded the sum of $400; to the Hegarty is awarded the sum of $400; to the James A. Garfield is awarded the sum of '$400; to the George H. Dentz is awarded the sum of $4UQ. To the man Bridges, who went on board the burning steamer to make last the Pioneer's line, the.sum of $50 is awarded, in addition to his share as one of the crew of the Pioneer.
THE MUNICIPAL. NEW YORK & N. S. Co.
OF NEW YORK.
(DiBtrict Court, S. D. New York. March 28,1888.)
COLLISION - STEAMERS MEETING- MISUNDERSTANDING SIGNALS SLOW AND STOP. FAILURE TO
Respondent's tug M. was coming down the East river somewhat on the Brooklyn side,and libelant's steamer (A was going up. A ferry-boat crossed the river between them,which required the M. to sheer a little only towardf the New York shore. The C. gave two whistles to the tug. indicating the latter should pass between her and the f«'rry-boat, and slowed. She heard nO answer, and· repeated the signals. She also stopped her engine on perceiVing that the tug was still swinging towards the New York shore. The tu,g had given one blast. and continueda.t speed, swinging across the .course of tlle C. until near the moment of the collision. lleld, that the tug was in fault for not slowing, as required by inspectors' rule 3, on the want of a common understanding; for her continued sheer across the other's bow; and for pot reversing sooner; that the a.was without fault, and should recover her damages.
In Admiralty. Libel f'ordamages. Owen &: Gray, for libelants. H. R. Beekman and R. L. Wensley, for corporation. BROWN, J. On the 26th of October, 1886, at about 2:30 P. M., as City of Alban:>·, bound for Norwalk, the side-wheel passenger Conn., was going under the East-River bridge, the Catharine-Street ferryboat Republic was leaving her New York slip just above the bridge, and the City of Albany slowed and stopped to pass astern of her. Soon after the Republic had passed, the respondent's Municipal was seen· coming down river,-as I find, someWhat on the Brooklyn side of the stream. She also exchanged signals with the Republic to go astern of the latter; and in order to do so, as her pilot testifies, she was obliged . to sheer somewhat to the New York shore. The City of Albany thereupon gave a signal of two whistles, indicating that the tug should pass between her and the ferry-boat, and at the same time she slowed. Hearing no answer, and seeing the tug still sheering towards the York shore, she soon repeated her signal and stopped. They came in collis-' ion soon after, about opposite pier 39, not over 300 or 400 feet from the New York shore. The City of Albany, at the time of collision, was heading a little towards the New York shore; and the tug had sheered around so as to head either directly towards the shore or a little up river. Capt. Sherwood of the tug, I must find upon the weight of proof, to be mistaken as to his precise place in the river; he was at least half way across fa wards the Brooklyn shore, and probably more. The direct testimony of the other witnesses to this effect is confirmed by the tact that
lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.