Scows ,a, 16',.!
" ; " : t' : ':
April. 80,. 189'J.)
'", Four8Mwll;em,ployed in batrying refuse "i'om New York to the dumping grounds o'f1Sandy'Rook;\tere blown: 'out to sea ina violent gale. Two men were aboa'l'(}illl!dh, outtlHlearcb;for them; but were unable to find them, and could not have brought tbem in if they had been found, so heavy was tbe weather. Libelant's tug Luckenbach, a powerful seagoing vessel, worth $60,000, Bnd carrying a.crew.of 11 men, then 2ut out from York, and"on onEl trip, disoIl, tl1e '60 'mU8I1fi'ddi '!Sandy Hook, and, sellOndattempt, covere4; found a third 70 miles at sea. Tbese were brought tllto p(;lrt; ,the fourth scow was never recovered. The three scows would in all probability have' ,been lost but for the Luckenbach. The lattel' wasthll 'only boat, save' one, capable of rondering the service, and that one was unsuccessful. The work was of difficulty, and was attended with danger to the tug. ,Held, that the libelant should ODElthill!! tlhi talueoftllescoWlI. '
In Adrnin:tlty·. Libel by LElwis Luckenbach :agaipst certain scows. Decree fOJ libelant Peter S. Garter, for libeli\'nt. Carpenter Mosher, for claimants.
BROWN, District ,Jtl(lge. On the mbrning of Tuesday, January 26, 1892,Jour scows knowntls Nos. 3,5,16, and 17, employed in carrying refuE/e from New. 1¥ork tQ the dumping grounds outside of Sandy Hook, got aurift in a. violent gale from The tug Webster which b.ad in charge,Nos. 5 ,and, 17, hfidfouled her propellerwith'thebawser leadingaatern,!andbadhecomedi:snbled; and the tug Nichols, having charge of scows"Nos. 3 and 16, after vainly endeavoring to assist ,the Webster and ber,tow, Wa's obliged to .leave her own scows at anchor in i order to get. .In; the increasing ,galeo! the ,morning, the anchors dragged and ,aU the scow,s'were carried out to sea. When this became known in the harbor, some: ;tugs soon ilJternoon went out to rescue them, but after going a few ,miles outside of Sandy Hook found the weather so heavy that their efforts would be useless, even if the scows should be fOUnd, .and accordingly returned without having seen them. On Tuesday night the' libelant's tug, the Edga-r F. Luckenbach, with 11 men, officers and crew, a large and powerful seagoing boat,fitted for such emergencies. and of the value of $60,000, was got in readiness and left Atlantic Basin at about :niidnight.. The weatherwal!l extremely heavy; but at about 9 'o'clocNA.M. on the 27th, seows Nos. 3 and 16 were fo.ond about 60. miles outside()f SandY' Hook, and brought into the Atlantic, Basin a little before midnight of the 27th. Neither of the other two scows having in the ,mean time been discovered by the three other tugs that had the Luckenbach about midni,lht of the 27th started out again, and at about '10 o'clock of the following
,'soows,3, 16,AND 17. l
morning discovered No. 17 abont 70 miles froniSanJy'Hook; and succeeded. in bringing her into Atlantic Basin, where she arrived about 1 o'clook, ou. Friday morning. Towards midnight of the 27th the wrecking tug Chapman, well equipped for such service, also went out in search of No.5 and No. 17, at about the same hour that the Luckenbach left· the second ti me. She saw. nothing of either scow, turned about some 10 or 15 miles short of the distance the Luckenbll.Ck went, . and returned unsuccessful. The owner of the Luckenbach sent out another tug to find No.5. She .was not found, but was carried far out to sea; and on the morning of February 1st, a week after she had got adrift, she was sighted about 100 miles to the eastward of Cape Henlopen, and the two men on board of her were taken off by a steamer bound for Philadelphia. No attempt was made to tow the scow into port. A week later, being still afloat and coming near causing a collision with a sailing vessel, she was set on fire by the latter and presumably destroyed. The River Mersey, 48 Fed. Rep.686. In the Case of SCOW8 NOB. 9,16, and 24, 45 Fed; Rep. 901, this court in a somewhat analogous case allowed a salvage award of 25 per cent. upon $20,000, the value of the scows recovered, the salving tug being worth:$15;000. The case was regarded as an extraordinary one, both as respects the peril of the scows and of the persons on board, and the heroism of the salvors.' In the present case scows Nos. 3 and 16 were worth $16,000; and scow 17, $10,000. The claimants tendered 25 per cent.l.of those amounts, which the libelant declined to accept. The only question litigated is whether the circumstances are such as to entitle the libelant to a larger award. A fair consideration of all the circumstances seems to me to justify the conclusion that the Luckenbach is entitled to a somewhat larger award than was made even in the case cited. The value of the tug employed was four times as great in this case as in that; the service was three times as long; and the difficulties were prolonged in proportion. To the fury of the seas was added extreme cold, which covered with ice both the tug and scows. The seas washed over, the tug at stem and stern. One sea nearly carried overboard the mate; and the ice rendered extremely difficult al)d dangerous the handling of hawsers and the necessary movements upon deck in the rolling and pitching of the tug. Towing in such cold weather exposed the Luckenbach to peril; and in case of any mishap through the breaking of the machinery or the fouling of the hawser, or the unavoidable racing of the engines, or in maneuvering with the scows, the peril of the Luckenbach would have been extreme. For the claimants it is insisted that these dangers are more fanciful than real; that the Luckenbach was built and equipped for precisely such service, and was able to render it without danger or risk other than such as was incident to her ordinary movements; that neither the crew of the tug, nor the men on the scows, suffered any hardship; that no skill was shown or required in taking the scows into port; that the tng
FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 50.
lost little ttnuHhat would in fltct have beenotherwia6 employed; that the scows were not derelict, but had each two men on board; and that without their assistance the scows could not have been saved, because :ilOJin,.e. 01 hawser could, have been got on board of them; that the scows could not have foundered, or,.capsized, or been swamped; and that the danger ·of collision with other vessels was too slight for consideration. ,.While these objections have been foroibly urged with a view to reduce claim, they seem to me not sufficient t6 detract from the very high merit of thes.ervice. The fact that the Luckenbach was one of a: very few harbor boats suitaQly equipped and able to render this service; rather adds to her merit than detracts from it, (Coast Wrecking Co. v.Phcenia ina. Co., 20 Blatchf. 557,568,13 Fed. Rep. 127;) for without such boats and .the expense of maintaining them, the property must in such casesbc lost altogether. The only other boat shown to have been available.-and really fitte4 for the service was the Chapman, and her efforts werl:) unsuccessful; , Three other tugs made attempts and abandoned them, though from the recent Case of Scows No.9, etc., above cited, the hope iOf. a very considerable award WlL'i held out to them if they were successful. That the Lllckenbach should have fOllnd all three of these boats and all the other tugs have found none, is, moreover, the strong.No. 5 was not found by any of the other tugs; est evidence of her skill. _ and a fortnight. afterwards, though observed by three different vessels far out at ,sea,she was not deemed worth saving, and was finally destroyed. The evidence leaves no reason to suppose that any better fortune \vollld have attended the other three scows., and probably all would have 'been lost,had they not been found by the Luckenbach. She brought them in unharmed. That the Luckenbach esoaped mishap and injury, does not prove the difficulties to be exaggerated or the dangers fanciful;Dut shows rather in her equipment, and skill in her management. The whole trouble originated in the fouling.ot.the Webster's hawser in a much milder sea. While towing in such heavy weather,the danger of fouling the hawser a,nd of breaking the shaft from racing, are well recognized. The Lot'etand,5 Fed. Rep. 107. The scows would not indeed sink unless they firSt sprang a leak; but upon any sudden leak on one side, of the men on they would be-speedily capsized, with a loss of the board. , On the whole the case appears to be one in which the Luckenbach rendered a service which no other boat was able to perform. When the enterprise of the whole port was challenged, she alone displayed the skill, equipment, fortitude and perseverance necessary to success. Her work was attended by unusual difficulty; it was conducted with a skill and persistencewbich no other vessel evinced; and besides saving the lives of those on'board,she rescued three of the four scows from what would in all probability have. proved a tota110ss. One third of the value of the scows saved will, I think, be a proper and well-deserved allowance, amounting in one case to $5,333.33; and' in the other to $.3,333.33, for which decrees may be entered, with costs. Of the
amounts one third in each case will go to the captain and crew, and two thirds to the owners of the boat; of the one third, $200 in the first case and $100 in the second, are awarded to the master, and the rest distriputed among the master, officers, and crew ill ,l)roportion to their wag. .
JoNES et al.
t7. CAB FLOAT
(mstrict Oourt, S. D. New York.
April 28, 1892.)
S.u.....lO_BB.lCllING LBAKY FLoAT-ExCESSIVB SECURITY-COSTS. A float with loaded cars. while in tow of a large tug, got on roob. After float,. irig, she was found to be leaking badly, and the tug started to beach her. Two smaller tugs were employed for some 10 or 15 minutes iu keeping the float straight, and in landing her in shallow water, where the large tug could not go. The owners of the float settled with the second tug to arrive for $125. Held, that the tug first to assist should receive $200; but as no demand had been made. and as security had been exacted in the Bum 01 is.OOO, costs were refused.
In Admiralty Libel by Richard Jones and another against Car Float No.5. Decree for libelants for salvage. Alexander &; Ash, for 1ibelants. Wing, Shoudy &; Putnam. and Mr. Burlingham, for claimant. BROWN, District On September 17, 1891, about 7 o'clock
iI., while the tug Intrepid was towing car float No.5 with loaded cars
from Wilson's Point to New York, the float, through the parting of the hawser, got aground on the rocks at Pot Cove in Hell Gate. When floated off she was found to be leaking so much that the tug deemed it prudent to take her as speedily as possible to the flats to the eastward of the Brothers islands. On approaching North Brother the float was yawing badly through partly filling, and signals were sounded by the Intrepid, calling for assistance, to which the tugs Curtis and Spray responded immediately. The Spray having previously passed the float and observed her condition, recognized the necessity of beaching her at once, and of keeping her straight while passing the North Brother; and she accordingly .went alongside the float at once. without stopping for any prior interview with the master of the Intrepid, which was ahead on a hawser. The Curtis riot knowing the condition of the float, went alongside the Intrepid and bargained with the master to assist the float "around the point" for $10; and thereupon took hold. The float was soon beached upon the flats by the aid of the two tugs in shallow water, where the Intrepid could not go; and afterwards the master offered to audit the bills of each, -yvhjch was declined. On the same day the owners of the Spray filed this libel for salvage. I do not credit the evidence of the claimants that the pilot of the Spray was told that he was not wanted before he went to the float, or was or-