124 F. 905 | E.D.S.C. | 1903
These libels for salvage were, by order of the court, consolidated for the purpose of taking testimony and entry of final decree, but the interests of the libelants remain distinct, and have been separately presented to this court. They are for services rendered to the Apache, a large and valuable steamship
The first point to be determined is whether, as contended by the claimants, these services are to be considered in the light of mere harbor service, to be compensated upon a quantum meruit with a bonus, or whether they should be considered in the light of a salvage service, where the award should not rest upon the narrow ground of mere compensation pro opere et labore, but upon the larger policy of the maritime law, looking to merit and effort and peril in the duty of encouraging assistance in cases of distress. Any service or assistance applied for or received by a vessel in peril or distress which in any measure conduces to its safety is in the nature of salvage service, and is to be compensated upon principles more liberal than, ordinary work. This rule of the maritime law is not established for the benefit of individuals, but rests upon the sound principle that it is to the general advantage of all interested in property exposed to the perils of the sea that sufficient inducements should be held out to all who are in position to render aid to make extraordinary exertions to save such property from peril. To displace a claim for salvage, it is necessary that parties who seek the protection of any other rule of compensation should plead and prove a binding contract that the work done shall be paid for at all events. It is none the less a salvage service that the peril apprehended did not befall, or that the labor expended was insignificant, and performed without actual risk. These considerations affect the quantum of compensation, but not
The case is not one which presents much difficulty. The witnesses were all examined before me, and, while there was a disposition on the one side to magnify, and on the other side to minimize, the services and the dangers, which is always to be expected where the interest or basis of witnesses gives color to their testimony, there is no room for any reasonable doubt as to the essential facts.
1. As to the location of the ship. She was put ashore by her master on the sand bank, about 500 feet from the main channel, at a point about 2 miles from the mouth of the jetties, and inside of the jetties, sheltered to the north by Sullivan’s Island, to the east and northeast by the jetties, which were submerged at the Sullivan’s Island end, with Morris Island to the southwest, and about 5 miles from the wharves of the city. The testimony is that fishing boats and pilot boats were accustomed in bad weather to come inside the jetties for safe anchorage, and to lie about that point. It is within the coast survey chart of “Charleston Harbor and its approaches.”
2. The greatest velocity of the wind at any time while she lay there was on Friday afternoon, as appears by the official weather report, and that was 30 miles an hour, with decreasing velocity Friday night. In the scale of wind printed in the official newspaper weather report every morning, which was offered in evidence, light wind is 1 — 10 miles an hour; fresh wind, 10 — 20 miles an hour; brisk wind, 20 — 30 miles an hour; high winds, 30 — 40 miles an hour; gale, 40 — 60 miles an hour; hurricane, 60 miles and upwards. The hurricane season in this latitude had passed, although there is one notable instance of a cyclone late in October.- The testimony of all the seafaring men aboard the ship is that there was at no time more than a brisk wind, and that was on Friday afternoon. The greater part of the time there was a light or fresh wind. Two photographs were offered in evidence — one taken on Thursday at 3 :i5 p. m., and the other on Friday at 4 p. m. They have the appearance of a ship lying in a summer sea; and in the photograph on Friday afternoon, when the wind was 28 miles an hour, according to the chart, and within 2 miles of the highest velocity, a small fishing boat appears near the ship, with full sail, standing up straight. It thus clearly appears that the ship was in no actual danger from high winds at any time while she was aground.
3. The ship had six iron bulkheads, extending to the upper between-decks: First, the collision bulkhead, which was 24 feet from the stem, uninjured by the collision; the second 100 feet from the first; the third 53 feet from the second; the fourth 43 feet, the fifth 28 feet, and the last 20 feet, from the stern post. The collision occurred in the channel in deep water, and the blow, 20 feet wide on the main deck and 10 or 12 feet on the water line, caused No. 1 hold to fill immediately. That she did not sink at once is proof that her
The next danger to be apprehended in the position where she lay was that from defective bulkheads, or otherwise, she would take in more water. The testimony is abundant and conclusive that the highest water in her was never nearer than five feet to the top of her bulkhead, going down when the tide was low and rising with the tide, and no witness has testified that there was any material change. As already stated, there was a leak from some unexplained cause in the bulkhead separating No. 1 hold from No. 2 hold, and the latter had five to seven feet of water. The testimony of the engineer of the Apache, an uncommonly intelligent witness, is that he attempted to pump out No. 2 hold with his donkey pump, having two suctions there; that, finding that this did not keep the water down, he opened the sluice gates from No. 2 hold into the fire room hold, so that he could use the other suctions from the donkey pump connected with the fire room bilge, in addition to the suctions in No. 2 hold; that the water in the fire room was always under his control by the use of the sluicegates, which were worked from the main deck by a rod, and opened and closed at his pleasure, and that at no time was it higher than 2j4 feet from the skin of the ship. No other witness has contradicted this testimony, for no one else saw it, and he further testifies that there was no danger at any time of the water getting to the furnaces and fires, and that the ship’s engines were always at work. That the ship’s engines were at all times working there is no doubt. In addition to the donkey pump, the ship had a circulat
The case for the claimants is that the tugs, which had frequently theretofore been employed by the steamship company in harbor seryice, were hired for such services as were needful, with the understanding that they were to be paid for at the customary rates; that they were used in such services as were demanded of them as a convenience, and not as a necessity; that the ship could have put her passengers ashore in her own boats on Sullivan’s Island, where there was a trolley line; that with her own pumps and with the pump hired from Pregnall she could have pumped herself out; that with her own boats she could have laid the anchor which was carried out by the Protector, and with her own steam she could have taken care of herself where she lay, and come to the city; and that the only service rendered by the tugs that she could not do herself was in towing lighters to the city, which lighters were loaded by her own stevedores, at her own expense, and that she was at no time in actual peril.
The case for the Hbelants is that on Thursday morning the ship was in danger of the' water getting into her engine room and putting out her fires, and of thus being rendered helpless; that she was at all times in an exposed position, in danger from winds and seas; that she was in danger of sinking into the sand; that she was in danger of getting off into deep water, where the services of the tugs would be needful; and that their pumps materially contributed in getting the water out; and as material evidence tending to show that the ship was in danger they point to the fact that on Saturday a wooden bulkhead was erected on the main deck aft of the forward hatch, which could only have been done in the apprehension that the ship would sink to a point below that to which the iron bulkheads extended, and as further evidence of apprehended danger they point to the summoning of the Merritt wrecking tug Rescue. These various contentions will be considered in order.
(a) As to the pumping on Thursday morning, I find nothing in the appearance or manner of the engineer, Tinnerholn, to lead to the conclusion that he was not truthful in his testimony as to the water in the fire room, which, as already related, is that this water was brought there by him from No. 2 hold, through the opening of the sluices, and for the purpose of pumping it out, and thus lightening the ship preparatory to the attempt to pull her off. It is hardly conceivable that there could have been any imminent danger from that quarter without Capt. Bearse being apprised of it, for he testifies that when he saw the Waban pumping he asked the engineer why he was doing it, and he said, “As the boat was lying there doing nothing, and he supposed she was employed by the ship, he used her pumps as a convenience to assist him in pumping the fire room out.” This pumping by the Waban did not commence until 10 o’clock, and, if there was imminent danger, it is not to be believed that he would not have been put to work at an earlier hour, or that the Protector, which had equal
(b) The danger to the ship from seas and winds has already been stated.
(c) As to the erection of a wooden bulkhead across the forward hatch, this was done under the direction of Selden on Saturday, when he arrived aboard the ship, and the reason given for it in his' direct testimony was that “it was put there to guard against any possible danger that might arise from anything that we knew not of.” In his cross-examination, in reply to questions evidently tending to that end, he gave some frivolous explanations of the possible uses of this wooden bulkhead; but it is evident that the witness, who was a nervous old gentleman, and who, as he testifies, was finding fault with everybody and everything, in his anxiety to get the ship off, testified correctly in chief that this bulkhead was put there to guard against any possible danger that might arise from any unknown cause. It was removed the same day by Capt. Pennington, the port captain of the line, a weather-beaten mariner of large experience, and who had, since his retirement from the command of ships, considerable experience in the wrecking business. He regarded the bulkhead as unnecessary and useless, and it was removed.
(d) As to the danger of the ship settling, this was not one of the dangers alleged in the libel, but some testimony has been adduced upon the point, mainly that of Smith, the diver, who says that he examined the ship at the point of collision on Saturday, and again on Monday; that on Saturday the rent or hole was 4Yz feet above the sand, and on Monday, when he put the patch on, the hole was about 6 inches above the sand. He does not testify as to whether there was any accumulation of sand .on the other side of the ship, or forward or aft the hole. The testimony of all the witnesses on the ship is that she did not sink or settle in the sand, and the probability is that the deposit of sand described by Smith was caused by the moving sands arrested by the current striking the side of the ship. As it has not been suggested or proved that the tugs did anything to ward off this danger, or could have done anything if it had supervened, it is difficult to see how the fact, if fully proved, would enter as an ingredient in fixing the value of the salvage service. That the ship did not settle was proved by the event, for, as soon as the water was out of the hold, she floated. The danger of the ship sinking has already been considered, and it has not been proved that the tugs did anything or could have done anything to prevent her sinking, and one of the ingredients of the salvage services claimed is the attempt to pull her off on Thursday, when, if this contention is well founded, they would have moved her from a place of safety to a place of danger. The ship could not have been in danger of settling in the sand and of slipping off and sinking in deep water both at the same time.
(c) The sending for the Merritt tug Rescue is adduced as evidence that the officers of the ship considered it in peril. After the demonstrated inability of the libelant-tugs to pull the ship off on Thursday,
From the foregoing review, it clearly appears that none of the ingredients which justify a large award entered into this service. There was no imminent peril from which the ship was rescued; no risking of lives to save property; no going out into tempestuous weather, for the thermographic record of the weather bureau shows that-the weather was mild and balmy, the maximum temperature 82, minimum 59; nor was there any severe labor, any expenditure of skill or ingenuity in devising or suggesting plans for saving the ship; in fact, nothing to distinguish the services here from ordinary harbor and towage services, except the fact that they were rendered to a ship in distress. That the Apache was a ship in distress, lying aground, with a gaping wound in her side, her main hold flooded with every tide, is a fact not disputed; and that she was in some degree of peril is also clear, for, although the protecting arms of the jetty saved her from the fierce grip of the sea, and technically, perhaps, within the harbor limits, she was in an exposed position; and although in some degree self-helpful, the fact that she kept the tugs near her indicated that she felt the need of them. In salvage, as in life, “they also serve who only stand and wait.” It is the policy of the maritime law to encourage spontaneous services rendered in going to the aid of a ship in distress by giving some remuneration beyond the value of the work actually done, as an encouragement to induce the salvor and future salvors to incur risk in saving life and property; but this extra remuneration is always proportioned to the risks encountered and the services actually rendered, and it is never the policy of the law, nor in accordance with justice, to allow a situation-created by calamity to be converted into an opportunity for extortion.
It remains only to fix the amount of the award.' There is no precise rule or criterion by which that is to be measured, and it rests largely in the conscience and legal discretion of the court, enlightened, as far as it may be, by the decisions in other cases; but, as no two cases are precisely alike, this is an uncertain light. Two cases have been pressed* upon the attention of the court: The George W. Clyde, 86 Fed. 665, 30 C. C. A. 292 — where a schooner, badly injured by a collision, was in apparent danger of sinking immediately in water 60 or 80 feet in depth. Two tugs, happening to be near, took her in tow, and safely beached her about a quarter of a mile away in less than a quarter of an hour, and a reward of $1,000 for salvage services was made by the District Court and confirmed by the Court
I am asked to abate the award, in view of the exorbitant demands of the libelants, and authority is cited in support of such request. The demand of $25,000 made by the libelants was unconscionable, and grossly exorbitant, and, if it had been followed by an attempt to hold the ship, I would not hesitate to diminish the award on that account; but the testimony shows that the ship was allowed to sail upon the written assurance of her proctor that he would give whatever bond was required, and the amount of the bond was fixed by the court at $15,000. This amount was fixed by it upon the allegations in the libels, many of which have not been supported by the testimony, but, as no specific sum was demanded in the libels, I am of opinion that this is not a case where I would be justified in diminishing the amount, which I consider fair and just, because of demand made before the libels were filed.