106 F. 952 | D. Wash. | 1901
It is not disputed that salvage was earned, and-the only controversy to be settled is with respect to the amount which should be awarded. The libelant’s evidence includes testimony relating to matters not put in issue by the pleadings, and, as the libel has not been amended, all that evidence will be treated as foreign to the case. The British steamship Elm Branch, on a voyage into the Columbia river, carrying water ballast and 410 tons of coal, and having on board 33 persons, constituting her officers and crew, on January 8, 1900, broke her shaft, and lost her propeller. At the time of thé accident she was off the coast of Oregon, 197 miles due west of Tillamook lighthouse. Preparations were made as soon as practicable to place in position an extra shaft and propeller, which the ship carried for such an emergency, but, bad weather setting in, it became impossible to extricate the ship from her predicament by that means, and she drifted in the direction of Cape Flattery until the morning of January 12th, when she came in sight of Umatilla lightship. Such sails as the ship carried were useful in holding her on a course to avoid the more dangerous coast north of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, but there was very little ground
The success of this effort to save a disabled ship intact, with all on board, is to be credited very largely to the power of the Tyee,. and her capacity to handle a heavy tow in a rough sea, and the completeness of her equipments for that kind of work. The service, however, was performed promptly and skillfully, and it' required courage of a high degree on the part of Capt. Bailey and his crew to go to the rescue of a disabled vessel in the situation of the Elm Branch in a storm of such severity that it was deemed imprudent to go out to' sea with a ship in tow. The stormy weather which characterized the morning of January 12th continued throughout that day, and for several days afterwards, and increased to such violence that it required two anchors to hold the Elm Branch in Port Townsend Harbor. Notwithstanding these uncontroverted facts, the answer of the claimant in this case denies that the Elm Branch was exposed to any considerable peril, and attempts to minimize the merit of the salvage service. In his testimony, Capt. Iliff states the facts-with commendable candor, and yet he appears to have had vastly greater confidence in his ability to take care of himself and his ship-without help, after his arrival in port, than he manifested when he made signals of distress to call a passing ship to his assistance, and when he accepted the offer of assistance from the Washtenaw at a time when he knew that another vessel had gone to Neah Bay to summon other help. Capt. Hastorf, the officer in charge of Umatilla lightship, and who was at his post during the storm referred to, and who has had many years’ experience as a navigator, and who had the peculiar experience of losing a fine ship in a similar storm in the immediate vicinity, of where the Elm Branch was anchored, testified as-a witness in this case, and expressed the opinion that the Elm Branch could not have been saved if she had not been rescued that night. He explained that the bottom is sandy, and not the best holding ground for an anchor; and he expressed the belief that, if the ship’s anchors held, the anchor chains would have broken; and, considering the actual happenings above narrated, I consider that the witness had reasonable grounds for the belief which he expressed. This is a parallel case to The City of Puebla (D. C.) 79 Fed. 982, and in the argument counsel for the claimant relies upon that case as setting a precedent for an award of less than 5 per cent, of the value of' the ship and cargo saved; and it is insisted that, as the perils encountered by the salvors in that case were somewhat greater, and the' time actually consumed in securing the disabled vessel and towing
