, 1861-02-08
y !.:!t - -f!nt.x .t-5 !: ~ .--- :
THE. PRoREElER-sGIQBE :;


4..k4- . D.
3 The following opinion Of our City Attorney,
concerning the liability of tie city corporation
for oil damage oceaaloned By the hulk of the
propeller Globe, i, ID tay the 1enst, singular
one. It distinctly avows that the city it not
llable, but We are left TO- infer who Is. The
document win undoubtedly create conslde1a-
bic excitement in shipping circles, as the wreck
Of the Globe still remains where sunk this
past tn, and seems likely long to remain q
terror to all sorts Of craft and an eye,sore to
al lovers Of order and public eafety: At the.
request of the Mayor and Comptroller, the City
Attorney gives his opinion as follows.
an asked an opinion as to the liability OF the
ctty 10 the case Of the propeller Globe THAT ves-
sel nov Ata snnken tn front Of Halls dock. and is
particularly to the use Of the dock owners Or yes
ssls, and the OWNERS or lessees of the dock. and
ike-J to be injured By the annken wreck. Under
sasa ned thaR he tef eiPe e MY
70 liable. and this opiaion to based enliyeIy upou
f;. fhf s,se Of oooeTieh e. hs c1ye Chicago Il 70
That was an action for damages sustained by
Tsaaen ,ss e an aiegsd Obstruction Of TIE Chicago
M snat tae eaty " rs Charsef. was bound 70 remove
az from the river, and that It had
aad kgylMg tazss Jor 1Aat l4rpose. Fha plsintits
css.eo and fbs .n to I'D 9
wreck OF vessel to :enain in the river, at tho
mouth ot the hafhor; under water aud out OF sight,
. aoon which plainti1s steamboat ran, and was In
- Supreme Court, on deciding the ca.e held
that the CITY was not bound to exercise Ill the au-
thortty conferred in the chaster-and It e1pre=aly
gaSe power ito prevent and remove all onstfpe-
t15ns therein and punish the authors thefeoY:''
1n 90 ali tho rcts authorized in tho Charter. The
Court said the Legislature did not intend that he
municipal authorities should be absolutely bound
tomoss ~ oostrncttous in the tiyer, it was new
es the Intention Of the Legislature to impose the
absolute a OBLIGATION upon the CITY to perform it
1t dots not follow th no pecuniary responsibility
rests npon the city in connection with the subject
Il tsq lily undertakes to do any Of theacta auihor~
snGnn<r and 1t 1t does not, whoever suffers }or The
:want Of such proper carr, would be entitled to
ccompensatton for tho damages he Thus sustatns.
Il me city authorizes had undertaken to remove This
hutk,' and fn dung 30 had care1essy left 1t ia an
exposed position. By reason whereof The plaintiff
stetmer h1d run against it and was injured, they
gencs: But uakA they had assumed ne respoasi5
~ 9f Fenaoctng tho toreck, we cannot hold that
taey were bound to remove it any mufe than to
toremove dFift-wool from the North Branch ten
tie csc E seoarieh: the declaration avesred
sage Of ordinances and levying ta1cs for that nr-
pose namely. the removal Of distractions. it is
apparent from the above cited marks Of the Court
that the mere passage and existence Of code Of
regulations or ha1bor ordinances arc not such an
undertaking BY the City to do tho acts authorized
BY the Charter or will make her responsible for in-
jurtes suffered from obstructione. She must have
actually undertaken the reruosa, OF the obstruc-
,;ons A9d accordingly In this yeTy ot Good
has heen amended to aver that the City did undsr-
fals the removal OF the very wreckin question.
J, therefore, regard this Case Of Goodrich as IN
authority that the City is not Obliged to remove
the wreck Of the sunken vessel,
Respectfully. Jvo. LIE KHa.
February 5. 1881.