The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-27
CHIEF o-coNNoR AND SHIP TORNADO.
An Authoritative opinion and Rebuke.

An Authoritative Opinion and Rebuke.
The large claim filed by Mr.. Thomas O'Con-
nor in the United States District Court against
the ship Tornado and cargo being now the
subject OF general discussion even of ''muni-
cipal investigation" your. readers, as well as
the city fathers, may derive considerable
light from the following opinion and decree
delivered in Galveston, and reported in the
second volume OF Woods Circuit Court Re-
ports page BOG, in the case Of Martin A.. Dayey
ct al. VS.. the bark Mary Frost and cargo, May
term, 1876:
By the Court-This is libel for salvage.
The libellant Dayy (who, 1t appears, was chief
engineer Of the fire department. Of the city Of
Galveston) called for the master OF the vessel
and asked him If he could manage the fire;
the master answered that he could not, and
requested Davy to take control and save the
vessel Libellants and their assistants took
control OF the vessel and proceeded to extin-
guish the flames, and poured water into the
vessel until her burning part sank and became
submerged, and the fire became wholly ex-
tinct, and the vessel finally rested on the bot
manned in charge for the purpose of raising
the vessel again, and on the following day
procured q steam tug and q barge, with which
they conveyed an engine alongside and
numped the water out OF the vessel, and raised
her. m
The libel goes on to state that the night was
cold, and that the libelIants were subject to
great labor and fatigue in saving the vessel
Wherefore they demand salvage. s...#
Some Of the lbellants were not fremen;
N5ut ell acted under the orders and directions
of the chief engineer. There are always vol
ranteer helpers at fires. 1t is an instinct Of
esrey good citizen to do all he can to suppress
as fire. But the fact that some who were not
fire does not detract from the truth Of the
general proposition that the fire department
distinguished this fire.
The services of the department were not re-
CURED on the second day in pumping out the
seems that the idea of salvage must have al
ready possessed them, and that they insisted
on pumping out the vessel.
I cannot regard this case as any other than
the extinguishment OF fire in ship lying at
the wharf of Galveston by the aid Of the fire
department Of that city. The question is,
whether it is case for salvage. In my opin
ion it Is not. The firemen were engaged in
the line Of their duty; They only did what It
was services that were not necessary and not
required, but expressly declined It is said,
however, that there Is no duty imposed on
the fire department of Galveston at all; that
there was once an ordinance declaring such
duty, but it has been repealed.
No duty imposed on q man who unites with
q municipal organization, whose only object
is to extinguish fires; who wears the uniform
OF the department; who is supplied with en-
gines, and ladders, and hose, and horses, and
all the apparatus for extinguishing fires.
The idea is preposterous. Duty does not al
ways arise from express commands. 1t often
arises from implied obligations quite as
strong as those which are most clearly ex-
pressed. 1t needs no law or ordinance to
make it the duty OF firemen to put out fires.
is there any express law that declares it to be
the duty Of a soldier to kill or capture his
enemy in battle? His very profession makes
it his duty. So does the profession OF fire
man make it his duty to his utmost to extin-
guiSh fire anywhere In the city.