The Republican journal., 1886-04-08
The Question of Salvage.

TIE ENGLISH RULE GOVERNING THE ORE
CONS CASE.
IN regard to the compensation allowed per-
SONS who voluntarily assist in saving property
from wreck, the London Economist has this
to say:
Happily all the passengers and crew, num-
bering some 800 people, We're taken off the i'll
fated Oregon before she went down off Long
Island the other day. OF the cargo the only
thing of any value as yet saved, beyond few
mail bags. is the diamonds which she had on
board. These are of great value, being said to
be worth IA million dollars. We think we may
take it for granted that claims for salvage
services will be made. 1t is true the North
German LloydS, to whom the resclng steamer,
the Ful'ia, belongs, are reported to have said,
very generously that they were only too happy
to have been instrumental in saving so many
lives, and that they waived all claim for salvage.
But even if this statement be literally correct
two other vesses-a pilot boat and schooner
(the Fannie A. Gorham of Belfast, Me.)-
played an important part in the saving of the
passengers, and claims for salvage services are
therefore highly probable. In these crcum-
stances it may be of interest to consider how the
various interests would be affected by such IA
claim.
In the first place, the award of the courts
would doubtless be a liberal one; for though
some of the ingredients-such as the risk incur
red by the salvors, the skill shown in rendering
the services, and the time and labor occupied
of salvage services were present in but small
quantities, others, viz, the degree of danger
from which the lives or property are rescued
and the value of the property saved, We're con-
siderable. The saving of human life counts for
much in the assessing of salvage services. But
in the second place, who is to pay the sum
awarded? The ship, or the cargo, or both? Not
the ship, for she is at the bottom of the sea. a
total loss. Not the shipowners, for the liability
to pay for salvage services is not a general per-
sona liability, but is limited to the value of the
property saved, and the shpowners' property
in this case is lost. The salvage award in
respect of both the property and the lives saved
can only be had out of the goods saved-that is,
the diamonds.
At first blush this doctrine that the owners
of the diamonds, and they alone, should be the
people to remuncrate the salvors for their SER
vices, not only in respect of the diamonds but
also in respect of the lives, may appear strange.
and perhaps inequitabe. Such, however, is the
law. When lives and cargo are salved from a
ship, but the ship is totally lost, the owners of
the cargo are liable to pay salvage in respect of
the lives, and the owners of the lost ship are not
liable to contribute to the payment. The theory
| is that in case of life salvage the payment is
made, not because of any benefit conferred upon
him who pays, but rather because of the interest
the community has in encouraging the saving of
life. 1T may be that the diamonds will not have
to bear the whole burden of the salvage. Fur
ther attempts are to be made to salve cargo now
in the hold of the Oregon, and should they be
successful, the cargo brought up will also
have to contribute to the life salvage. A
similar case occurred off our coast some years
ago. The German steamer Schiller was lost.
Some boats saved the lives of some of the
passengers and crew. The Schiller had large
amount of specie on board, and this was after
wards recovered, but not by the people who
saved the lives. The owners, masters and
crew of the boats were held to be entitled
to salvage out of the proceeds of the specie.
monds as the persons who pay for the life sal
wage. 1t does not, however, ultimately come
out of their pockets, but of their underwriters, ,
salvage being loss recoverable under marine
policy.