The morning call., 1893-10-29
TIL 6 MAZE,
Market, Taylor and Golden Gate Avenue.

have been disgraceful. Would it not have
been as easy to throw the cargo into
lighters as into the water? Steam-lighters
might Just as easily have been procured
as the 200 laborers. and all the waste and
monetary loss would not have taken place.
There does not appear. from the facts as
known at present, 10 have been any valid
reason why the cargo should have been
jettisoned, and as the company which |
represent is involved to the extent OF about
SIS. .000-treasure TO the amount of $4,000,
however, having been sayed-l have pro-
tested against the action that has been
taken"
Perhaps no branch of legal practice is so
in tricate and ofttimes appare ntly contra
dictory as admiralty law. Whether the
ground being taken By the insurance COM
panies will stand legal examination re-
mains to be seen. Protests will be filed by
certain of the companies Individually, and
that will clear the way for united legal
action if it should be deemed advisable TO
carry the matter into court.
Thus far insurance to the amount of
S147, ,725 has been accounted for by COM
panies in this city as follows:
New Zealand. on -four, ETC.. S13. 000
treasure. S2300; North China. Oh merchan-
disc. principally -four, $4,000; Canton, on
-four. $4,000; Canton. on treasure. S11. 600;
Swiss Marine, on cargo, $500; Swiss
mafIUe, UD tIeHSuIt, SlOCO. OODLleTCIhl
Union, oD merchandise. S1S35; Fireman S
Fund. on merchandise. $500; Fireman S
Fund, treasure, $3.50; Ocean, on merchan-
disc, $3.50; Transatlantic Marine, on treas
ure, $4,000; Union of Canton. on treas
nre. $4,000; FOncier, on merchandise,
$500; Foncier, on treasure, $4,000; AS
surance of London. on -four, $3.50; Boston
Marine. on merchandise. $500; Cutie 81
Franks companies, on merchandise. $500
total, S147,725 total on treasure. $751; $50
total on merchandise, S65,075.
In addition to these are companies OHt-
side of the city to hear from and local
concern of twelve Chinese merchants who
work upon sort Of cooperative insurance
plan.
Many years ago suit was tried before
the late Judge Hoffman, which, TO some
extent. established a precedent on this
coast. The captain of the steamship Costa
Rica ran his vessel on Point Diablo and,
as he was afraid that If he took means to
get her off without assistance she would
fill with water and sink under his feet. be
did not jettison the cargo, although much
of it was much damaged. The vessel was
saved and the underwriters had to pay
claims aggregating $4,000. The claims
were satisfied, but the insurance compa-
MES concerned jointly brought suit against
the owners of the vessel, in the names of
the assured, to recover the amount of
claims, on the score OF culpable negligence
on the part of the steamship company's
servants. They won the suit.
So in the case of the City of New York,
If the failure to discharge the cargo into
| lighters can be construed into 'culpable
negligence" then the underwriters will
| have fighting chance of recovering from
| the steamship company, although 1t is to
be remembered that the case cited was
tried before the act limiting the liability
of ship-owners was passed. The law pre-
sumes, however. that the master of ves-
sci, in jettisOning cargo, does so for the
| benefit of all concerned. and to prove the
contrary lies with complainants. To
illustrate in some measure the difficulties
surrounding such case. albeit seemingly
simple enough to the non-legal mind, pro-
vision is made by law as to the cargo that
shall be jettisoned. The amount is fixed
proportionately to the value of the vessel
On the other hand, the State Supreme
Court has more than once ruled that the
value of vessel is its value after the acci-
dent, and If she should become tota
loss the value would necessarily be prac.
| ticailV nil.