The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-19

Icr9 SAYS
II Is not pretended thar any managing
cnacer Of che peesficnsng corporations I'D
have actual personal kBuwaeage az the
detective conssieson Of tho boiler. or Of
the failure e, inspect the same AFTER TIE
azteTa sons were made. But Il 10 inssssed
thar knowledge must Be imputed 20 them.
or that they are guilty Of negligence for
failure % acesmsnt themselves with facts
which con1d have been discovered II xhey
had been vigIianx- Tass position, 81 ssrs-
tanned by the courts. must result IN fas-
tensng personal liability on seaip owners
Tor the negligence % ssAeir agents or SER
wants contrary TO the terms of tie law. or
compel rhens 10 personally inspect their
vessels and the machinery therein. ana
see to keeping the same in repair and at
tend 10 the Official inspection and % per-
sonaily comply with every exactson OF the
steamboat inspection laws. rs condi-
ton precedent 10 right to a limitation
OF liability far damages caused by any
mishap. which Is equally contrary to the
intent o. congress- Many owners OF ves-
sels. and good managers OF corporations
engaged in transportation business. are
obliged to employ persons skilled In the
art OF constructing machinery and equip
ments for vessels SO as TO secure the
highest degree Of safety in navigation, be-
cause OF their own lack OF technical
knowledge, And the limited liability aaw
was intended TO encourage capitalists and
persons Of that class TO Invest money In
ships.
In behalf Of the injured passengers and
the representatives OF those who were
killed 1t Is contended that, as TO them by
force section asa Revised Statutes. the
owners must be held liable TO the fuis ex-
tent OF the damages sustained because
Of their failure TO comply with the pro-
visions OF section Ans Revised Statutes
as to inspection of the boiler after put
ting in the new mus-ring 1t is said that
section 4.4as is a later enactment than
section 4.2SS, and makes an exception in
favor OF injured passengers. There is,
however. another statute later ssfil to be
Considered. I refer to the act Of June IS,
1854. entitled An act to remove certain
burdens OF the American merchant mar
sne and encourage the American foreign
carrying trade, and for other purposes
q Supp. r. s. % ed 400. The 18th Sec
ton OF said act reads as follows:
Sc That the individual liability OF shin
owner shah be limited TO the proportion
of any or all debts and liabilities that his
individual share OF the vessel bears to
the whole. and the aggregate liabilities Of
all the owners OF a vessel on account of
the same shall not exceed the value of
such vessels and freight pending. Pro-
vbded. That this provision shall not af-
feet the liability of any owner incurred
previous TO the passage of this act, nor
prevent any claimant from joining an
the owners In one action: nor shall the
same apply TO wages due to persons en-
ployed by said ship owners
BY the 4th section OF the act OF June
10, 1856 q Supp. r. s. ID ed 494). the pro-
visions Of the section above quoted as well
as sections 4,sS22-4. 2S9 are extended so as
to apply to all vessels used on lakes and
rivers or in inland navigation. Including
canal boats. barges AMI lighters
The court here refers to the immunity
granted ship owners by the general mar
itinae law OF continental Europe, and in
England by parliament. il they are shown
to be personally free from blame. As long
as the rule OF respondent superior was en-
forced in this country American shipping
was at a great disadvantages. and the OBJ
ject which congress had In View ia enact
ing the limited liability law was TO build
UP the American merchant marine by re-
lieving American ship owners from bur
densome Liabilities from which European
competitors were already free.
The statute Applies to All Vessels.
After discussing sections 42Ss and 4.49s
Revised Statutes. which have given rise
TO conflicting opinions. Judge Hanford
says;
THE latest and therefore controlling ex-
pressions OF legislative win on the sub
ject are the section above quoted from the
act of 1854 and the act Of 1856 extending its
provisions To every description OF vessel
employed on lakes. rivers and in inland
navigation. In Butter VS.. Boston Steam
tice Bradley crftscizes the law OF 1854. say
ing on page 5si after stating emily part
of the provisions OF the 18th section.
The language IL somewhat vague, It
Is true: but 1t Is possible that It was in
tended to remove all doubts OF the appli-
cation 10 the limited liability law to all
cases OF loss and injury caused without
the knowledge OF privity Of the owner
''The language OF the act, IL vague. Is
nevertheless comprehensive. It's title in
dictates a purpose TO relieve ship-owners
from burdens and the proviso TO section
Is makes an exception of wages due to
persons employed by said s,ap-owners'
What other exceptions do the rules
for constituting statutes admit of? think
that the maxim expressio uniGs est ex-
cIuslo alterius may with great proprlesy
be applied here. Congress certainly in
tended to relieve ship-owners of some
burden OF liability by enacting the eigh-
teenth section r n what kind OF Iiabil-
ity, heretofore imposed. was removed by
this LAVE The inquiry forces me 10 con-
cluds that congress intended to encourage
investments OF capital In all kinds or yes
sells. and to authorize persons to become
owners OF steam vessels with freedom 10
entrust 10 others the entire burden OF
care .n tho management thereof, and
with a right to the same Immunity from
claims for damages IN case OF any disas-
ter thar the law extends 20 owners of
sailing vessels
IN accordance with this opinion. a de-
cree viii Se entered that upon payment
into conrt Of the amount OF the appraised
value az the vessel and pending freight
for the benefit OF the several claimants
the nhelan.s re forever released from all
liability for damages on account OF said
explosion and wreck"
f.. --sF1 -