The San Francisco call., 1897-08-26
BAD DAY FOR
DIR. CHALMERS
News From Washington
and Judge de Haven at
the Same Time.
The Collector Complimented for
His Action in the Quaran-
tine Matter.
A Libel Suit for the Doctors Al
legged Services to a Ship
Dismissed.

Yesterday was a bad day for State
Quarantine Officer Chalmers. He was
defeated on two counts. The first was
letter sent to Collector Jackson from the
Secretary of the Treasury commencing
that officials action in the controversy
between the State and Federal quarantine
officials, and the second was a clean knock
out in the United States court of DR..
Chalmers libel against the ship Drum
lanrg for compensation for medical SER
vices.
Collector Jackson was very much
pleased when he received the letter from
Washington, but he would not talk on
the merits of the controversy. The letter
was as follows:
WASHINGTON D. c., August 25. 1897.
Collector Of Customs, San Francisco Your
order requiring bolh copies of the bill of
health OF vessels from foreign ports, together
with the National Quarantine Officers certifi-
cate of pratique to DE delivered in sealed
o. L. SPAULDING,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
In delivering his opinion Judge de
Haven said:
am not satisfied from the evidence in the
case that the minds of the Hbelant and mas
ter of the ship Drumlanrig ever met in agree
libel.
The libelant did not in fact render any ser
vices whatever under such contract, and was
not called upon to do so, and the evidence
shows that the services of another physician
had been engaged for the ship before her ar
rival here.
In relation to his alleged contract, the libel
ant testites that when he solicited the en-
ploym ent he asked the master whether the
ship had already contracted for the services of
physician or WAS TO accept his services, and
" q rlQS star nrlt tnd hat h dylnr
known whether physician had been engaged
for the ship or not. The testimony OF the mas
ter is TO the same effect, but as to the subse-
quent converse ton there is d material conflict
between the libelant and the master, the
former insisting that he and the master
tered into an absolute contract by which
fessionaI services as physician and sur
geon to The crew OF the ship dur
ing her stay in port. while the testimony OF
the mas ter is in substance that he told libel
ant that he might attend the ship, provided
the ship had not already been "cUu1racted';
that is, as l understand, provided no other
physician had been employed for that purpose.
In view OF the admitted fact that the master
informed the HDelant that he did not know
whether any physician had been employed for
the ship or not the statement OF the master
That he agreed to accept the services OF the
libelant only on condition that another ply
sician had not been engaged is quite as cas-
enable as the opposing statement of the libel
anti
l have no reason to believe the testimony of
either or those witnesses was wilfully false
On the contrary, am dis posed to think that
the difference in their testimony grows out of
the fact that there was mutual mtsunder-
sanding OF the purport OF the converse tion
between them, and 1t is a matter of common
experience that such MISUNDERSTANDING are
frequent incidents of ora! ommunication be-
tween equally honest and intelligent persons.
Viewing in this light the contract alleged the
libel has not been proved. Let decree be en-
| tered dlsmissing The libel, the claim nts to re-
cover costs