The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-14

the Supposed case az q al, e,r.snr .,.o
- negllSe1t4y. and striking q ves.ss a.
s0sh ~ IA Improper position. 90 tia.
s laere Is nothing * tails % establish la
L1.sss AI1a vessel ~ nrchc-. Il struck
- anotneT vexzeA, e her position was
Fess1l, IN time for trara 20 have zvoIsed
70 ceisision- TIE Manitoba. II Z g. 81
-. vas : case ef = collision between two
thers I. g ra.s1, way ~ on Lake Superior;
neE y re rules CO Law discussed IN the
oV4nlcn % the court. having any bearing
~ re Question al issue here The case
appsaFs 70 have been cited az an szshar-
~ 70 sustain fne proposition thai tr
case OF mutual fault. the damages shaH
e e civsesd. The Arrnoria. 81 Fed. Req.
tween two Vessels. one OF which VIA. a.
aEcnor IN Delaware bay. The collision
occurred IN tire night ttrnr srf .Aa
I.ea1lnss raised an issue as to whether
place. exhibited a proper light and main
tafn~d q watch Judge Butter he'd lhat
TIE burden % proof was cast upon the
yesSel ~ anchor 20 establish al OF rneae
facts. But the rule Is different N q case
o. COLLISION OF . clear afternoon. The YES
sci a. anchor being plainly visible and
ner position known 20 those IN charge OF
EASixztirg the incoming vessel IN tine
ror them 20 have avoided the collision
IN this case there's is no Issue raised as
70 faHlt on the part % the Monterey, by
Q -
ly notice OF her position
The position OF the Monterey ard fail
urs on ths part of her commander 20 corn-
ply with the city ordinance with refer
esice 70 obtaining permit from the har-
borznaster are matters OF no importance
a mere failure 70 comply with prescribed
rules or navigation or hsrbor regulations
Goes not render a vessel liable for dam
age caused 81 a collision. unless The neg
ieof or wrongful act IL shown 10 he the
approximate cause Of the collision. Long
4 la hsilroee Company vs.. klilien. g.
"A visible stationary object in any Do
sstlon cannot be regarded as the ca use ot
1T 1rlury 20 person. who, with full
comes IN collision with Il. The la does
not authorize tna application Of deSsTuc-
tive force against wr0AS deer, when
tae wrong consists Of a mere Intrusion
without license. or trespaEs upon unin-
closed GROUNDS or highways. whether plb-
lie or private. / cannot regard TIE pos-
session by Capt Ludlow OF a permit from
the narbCrmaSseT, or the want OF - ss
circumstances having any influence
whatever TO cause or prevent the coIiiz-
Ion. should 10 reluctant 10 hold tina
intruder In any port OF the United States,
IN which she should choose TO east an
ehor. without permission previously OBJ
tAIned from the harh0rmaster But IL -
unnecessary for me 20 pass upon the val
idity OF the city ordinance pleaded as a
restriction upon the freedom of a COM
EaanoIag officer 20 choose for himself n
place 20 anchor public vessel Of the
United States. The most thar could be
claimed under tho ordinance would be
the right 20 have an iatrudfng vessel re-
moved 10 place assigned 70 her b. the
haFoormaster, or 10 collect from the Of
Tending captain the penalty for violation.
prescribed by the ordinance. The prin-
cipls Involved Is the same as In the case
OF The Blue Jacket. Ia U. g., sli-sS4. In
which the supreme court OF the United
States decided that failure on the part
OF steam tug to have on board q IL
ceuse5 mate. and 20 maintain q proper
lookout while under way with A vessel
In tow In the night time. in the Straits OF
Juan de Fuca. did not render the steam
tug liable for damages caused by coll
Nsion. although the failure in the parsicu-
lars mentioned was fragrant violation
OF the positive requirements OF United
States statutes. The reason for the de-
ctsiOn being that the violation OF law
was not the cause OF the collision.
''In view Of all the facts alleged. II 10
my conclusion that no acti0naole wrong
on the part of the defendant Is shown.
therefore the libel will be dismissed With
costs"