The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-06
STEAMSHIP OWNER
CLAIMS BENEFIT OF
THE HARTER ACT,
Pacific Coast Company Denies LA
bflity for Baggage Lost I'm Coro-
M Wreck-Not Responsible for
Alleged Negligence Of Omcers.

The first Of the damage suits brought
against the Pacific Coast Company Tor
baggage lest in the wreck OF the steamer
Corona is on trial IN the superior court
before Judge Moore and is hung up on the
construction OF the United States statute
known as the Harter act, which defines the
liability OF common carriers on the nlgn
seas. This is the first instance il which
the Superior court has been called upon 10
interpret the act and for thai reason the
trial VIII be watched with considerable III
terest by shipping men.
The DlaIr.tiff in the case Is Mrs. II. c..
Potter, who sues for the loss Of baggage.
valued al tfSi, The steamship company 5
defense Is that the company's liability was
limited by clause III the ticket sold her
10 500 and that under the Harter act she
is not entitled to recover anything what
ever. The Harter act was a card which
the defense had up It's sleeve, and whicn
was played when the plaintiffs lawyers
asked her TO narrare the articles her miss
ing baggage had contained To this ques-
ton an objection was inferposed ana ar
gued pro and con nearly all afternoon
Mrs. Potter claims that the wreck or the
Corona. which occurred on the coast OF
Southeastern Alaska on January ~, was
the result of inexcusable negligence and
carelessness on the part OF the company
in employing an incompetent captain and
ignorant pilots and other officers. In MS
opening statement, Robert F. Booth, one
OF the plaintiffs attorneys, stated that the
wreck occurred on clear, bright winter $
morning on a reef miles out OF the Co
rons's course and that there was no
room to claim that there was any act OF
God or unavoidable accident about 1t.
The company claims that the Officers
were competent and that the wreck was
unavoidable. but goes even further and
claims that under the Harter act it is not
liable for the damages claimed. even If
they were. as is alleged. caused by the
negligence Of its agents and servants, the
captain and pilots Attorney sam ii.
Piles stated the act to mean simply that
the company was bound only TO employ
competent officers for the vessel and was
not responsible for their acts after leaving
been fully performed. In support OF his
contention he cited many authorities.
Judge Moore will hear more argument In
the case today as to Mrs. Potter's right Ia
testify in the particulars stated.
The Harter act was passed in February
1893, and was, II is said. framed with the
object of placing American vessels on the
same footing with British vessels sailing
under the English shipping laws. Those
laws il is claimed relieved the English
common carrier on the ocean of the com
mon law obligation of an insurer, and the
Harter act, 1t is stated, does the sams
for the American ship owner, placing hin
in a position to compete with the English
owner on equal terms. The act has Other
provisions designed for the protection OF
the shipper. as some recompense for the
added obligation to insure at his own ex
pense the delivery OF his MERCHANDISE;
In the Potter case the defense make:
point that the obligation 10 insure doe:
not extend to baggage under the Hartel
act. 1t Is possible that If the case is al
lowed to go to the jury and is tried. the
verdict will be appealed from by the los
ing side and the appeal carried even d:
far as the supreme court Of the Cnitef
States on the question of statutory con
siruction involved
Attorneys Pratt Riddle and Robert F
Booth represent Mrs. Potter in the case
Attorneys Sam RI. Piles and James Wick
ersham, of Tacoma, are among the law
yers looking after the defendants inter
eSts.
The case will be especially hard Tough
by the company. for the reason that TIL
decision will be a precedent in scores o
similar cases which may grow out of thu
loss Of the Corona.