The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-05-25
LIMITATION of HARTnR ACT.
Important Decision of Supreme
Court in Shipping Law.

The United States Supreme Court has re-
Gently decided two interesting and i'm
portant questions arising under the Har-
ter act, in the case OF the steamship Chat
tahoochee of the Ocean Steamship Line,
which collided with the Canadian schooner
Golden Rule off Nantucket shoals some
time ago. The Harter act was passed by
Congress in 1898. BY it an important
change resulted in The legal relations which
before that existed between a vessel and
its cargo. Prior to the Harter act becom-
ing a law, if the cargo was lost or dam
aged by reason of faulty navigation or bad
management the owners of The vessel were
liable to the owners of the cargo. This
liability was removed by the Harter act.
which provides that "if the owner of any
vessel, transporting merchandise or prop
erty to or from any port in The United
States of America. shall exercise due dill
igenco to make the said vessel in all re-
spects seaworthy and properly manned,
equipped and supplied neither the vessel,
her owner or owners, agents or charterers
shall become or be held responsible for
damage or loss resulting from faults or
errors in navigation or in the management
of said vessel"
In the case of the Chattahoochee the
Hli5dIOH arose over tGt NO4AA'ANfA WA
the schooner Golden Rule bound from
Porto Rico to Boston The Chattahoochee
was on her way from Boston TO Savan-
nah. The collision resulted in the total
loss of the schooner ana cargo. The
steamer was practically uninjured. The
steamer was proceeding at the rate of ten
or twelve knots an hour and the schooner
at the rate of seven miles an hour when
the vessels came together. The New York
O.. Of q
application of the Supreme Courts recent
decision in the case The United States
District Court in Massachusetts held that
| both vessels were to blame, as they were
going al an immoderate speed in the foSgy
condition of the weather which prevailed.
This entitled the owners of the schooner's
cargo under the rules of the admiralty
law, to recover the amount OF their loss
| from the steamer. The collision having
! occurred by the fault Of both vessels, the
| District Court decreed that the damages
| should be divided, thus compelling the
owners of the steamer to pay one-half
| the value of the schooner. From this
| amount however, the court allowed a
deduction of one-half the value of the lost
| cargo If this had not been done the
| Chattahoochee would have been held re-
sponsible tor more than half the damages
| resulting from the collision, for she would
have had to make good not only half the
value of the lost schooner, but the whole
value of the lost cargo.
| The owners Of the schooner, however,
insisted that it was a violation of the
provision which we have quoted from
| the Harter act to compel them thus to
lose an amount representing half the car
go There was no proof that their vessel
was unseaworthy, and, in the absence
of evidence to that effect, the law pre-
thu sler
| the circumstances, they contended, the
| Harter act expressly exempted them from
liability for a loss occasioned by faults
or errors in navigation such IS led to
| this disastrous collision.
The United States Circuit Court of APP
peals in Boston, to which the case was
first taken for review, disposed of this
point on the ground that the Golden Rule
was British schooner. while the stat
ute in question by it's letter applies to any
vessel transporting merchandise or prop
erty to or from any port In the United
States,'' said Circuit Judge Putnam, we
are not prepared TO determine that its
benefits were intended to extend to for
eign vessels"
OF this branch of the case the Supreme
Court at Washington has taken differ
ent view. The opinion of that tribunal
is written by Mr.. Justice Brown, a dis
tnguished admiralty lawyer who was
for many years district judge of the
| United States at Detroit, and who declares
that he knows of no reason why for
| eign vessel like the Golden Rule, engaged
in carrying cargo from a foreign port
! to Boston, is not entitled to the benefit
of the provision of the Harter act to
which we have referred in any case
where that provision would be applica-
BILE to an American vessel
But the Supreme Court, although hold
ing with the owners of the schooner on
this point, decides against them on the Sec
ond important question involved in the
| case.
In 1926, in the case of the Delaware, Mr.
Justice Brown then also writing for the
court said that the whole object of the
Harter act was to modify the relations
previously existing between vessel and
her cargo, and that it had no possible ap-
| plication to the relations of one vessel to
| another. In that case no question arose
concerning the loss of a cargo. In this
case of the Chattahoochee, however,
where such a question was one OF the
principal issues, the court has extended
the doctrine of the Delaware case to its
legitimate conclusion, holding that as the
Harter act was not intended to increase
the liability of one vessel to another in a
| collision case, the relations of the two
| colhding vessels to each other remain I'M
affected by this act, Notwithstanding one
or both Of such vessels be laden with a
cargo"
This limitation of the operation of the
Harter act is in harmony with the pur-
pose of that measure, which was TO regu-
late the rights of the shippers of goods
and the owners of vessels toward one an
| other. and did moi contemplate any change
in the liability of one vessel for the effects
Of its negligence upon another vessel.
The decision bears directly upon impor-
tant commercial interests, and is a note
worthy development of the American law
of shipping.
| Case Settled.