The Portland daily press., 1899-05-17

risdiotion and demonstrating the absence
OF liability on their part. The present
proceedings were taken under the acts of
ls5i and 1884, the latter being known as
the Dingley act The SupremeaC Court rule s
outlined the course of procedure, Rul
81 specifying that when vessel is libelled
or when suit is brought for damage or
loss, and the defendant desires to take
advantage of the limited liability provis-
ions Cf the laws above cited. he shall file
libel in the United States court setting
forth the facts in the case and the grounds
under which the limitation of liability
is asked. Rule 81 specified that in the
proceedings the owners should be able to
contest the question of liability inde-
pendent of the limitation of liability pro-
ceedlngs. That is, the petitioning. party
may deny all liability, in this respect the
rule differing from the English law.
where the petitioner must confess liability
In order to procure a limitation. The
57th rule provides that If the vessel. shall
have buen libelled and sold the proceeds
shall represent 1T in the proceedings.
The question Of what the court might
find as to limitation of liability was the
subject of considerable discussion. MIR.
Libby contended that even without the
statute which had been cited, the court
might find such an absence of blame on
the part of the managers of the boat AS
would preclude all claims for damage.
This view seemed also to be the view OF
tbs court; but the court denied the claim
of counsel that decree might be made
which would not only refuse these ps nd
ing claims but also all other Chains that
might he brought forward In future.
Judge Webb said that they might contest
these claims as they were presented; but
he was not prepared to say that by these
proceedings all other persons in all parts
of the world, could be precluded from
coming forward.
AS soon as the preliminary statements
had been made, Mr.. Thompson began
calling this witnesses. A smile went
around the court room as Mr.. Thompson
began calling his witnesses. The first
one was MIR. j. r. Liscomb. but after
him nearly all were captains. and as the
list was called it seemed that all the
mariners of Maine, ancient and otherwise
had been mustered.
Captain Amos E. Haggett, OF Bath,
Superintendent Of the New FErgland
Shiphuilding Co, was called first He
said that he had personally superintended
the building Of about seventy steamers,
schooners and barks. Among the steam
ers were the Cottage City and Winthrop
and the Portland. The Portland was
begun in 1888 and launched in November,
1889 She was fifteen months under con-
struction, seven>of which were consumed
in putting in engines and other appliance
es and furnishings. Inc steamer hau
a whits oak frame with white oak bottom
aud hackmetack top. Cedar and yellow
pine we're used also. The stanchions were
of locust. and the knees of oak. Every
thing was of the best, and the steamer
was put together and fastened in the best
possible manner. The witness also de-
scriDed the crosswise fastenings, which
made q network of thirty-inoh squares
along the interior of the hull. The top
of the steamer was fastened by long iron
bolts that went down every five feet to the
solid hull. The bulwarks were secured
in the most approved fashion. The Port
land had three bulk heads, which were
put in by the Bath Iron Works. One was
located forward of the engines, anoth er
aft of them, and the third was "A collisi on
bulkhead at the bow.
Mr. William FL. Meloher, of Bath
master joiner, who had been engaged in
building vessels since 1SiS, and master
Joiner since 1853, twas master joiner of the
Portland and knew her to have been buil5
in "A first class way. She was, as regarded
strength, trst class and up to date. The
sponsons and the method Of their attach
ment were described at length by the
witness. He considered the vessel first
class in respect to the hull
Mr. George F. Morse, for forty years
connected with the Portland Company,
testified that his company built the en-