The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-08-04

pany was entitled to have It's liability
limited under the statute. There was b
difference Of opinion In thAe tribunals.
however. as to whether thu company
ought to have paid into co.irt - Q por-
tioh Of the sum for wbsch Il vas liable
the amounts receiver for passage and
freight on the voyage from New York
to Hsvre in the course Of which La Bour-
gogne was lost. These amounts eggre-
gated about one hundred and twelve
thousand francs.
In the Supreme Court OF the United
States the FIRST question ~copsidered was
whether La Bourgogne was at fault
for the colliAion. The question whether
there was any fault on the part OF the
British ship Crornartyshire was not
passed upon In any Of the courts, for the
reason that that vessel wa not repre-
sented la the litigation. AZ 30 the man.
agement Of La Bourgogne the District
Court had held upon the evidences that
although the navigation OF La Bourgogne
was faultless In other respects 1t was
negligent in the failure of the captain to
moderate the speed Of the steamer In the
dense fog which prevailed at the time OF
the collision. La Bourgogne was rum
ming ut the rate Of about ten knots an
hour when she was struck by the Cro-
m~artyshlre. This speed was pronounced
excessive. as being q violation Of the
international rule OF navigation which
requires q steamer moving In q dense fog
to reduce her speed TO such . rate a. will
enable her to stop in time 30 avoid COLI
ifsion IL an approaching vessel comes IN
sight and such approaching vessel lie
herself moving at the moderate speed
required by law under such circura-
stances. It was argued In behalf Of tho
steamship company that upon the facts
proved the courts Of France would not
have deemed a speed Of ten miles IN
hour . violation Of the International rule;
but the Supreme Court OF the United
States in approving the decision Of the
lower courts on this branch OF the case
held that It must oonstrue the inter
national rule In accordance with It's own
views Of the Law. irrespective Of the view
which might be entertained In the French
courts.
Il having been established that the
speed Of La Bourgogne was immoderate
at the time Of the collision, the next ques-
ton presented for decision was whether
the corporation owning the vessel was
responsfble Tor such excess Of speed;
that ID to say, whether the negligence
which caused the collision occurred, In
the words of the statute, without the
privity or knowledge Of such owner or
owners Upon this question the Dis
trict Court, the Circuit Court Of Appeels
and the Supreme Court Of the United
States all agree that the company wax
not 10 blame. II twas decided many years
ago that mere negligence on the part OF
the navisators Of q vessel docs not Of
itself charge the owner with 'pfivfty or
knowledge within the meaning Oh the
act Of Congress. II appeared that the
Compagnle Generate Transatiantique as
long ago ~ 1854 had adopted stringent |
regulations to the effect that its steamers |
must not be run fest Ia q fog and direct
ing the captains to use the greatest prh-
dence in navigation and mover to hesi- |
tate in doubtful cases to adopt the most
suitable measures to assure the safety Of
their steamers, sven II a loss OF time
should result from 20 doing TWAS as
serted and argued by the claimants in
the trial court. however, that the COM
pany knowingly encouraged or tolerated
a violation of its regulations In this TO
spect, because, knowing that the captains
habitually navigated at ain immoderate
rate Of speed In fogs, IL did not prevent
this illegal practice. The late Judge
WILLIAM X. TOWNSEND, who tried the
case, decided squarely In favor OF the
corporation, however, on this point, |
holding tins, Its officers had not know
ingly tolerated or encouraged the run
ming Of its steamers at an excessive speed
in fogs and also that they had used due
diligence to secure officers Of experience
and ability. He therefore reached the
conclusion that the disaster occurred
without the privity or knowledge Of the
owners. and Mr.. Justice WHITE, who
wrote the opinion Of the Supreme Court
Of the United States, emphaticaily con-
CURED In the view that this finding was
clearly right. As to the equipment OF
La B~ourgogne it was shown that the
Board Of Supervising Inspectors Of the
Treasury Department had fixed the total
capacity Of life boats and life RATS on an
ocean steamer of the size Of La Bourgogne
6,e7O Cubic feet, and that the. vessel
was actually provided with life boats and
life RATS Of capacity Of 5000 cubic feet,
or nearly 1000 feet more than the regula-
tons required.
The decision Of this second question
in favor Of the steamship company en-
titled 1t to have It's liability limited under
the act OF Congress, and the other ques-
tions in the case related TO the amount
which It was compellsble to pay into
court to satisfy the claims provable
the fund. The company con-
that 1t was not bound to sur
the sums which had been prepaid
for freight and passage on the voyage
New York to Havre upon which
the vessel was lost; but the Supreme