Valdez daily prospector., 1917-05-10
JUDGMENT GIVEN IN
 FAVOR DEPENDANT
Judge F. M. Brown Hands Down An Opinion In the Case of the United States vs. Steamship Alameda ct al. Libel Is Dismissed.

Court, this morning rendered oe- cision in the case of the United States vs the Steamship Alameda and the Alaska Steamship Company, in which
 he finds for the respondent.
 The action was brought by the gov ernment and the steamship Alameda libeled for damages sustained through the breaking of the valdez-Sitka and
 the Valdez-Liscum cable, the break
 having been caused. it was alleged,
 by the anchor of the Alameda. the damage having occurred on December IF, 1913.
 In his opinion the court goes into
 the details of the landing of the steamer on the date mentioned, the
 use of the anchor in making such landing and the possibility of the dam age having been occasioned by such
 use, but states: practically the un- disputed testimony shows that when the anchor was raised about 10:30 1t did not show any evidence of being entangled with the cable. and there is no direct evidence to prove that such was the case. MT. Henry
 Winter, the Cable Engineer of the Cableship Burnside, who was the chief expert called on the part of the 1 libelant in the matter of picking up
 the cable, testified that he was not
 able to state the actual cause of the
 breaking, and can only give his opin-
 ion and that he could not say that the
 anchor of the Alameda actually broke
 the cable.
 But even if the anchor of the
 Alameda did in fact break the cable,
 am still of the opinion that the
 libelant is not entitled to recover here,
 for the reason that the location of
 said cables was not known to Cap
 tain Warner of the Alameda; was not
 charted: no circular notice thereof
 had ever been sent out by any depart
 ment of the government of the United
 States; no sign had been placed on
 the wharf or elsewhere indicating it's
 location.
 9Th etheory upon which the libel
 lant seeks to reciyer is that it was i the duty of the captain to be inform- ed of the exact location of this cable knowing it to be fact that there was cable in Valdez bay, running from the Town of Valdez. Y" A The tes- timony of Captain Warner shows that he as master of steamships has been running into Valdez for the last ten years and never knew where the cable was laid. The libelant contends that it was the duty of the captain to have ascertained the location of the cables, but it is not clear that he could have done so had he made the effort. "The libelant here cannot claim any higher or greater right than pri- yate individual would in like circum- stances, and it would not come with very good grace for the owner of cable to impute negligence to a ves- sel for fouling it with it's anchor. where he had kept the location profound secret for ten years or more. "A number of cases allowing dam ages for the breaking of cable have been cited by the libelant, but in near ly all the cases the breaking of the cable was admitted or else the loca- tion thereof generally known. or charted, or else in the fouling of the cable the captain or officers of the vessel were negligent in not disen- tangling their anchors or even slip ping their anchors to avoid the great CT loss of breaking the cable.
 "Under the treaty of 1884 between the United States and various other countries relating to submarine cables 1t was provided that the owner of the cable would compensate the owner of any vessel which loses its anchor or other equipment in avoiding injury to the cable.
 There does not appear to be any force to the suggestion of the libel- ant that the location of this cable
 was kept secret as a matter of mili- tary strategy. -"
 "I am of the opinion therefore. that the libelant has failed to estab-
 fish it's case, that the libel ought to be
 dismissed and judgment will be enter
 ed accordingly"