PILOTAGE.

charged his full fee for taking the ship to sea, the over-payment could be recovered from him. 2nd. The Government of India could not be made liable for the acts of their servant; consequently any loss would have fallen on the Owners of the ship and cargo.]

SOUTH OF BOULOGNE.

SIR,-What is the rendering of the 379th clause of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, relating to Pilots (or if repealed), as, if I understand it rightly, "a vessel not belonging to the Port," over 60 tons register, and bound to a foreign Port not north of Boulogne (Havre, for example), or if shifting to a neighbouring Port to load for foreign, is compelled to employ a Pilot (Trinity Outport) from Port of loading to the limits? But a Broker thinks otherwise.-Yours, &c., April 2, 1872.

LEARNER.

[In all the Trinity House Pilotage districts vessels of 60 tons and under are exempt; and all other ships, when trading from a Trinity House district to any places in Europe to the north of Brest, are also free from compulsory Pilotage. Whether vessels belong to a Port or not makes no difference, for all flags are exempt.]

CHRISTIANSAND PILOTAGE.

I

SIR,-On arrival at Christiansand, the Pilot came alongside and asked if I was bound in, and from whence we came. told him we were bound to Christiansand with rags in bales from Ronineburg. He did not understand me very well, as he could speak but little English. He said "branch Pilot," pointing to the sail of his boat, which had red cloth in it. I told him to come on board, and he did so. He made signs to me as to the ship's draught of water, and I told him about 7 to 6 feet 10. We came to anchor off the pier, and went on shore to the Pilot's office, where I signed for 6 or 7 feet, with. the condition that if the vessel drew any more I was to pay what might be demanded. When the water got smooth the vessel's marks, both fore and aft, could be seen. I met the Pilot Master next day in the Broker's office, and he told me I must pay Pilotage for between 7 and 8 feet. I told him I did not object, but he demanded a fine of $6 also. I said that was not right, as I did not refuse to pay on the ascertained draught of the vessel. I also said the anchor and 20 fathoms of chain were out of the vessel forward, and the bowsprit was in 6 feet, which would make a difference of some inches. He insisted, however, that I should pay the fine. Is this just to English vessels coming to Norway ?Yours, &c.,

T. MONALLY, Master of the ketch St. Abbs. Christiansand, Aug. 22, 1876.

[If the facts are as stated, and the Master was charged more for Pilotage than he should have been if the vessel's draught of water had been taken before she was lightened, an appeal might be made to the Pilot Master for redress. As regards draught, the immersion would vary with the density of the water inside and outside a Port.]

COASTING AND FOREIGN PILOTAGE. SIR,-1st. A vessel from Spain discharged the esparto portion of her cargo in London, and took the mineral portion to the Tyne, paying Coastwise Dues, &c. Is she liable to compulsory Pilotage? 2nd. If treated as a "coaster" by the Custom-house authorities, should she not be also by the Trinity Board? We have applied at the Trinity-house on the subject, but were told it was a question for legal opinion. -Yours, &c., ABOLITIONISTS.

London, Aug. 30, 1876.

[1st. The vessel came to the Port of London from a place south of Brest, and, therefore, the Pilotage would be compulsory in the Trinity House district inwards. 2nd. In the London and Outport Trinity House districts all "ships employed in the Coasting Trade of the United Kingdom, when not carrying passengers," are exempt from compulsory

PILOTAGE.

Pilotage. (Section 379, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) Section 140 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, defines the Coasting Trade for Customs purposes as-" all trade by sea from any one part of the United Kingdom to any other part thereof shall be deemed to be a Coasting Trade, and all ships while employed therein shall be deemed to be coasting ships." The Courts of Law have held that a vessel coming from a foreign Port to a Port in the United Kingdom, and then sailing to another Port in the United Kingdom, is not a vessel employed in the Coasting Trade, but a ship trading to more than one Port in the prosecution of a foreign voyage. Under this interpretation of what constitutes the employment of a ship in the coasting trade, Pilotage would be compulsory outwards. A vessel from the Thames to the Tyne would necessarily have to pass along the coast; but if she took on board no goods from the former to deliver at the latter, this, it is contended, is not trading within the meaning of the Statute. If, however, the Custom-house authorities admit such a vessel in the character of a coaster, the Trinity Corporation might obtain an Order in Council giving the same definition. The Elder Brethren would not be justified in opposing the decisions of the Superior Court of Law. Those decisions are quoted in the footnote to a Bristol letter at pages 201 and 202, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I. By the Order in Council of July 25, 1861," all ships navigating in ballast from any Port or place in the United Kingdom to any other Port or place in the United Kingdom shall, when not carrying passengers, be exempt from compulsory Pilotage within the Pilotage jurisdiction of the said Trinity House."]

DUES ON FOREIGN SHIPS.

SIR,-I was engaged to pilot a foreign barque from the Humber to the Downs. The ship's draught of water was 18 feet, and the rate of Pilotage 12s. 6d. per foot, the amount of Pilotage being 11. 5s. On March 22 I took charge of the ship and on April 3 came to anchor in the Downs, with the wind S.W. I remained on board the said ship 20 hours. I asked the Captain to pay me my pilotage, as I wanted to go on shore. The Captain told me he had got no money to pay me. I asked him to give me an order on his Broker in Hull. He said he should not. I then engaged a boat to take me on shore, at my own expense. I applied to the Magistrates at Deal, and they granted me a summons for the Captain, and sent it on board to request him to pay my Pilotage. He told the officer he had no money to pay me, and shortly after he weighed anchor and proceeded without paying. How can I obtain my Pilotage? GEORGE DARNELL, Trinity Pilot.

Hull, April 8, 1876. [Our Correspondent may summon the Agent who conducted the business of the ship for the Pilotage, under Sections 363 and 364 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.]

PASSENGERS AND PASSENGER SHIPS. SIR,-With reference to the expression "the Owner, his family and servants," in the first sentence of your able and

PILOTAGE.

interesting leader in yesterday's Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, allow me to ask whether a Shipmaster who is PartOwner of the vessel he commands, but not the Managing Owner, could with impunity, according to the ruling of the Thames Police Magistrate, have his father or any of his relatives (say brother, sister, father, father-in-law, &c.) with him aboard his vessel? Is the Captain's wife to be counted a passenger if the Captain is not Part-Owner, or does it matter in this connection whether he is Part-Owner or not? -Yours, &c., A READER.

Sept. 28, 1876.

[Section 303 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, has the definite article "the" before "Owner," and therefore the meaning is obscure when it is considered that there may be more than one Co-Owner of a ship. If the word "Owner" had been prefixed by "an," a plurality of Owners would be inferred. We are of opinion, however, that a Shipmaster who is Part-Owner might take his own family, or brothers, sisters, and father-in-law, to sea with him without rendering himself liable to a penalty.-(See article "Passenger Ships and Pilotage," page 199, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.) By the ruling of the Thames Police Magistrate, the wife of a Master would be deemed a passenger, but we hold with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that the payment of a fare is necessary to constitute a passenger within the meaning of the Act.-( Vide leading article in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Sept. 20, 1876)]

PASSENGER STEAMERS AND PILOTAGE. SIR,-My steam vessel is in the Coasting Trade, but she has not a passenger certificate. According to the new law, she may take 12 passengers. I now take from Gravesend a branch Pilot for exempt ships. If I take 12 passengers, am I under the Compulsory Pilotage Act both as regards Gravesend and Swin Pilots ?-Yours, &c.,

London, April 28, 1877. MASTER OF STEAMER. [As Pilotage was not compulsory in the London district under the 6th Geo. IV., c. 159, on passenger ships, whether they carried more or less in number than 12, Section 16 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1876 has nothing to do with the question. Wherever Pilotage on coasting vessels was not compulsory previous to 1854, it is not so now, and our Correspondent is not compelled to take a Pilot at Gravesend or in the Swin.-(See pages 70 to 73, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

PILOTAGE.

is safely moored-(see pages 17 and 20, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)-and if damage is incurred through his neglect, without contributory negligence on the part of the Master or Crew, he is liable to the extent of his bond. The Shipowner would have no right of action against the Club.]

PILOT ON A TUG.-SHIP DAMAGED. SIR,-If an accident should occur to a vessel in towing in or out of harbour or river with no Pilot on board, and there is a Pilot in charge of the tug, who would be accountable? Portrush, Feb. 11, 1876. MASTER OF COASTER. [If the Pilotage was compulsory, and the Pilot was engaged by the Master of the ship, it would not matter whether he directed the two vessels, which are considered as one, from the tug or from on board the vessel in tow; and in the event of an accident happening from the exclusive fault of the Pilot, the Owner of the sailing ship would be exempt from liability. On the other hand, if the Crew of the tug engaged by the Shipowner, or the Crew of the sailing vessel towed, were in fault, or the Pilotage was not compulsory, the question of liability would have to be decided on its merits between the Shipowners whose vessels might be damaged by collision.]

DAMAGE IN PILOTAGE WATER.

SIR, A screw steamer of which I am Manager, having occasion to go to Barrow in the beginning of January last, was boarded at Piel by a man from a Pilot-boat, whom the Master took to be a licensed Pilot, who ordered the steamer to anchor there till the following tide, though at that time it wanted nearly an hour of high water. The man then went ashore, but returned in time to take the vessel to Barrow the next tide. In getting underweigh, and while backing, the vessel's propeller struck something, and it was found after arrival at Barrow, that a blade of it had been broken off. The man exacted the regular Pilotage, but it now turns out that he was not a licensed Pilot; and I have no doubt that, by his unskilful handling of the steamer while getting underweigh at Piel, her propeller was brought in contact with the ground and broken. O whom should I claim for allow ing an unlicensed man to be put on board from a Pilot-boat as a Pilot? The Sub-Commissioners of Pilotage at Barrow say they are not responsible. J. C.

Ardrossan, Feb. 9, 1876.

[If the Master of the steamer made the proper signal for a Pilot, and a licensed Pilot-boat belonging to the Port came off, and put an unlicensed Pilot on board the ship, we are of opinion that the Pilotage authorities would be liable for the damage done, if it could be proved that the propeller was broken by the unskilful handling of the vessel.]

DAMAGE TO SHIP AND CARGO BY PILOT. SIR,-I took on board a cargo of oil-cake in Hull, and arrived in Burntisland Roads on Sunday, Sept. 24, at 5 P.M. The Pilot came out and said there was not room for the ship in the harbour that tide; but on Monday, 25th, at 7 A.M., he came on board to take the ship into harbour. I got partly in, when the ship took the ground and strained herself very much, which has caused damage to some of her cargo. She had made no water until she took the ground. My vessel will not get into a discharging berth before the 29th of September. What steps should I take, as I have only six Lay-days to discharge in? My Charter-party specifies that I am to come "thereunto, or as nearly as I can safely get." When I got to Burntisland the tides were taking off. -Yours, &c., A SHIPMASTER.

Burntisland, Sept. 28, 1876.

[If the Pilot's want of skill or negligence was the cause of the ship grounding, he would be liable for the damages incurred to the extent of his bond, if he has given one; but if no limit has been fixed to the Pilot's liability, he would be

PILOTAGE.

responsible for the entire claim. The ship had not got safely to her place of discharge when she grounded, but the Laydays would commence from the time there was water enough to take the vessel to the berth, whether she was berthed or not.]

PILOT'S ORDER DISOBEYED.

SIR,-I am a Pilot of the River Humber, and was piloting a barque from Grimsby Roads to the Royal Dock, Grimsby, in December last, the barque being in tow of a steamtug, when, on approaching the pier, I heard the whistle of a steamer which was lying in the lock, and gave distinct orders to the tug, three different times, to take me off the pier. The Captain of the tug disobeyed my orders, and persisted in going into the dock basin, although the signals were then raised against me. The Dockmaster summoned me before the Magistrates for so entering, and they decided that the Captain of the steamtug was my servant, and that I was responsible for his act, and I was fined 1s. and 11s. costs. What redress have I?-Yours, &c.,

COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.

SIK,--Last June I coinmenced running a steamer from a certain place to the Continent. Some six weeks since an advertisement was issued by the Trinity authorities stating that a Pilot must tender his services. I, not having a Pilot's certificate as well as a Master's, necessarily should have had to incur the expense of some 74. daily; but, fortunately, there was a loophole, or, no doubt, the above sum would have to be paid, and consequently I must have been overwhelmed with the heavy expense. I have been Master to the same places some 10 years. Will my service give me the Pilot's certificate, or must I really swallow half a book to obtain this enviable boon? Can you explain why I am made a target of when others can do the saine with impunity? Sept. 17, 1877. SHIPMASTER.

[The Pilotage would not be compulsory, and therefore it would rest with our Correspondent to appeal from any order made upon him to pay the Pilotage fees.-(See article “Exemption from Compulsory Pilotage," and letter "Compulsory Pilotage of Passenger Ships," pages 70 and 71 Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.; page 199, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.; and the "Moselle," November, 1874.)]

PILOTAGE AND SALVAGE.

SIK, My vessel got ashore at Languard Beach, at the entrance to Harwich, but got off without assistance. A Pilot came alongside and offered his services as Pilot in to Harwich. After arriving there a claim was made against the ship for 50l. The Custom-house authorities at Harwich detained her for two days, although she was bound for Ipswich with a cargo. 1st. Has a licensed Trinity Pilot a right to claim Salvage in the capacity of Pilot? 2nd. Have the Custom-house authorities, through the orders of the Pilot,

[1st. If a vessel is in distress, and is extricated from her difliculties by a Pilot, that would be considered a Salvage service. (See pages 47, 48, 95, 159, 200, and 207, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I., and page 60, Vol. II.] 2nd. The Custom-house authorities would not be empowered to detain a vessel for a Salvage claim without an order from a Court, but the Receiver of Wreck, who may be an Officer of Customs, has such power. 3rd. The person unlawfully detaining the vessel might be sued for damages.]

MATE AND PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY. SIR,-A few weeks ago my vessel was proceeding down the River Thames in charge of a Greenwich Pilot, and whil t doing so received considerable damage from another vessel under weigh. The liability was acknowledged by the Master of the latter vessel. Being absent from my vessel on ship's business at the time, the Mate proceeded on board the vessel that did the damage, and agreed to accept a sum of money equal to about one-sixth of the cost of repairs in compensation for damage done to my vessel. As I had not given the Mate any authority or instructions to act on my behalf, I wish to know if the Mate had power to act as he has done, and also if I can legally claim for the full cost of the repairs, less the amount accepted by the Mate? SHIPOWNER. Hartlepool, Feb. 21, 1876.

[The Mate would not be empowered to enter into any agreement such as that mentioned; and his settlement of the case would not be binding on the Shipowner.]

DOCKING AND PILOTING.

SIR,-I am a licensed Pilot on the River Thames, between London and Gravesend. I offered my services to a ship about being moved from the Victoria Docks to the London Docks, but was ordered off by the Captain, who said an unlicensed man whom he had engaged could do the work. What work may the unlicensed men legally do, and what is the furthest distance they are allowed to move a ship?Yours, &c., TRINITY PILOT.

Milwall, Sept. 19, 1876.

[No license is requisite for the purpose of changing the moorings of any ship in Port, or of taking her into or out of any dock, in cases where such an act can be done by an unqualified Pilot without infringing the regulations of the Port, or any order which the Harbour Master is legally empowered to give.-(Section 362, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) In our opinion it applies to the whole Port, subject to the regulations as to Gravesend Pilots for exempted ships. There is no limit fixed by the Statute.]

VESSEL SEEKING SHELTER.

SIR,-I am in an English vessel, from Germany, bound to the West Indies, and put in here through stress of weather. The Weymouth Pilots claim Pilotage, as I had a Channel Pilot on board. I had a Channel Pilot for the reason that I had no opportunity of landing him before; but I brought my ship in, using the Admiralty chart of this Harbour as my guide. It seems very hard to have to pay Pilotage when this place has been specially built as a Harbour of Refuge. The Pilots rendered me no service, but only asked me if I wanted a Pilot. Is Pilotage compulsory in this ca-e?-Yours, &c., Bill of Portland, Dec. 30, 1876. A SHIPMASTER. [Under the circumstances, in our opinion the Pilotage is not due. There is no law to prohibit an unlicensed district Pilot remaining on board a ship, and if such unlicensed Pilot does not navigate a ship after a qualified Pilot has offered his services, the fee cannot be legally exacted. The ship is exempt from compulsory Pilotage.-(See page 157, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

[In every steamship an allowance is made from the gross tonnage for engine and Crew space, and the remainder is deemed to be the "register tonnage.”—(Section 23, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) Where the register tonnage alone is mentioned, the Pilotage would be leviable on the net and not on the gross register. If any body corporate or other persons have power to levy tonnage rates on any other assessment, they may, with the consent of the Board of Trade, adopt the register tonnage.-(Section 4, Merchant Shipping Act, 1862.)]

PILOTS, LETTERS, AND TELEGRAMS. SIR,-The steamer, of London, sailed on the 18th ult. in charge of a Pilot, and on his leaving the steamer the Master handed him a letter and telegram for the Owner, asking him to drop the same at the first post oflice when passing. He became abusive, and positively refused to take them, stating he was not a postman, and threw them on the ship's deck in the most contemptuous manner. This unusual course has led to serious trouble, annoyance, and possibly loss to the Owner, he not having any news of the steamer's sailing, and incurring much risk to the Charterers and Owners of the steamer and cargo. I have placed the matter and facts before the Port and Docks Board here, and they not only sanction but approve of the Pilot's course, and state it was "no part of Pilot's duty" to act as requested. What is the usual course at London under such circumstances? I enclose for your inspection the Master's letter containing a statement of the facts.-Yours, &c.,

Dec. 19, 1876.

OWNER'S AGENT.

[There is no law to compel a Pilot to deliver or to post a letter; but, as regards the Port of London, we know that the Pilots give themselves the trouble to attend at the office of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette to make reports, and that they never refuse to take charge of a letter or telegram.]

FEE WITHOUT SERVICE.

SIR,-My vessel, the schooner Alpha, arrived off New Ross on March 11 with a cargo of salt. I proceeded as far as Cheek Point, and seven vessels arrived there on the same tide. As there are only five Pilots for the Port of Ross, and four were at the station, I could not procure one. I hove to and gave the usual signal for a Pilot, and a Hobbler coming to my assistance I engaged him, and paid 4s. 6d. more for his services than the actual Pilotage. When clearing out at the Customs, the Collector would not grant transire until I paid my inward Pilotage, which he said I should get back on application to the Harbour Commissioners. I have applied to the latter, and they refuse to refund my money, stating that I followed another vessel up the river which had a Pilot on board. Can I compel them to return my money, or can the Collector of Customs refuse to give ships their papers until the Pilotage has been paid?-Yours, &c.,

WM. BEYNON, Master schooner Alpha. Portmadoc, April 13, 1877.

[Unless the Harbour authorities are empowered by Act of Parliament to exact Pilotage Dues from all ships entering the Port, whether a Pilot may be had or not, and the Customhouse authorities are allowed by the Act to refuse clearance till the Dues are paid, the Pilotage charged on our Correspondent's ship could not be legally exacted. Following another ship is not the kind of Pilotage contemplated by the Merchant Shipping Act. When a Pilot cannot board a ship, but leads the way, that is equivalent to taking charge.]

PILOTAGE.

PRODUCING LICENSE.

SIR,-We called at Falmouth for orders and for a Pilot on coming in from Mazagan, and a man came alongside in a small boat by himself, representing himself to be a Pilot. After a few words, I asked him for his license, as he was a stranger to me. He would not pay any attention to my question, so I asked him again, and he replied that he had it in his pocket, and if he was to be drowned the license would go at the same time. I told him that it would be no satisfaction to give him charge of a vessel, and I did not do so, nor pay him. I told him where I was bound to, and where I was from. He said, by leaving he should bring me to trouble over it. I said he had refused to show his authority as a Pilot. After leaving he got the boat about a cable's length astern, and shouted "I will show my license now if you will back the topsail." A few days after my arrival I received a summons to appear in the County Court at Falmouth, on Oct. 19 next, for a Pilotage claim. Is the Pilot entitled to Pilotage under the above circumstances? Should the Judge decide the case in my favour, can I make a claim for detention of the vessel, for my expenses, and my witness for travelling to Falmouth?-Yours, &c.,

Stockton, Sept. 13, 1876.

MASTER MARINER.

[Pilots are to produce to the Master of any ship, or other person employing them, when required to do so, a copy of the rates, Bye-laws, and Pilotage regulations, under a penalty not exceeding 51.-(Section 350, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) Any qualified Pilot who does not produce his license incurs a penalty not exceeding 10%, and is subject to suspension or dismissal (Section 351.) The Pilot should be forthwith summoned before the Magistrate for not producing his license. In our opinion the Master of a ship is not liable, and he would be entitled to costs.-(See page 143, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III.)]

PILOT WAITING FOR SHIP.

SIR,-A ship called at a Port in the Isle of Wight for orders, and, after her arrival there, the Captain promised the Pilot who brought her in from sea that he would hoist a private signal for him and wait until he came, so that he might take the ship to sea. The said Pilot has a witness to prove that after the Captain received his orders he employed another Pilot to take his ship to sea. Can the Pilot who brought him in claim the outward Pilotage, or can he claim anything for his loss of time? AN ANXIOUS INQUIRER.

Seaview, June 17, 1876.

PROTEST.

APOSTLES AND PILOT BOATS. SIR,-What is the meaning of the expression used in American Law Courts of "making Apostles"; and, also, what is the ordinary tonnage of an American pilot-boat?Yours, &c., ASSURANCE.

London, Sept. 12, 1876.

[We are not acquainted with the phrase alluded to by our Correspondent; but we presume it applies to the issue of commissions by the American Courts for taking evidence in distant places or foreign countries. The American pilot-boats run from a few tons up to about 70 tons.]

SIGNALLING FROM THE SHORE.

SIR,-My vessel left Glasgow for Ardrossan in ballast on a pretty stormy day, and to my surprise no Pilot came on board to show me into harbour. The Pilot stood on the pierhead with his umbrella above his head, and sang out, one-half of which I could not hear owing to the weather. I have paid Pilotage all the same. Is this right? I may state I had a flag in daylight on foremasthead about two miles from shore. -Yours, &c., A STRANGER TO ARDROSSAN.

Glasgow, Feb. 10, 1877.

[In our opinion the Pilotage was not fairly earned if the case is as represented by our Correspondent. Section 356 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, provides for the leading by a pilot-boat, but there is no law as to earning Pilotage by shouting from the shore.]

PROTEST.

PROTEST BY OWNER OF SMACK. SIR,-What are the average lengths of time that Yarmouth smacks are away from home fishing? Is two months an unusual period? Would it be in order for the Owner of a fishing vessel who was on board, but not in command, at the time of a casualty resulting in a total loss, to extend a Protest, the Captain and Crew being on another fishing expedition? Would such be accepted by the Court of Admiralty?-Yours, &c., ASSURANCE.

London, Sept. 6, 1876.

[According to the practice of the Admiralty Court it is customary to require the Master's Protest, and, in his absence, that of the next Officer in charge, except for vessels in the Coal Trade between London and the East; and, in the case of the latter, it is not necessary to note or extend a Protest in the event of a collision or other accident.-(The Dorothea Elizabeth, A.C., July 12, 1869.) An Owner not in command is not called upon to make a Protest, but it would be open to the Court to accept his statement subject to corroboration. Smacks are not unfrequently away as long as three months when line fishing. Steamers now collect the fish at sea, and, therefore, two months would not be considered an unusual time to be away.]

EXTENDED PROTEST.

SIR, A vessel, either on her passage out or home, ships a sea and encounters bad weather; the consequence is, part of the cargo is damaged. The usual survey is held, and the cargo is pronounced well and sufficiently stowed and dunnaged. The Master makes a Protest, and is further induced to extend that Protest. Who ought to pay for this extended Protest-the Merchant or the ship? If made by the ship, is it the exclusive property of the ship, or can the Merchant demand it at the Owner's expense, or sue him at law for the value of damaged goods?—Yours, &c., MASTER.

Blyth, July 21, 1876.

[Those who require an extension of the Protest should pay for it. With or without a Protest, or extended Protest, a Merchant would be at liberty to sue for damage; but it does not follow that the Shipowner should be made liable for damages incurred through perils of the sea.]

RULE OF THE ROAD.

OVERTAKING AND CROSSING SHIPS. The collision between the German mail steamship Franconia and the British screw steamer Strathclyde, off Dover, has occupied a more than ordinary share of public attention. The facts lie in a very narrow compass, for there was nothing particular in the mode of their meeting. The Strathclyde was steering a course obliquely off the land to obtain a good offing for a down-Channel course, and the Franconia was shaping a course from the N.E. for Southampton. The Franconia had the Strathclyde to starboard, and the ships were approaching each other on diverging lines with from two and a half to three points diference in the bearing of their respective heads. If they had gone clear away they must have crossedthe Franconia going to the starboard side of the Strathclyde, and the latter to the port side of the former. If they had been crossing ships the Franconia, under Article 14, should have given way, as she had the other ship on her own starboard side. The Strathclyde was about four miles off when first seen, rather ahead, and to starboard. The Franconia, being the faster vessel, gradually overhauled the Strathclyde in the three-quarters of an hour between making out and coming up to the British ship; and two minutes before the collision the Engineer received an order to stop and reverse full speed. This had no practical result so far as preventing the contact was concerned, for a steamer of the length of the Franconia could not lose her momentum and gain sternway in that short time. Those in charge of the Franconia made the mistake of holding to the belief that the Strathclyde had secured a safe course. It is complained on the part of the Franconia that the Strathclyde was running too far out for clearing the headlands; and that, by thus drawing so much seawards, she lured the other ship into imminent danger. Had the two ships been deemed "crossing" vessels the Franconia should have eased her engines earlier, so as to have allowed the Strathclyde to pass ahead. It was not a case where the look-out men could not see and report a ship, but over-confidence in the expectation that another steamer would not steer onwards in the course she was pursuing, but that the vessel abeam to starboard would take a parallel line with her own soon enough to keep the two apart. The Master, the Officers, and the Pilot of the Franconia understood the Rules. The only defence the Master of the Franconia made to the charges of manslaughter and violating the International Regulations was, that the Strathclyds