cessfully sued at common law, or personally in the admiralty, for damage done by a compulsory pilot. This was held on a full consideration of the American and English authorities by Justice Gray in Transportation Co. v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 182 U. S. 406, which is very instructive in this connection.

The ship, however, is liable for such damage, although in charge of a compulsory pilot. The reason is this: By American admiralty law, the ship is treated as a personality for many purposes and, in whosesoever hands she may lawfully be, is treated as the actual wrongdoer, irrespective of any question of agency or employment. Thus, in this country, the ship by whose fault a collision has occurred may be sued directly, although in charge of a compulsory pilot at the time the disaster occurred. In England the rule is different and the ship is not liable if the owner could not be sued. The leading American case on this point is that of the China, 7 Wall. 53. The China, while under the control of a compulsory pilot, was in collision with the brig Kentucky, which was wholly free from blame. On a review of the English and American authorities the Court (Swayne, J.) held:

The services of the pilot are as much for the benefit of the vessel and cargo as those of the captain and crew. His compensation comes from the same source as theirs. Like them he serves the owner and is paid by the owner. If there be any default on his part, the owner has the same remedies against him as against other delinquents on board. The difference between his relations and those of the master is one rather of form than substance.

The

The maxim of the civil law ·sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas may, however, be fitly applied in such cases as the one before us. remedy of the damaged vessel, if confined to the culpable pilot, would frequently be a mere delusion. He would often be unable to respond by payment especially if the amount recovered were large. Thus, where the injury was the greatest there would be the greatest danger of a failure of justice. According to the admiralty law, the collision impresses upon the wrong-doing vessel a maritime lien. This the vessel carries with it into whosesoever hands it may come. It is inchoate at the moment of the wrong and must be perfected by subsequent proceedings. Unlike a common law lien, possession is not necessary to its validity. It is rather in the nature of the hypothecation of the civil law. It is not indelible, but may be lost by laches or other circumstances.

The proposition of the appellants would blot out this important feature of the maritime code, and greatly impair the efficacy of the system. The appellees are seeking the fruit of their lien. All port regulations are compulsory. The provisions of the statute of New York are a part of a series within that category. A damaging vessel is no more excused because she was compelled to obey one than another. The only question in all such cases is, was she in fault? The appellants were bound to know the law. They cannot plead ignorance. The law of the place makes them liable. This ship was brought voluntarily within the sphere of its operation, and they cannot complain because it throws the loss upon them rather than upon the owners of the innocent vessel. We think the rule which works this result is a wise and salutary one, and we feel no disposition to disturb it.

REFERENCES FOR GENERAL READING

Admiralty, Hughes, 117-124; 28-38.

Admiralty Reports, Brown, Williams, 208.

Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 110.

Collisions, Marsden, Chapter VIII.
Webb, 14 Wall. 406.

CHAPTER XIII

SALVAGE AND GENERAL AVERAGE

1. Definitions.- Salvage may be defined as a legal liability which is created by the rescue of maritime property from perils of the sea. It may be quite independent of contract or agreement and these do not affect its nature. The word also designates the reward or compensation for the rescue and, sometimes, the property which is saved. Its essentials are maritime property in peril and a voluntary successful effort to save it. From the standpoint of the owner of the property, it is the price of safety.

The ingredients of a salvage service are, first, enterprise in the salvors in going out in tempestuous weather to assist a vessel in distress, risking their own lives to save their fellow-creatures, and to rescue the property of their fellow-subjects; secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued — whether it were in imminent peril, and almost certain to be lost if not at the time rescued and preserved; thirdly, the degree of labor and skill which the salvors incur and display, and the time occupied. Lastly, the value. Where all these circumstances concur, a large and liberal reward ought to be given; but where none, or scarcely any take place, the compensation can hardly be denominated a salvage compensation: it is little more than a remuneration pro opere et labore (The Clifton, 3 Hagg. Adm. 14, 48 [quoted with approval in Cope v. Drydock Co., 119 U. S. 625]).

General Average is also the price of safety under different circumstances. It is the contribution required of the parties interested in a maritime venture to compensate the sacrifice of a part for the safety of the rest. The typical instance is the jettison of cargo in order that the ship may be saved; the loss is equalized by a general average.

2. What May Be Salved. The subject of salvage can only be vessels and property that is or has been on board a vessel. In Chapter I, § 4, there is some discussion of what constitutes a ship within the meaning of the law. In Cope v. Drydock Co., 119 U. S. 625, salvage was claimed rescuing a floating drydock, which had been in collision with a steamship and was on the point of

sinking. The Court held that the service performed was not salvage because the drydock was not a vessel and not a salvable thing. Justice Bradley said that a dock, though floating, was not used for the purpose of navigation and that "no structure that is not a ship or vessel is a subject of salvage," adding:

A ship or vessel, used for navigation and commerce, though lying at a wharf, and temporarily made fast thereto, as well as her furniture and cargo, are maritime subjects, and are capable of receiving salvage service.

If we search through all the books, from the Rules of Oléron to the present time, we shall find that salvage is only spoken of in relation to ships and vessels and their cargoes, or those things which have been committed to, or lost in, the sea or its branches, or other public navigable waters, and have been found and rescued.

There has been some conflict of decision with respect to claims for salvage service in rescuing goods lost at sea and found floating on the surface or cast upon the shore. When they have belonged to a ship or vessel as part of its furniture or cargo they clearly come under the head of wreck, flotsam, jetsam, ligan, or derelict, and salvage may be claimed upon them. But when they have no connection with a ship or vessel some authorities are against the claim, and others are in favor of it.

It was held by the Supreme Court of the United States (The Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130) that where a vessel, laid up in drydock in a shipyard for repairs, was saved from destruction by a fire, which was raging in the shipyard, by tug boats in the stream which played streams of water from the stream upon the endangered vessel, it was a case of salvage. The Court after remarking that a maritime lien for repairs existed against a vessel in drydock, said:

There is no distinction between the continued control of admiralty over a vessel when she is in a drydock for the purpose of being repaired, and the subjection of the vessel when in a drydock for repairs to the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty for the purpose of passing upon claims for salvage services, by which it is asserted the vessel, while in the dock, was saved from destruction.

3. Salvor's Lien.- Whoever performs a salvage service acquires a maritime lien of the highest rank upon the property saved for this compensation. This lien is quite independent of possession and will be enforced by a court of admiralty by a proceeding

in rem, i.e., against the ship. Ordinarily it is the salvor's duty promptly to place the property in possession of the court by libeling it for salvage at his first opportunity for such an award as the court shall deem just. This will usually be his only remedy, in the absence of an express contract. There is no personal liability against the owner of the property saved unless he requested performance of the service or received the property with knowledge of the claim.

4. Amount of Reward.- The amount of salvage is usually regulated by the value of the property saved and the value of that engaged in the operation; the degree of risk or peril and the time and expense of the salvors. The expenses of volunteer salvors cannot be recovered as such, though the court may take them into consideration in fixing the amount of the award.1 Success is essential. There can be no salvage award for the most meritorious efforts if unsuccessful. It is the policy of the admiralty to stimulate efforts for the rescue of property in distress by liberal rewards and also to discourage exorbitant demands and inequitable behavior by correspondingly reducing them. In the case of the Sandringham, 10 Fed. 556, the court listed the factors involved in determining the amount to be awarded as salvage as follows:

(1) The degree of danger from which the lives or property are rescued.

(2) The value of the property saved.

(3) The risk incurred by the salvors.

(4) The value of the property employed by the salvors in the wrecking enterprise, and the danger to which it was exposed.

(5) The skill shown in rendering the service.

(6) The time and labor occupied.

(7) The degree of success achieved, and the proportions of value lost and saved.

Work of this nature is often performed by contract, by vessels and corporations equipped and organized for the purpose. This fact does not militate against their claims as salvors in proper cases but the courts will not hesitate to modify the contract if they consider it unjust. The case of the Leamington, 86 Fed. 675, 1 Teutonia v. Erlanger, 248 U. S. 521.