yo8
THE GREEN BAG
LIFE SALVAGE BY FREDERIC THE law of salvage is one of the most wise and humane branches of the maritime law, and it is also remarkably consistent and uniform in all of the coun tries where the maritime jurisdiction is ex ercised. It is peculiar to the maritime law. Nothing can be recovered for saving life or property on land. There is one strange anomaly in it, however, not perhaps gen erally recognized, to which it may be well to call attention. If ship A finds ship B in a sinking condi tion and takes off her passengers and crew and brings them safely to port, she is en titled to no salvage compensation either from the owners of the sinking ship B or from the persons saved. That is to say, no salvage is allowed for saving life alone.1 Again, if ship A finds ship B derelict with no one on board and brings her in safely, she is entitled to salvage. In other words, the owner of ship B must pay a certain amount or proportion of the value of the ship saved as salvage of his property. But if ship A finds ship B in a sinking condition with passengers or crew aboard, and by patching her up succeeds in bringing in both the ship and her company, neither the passengers nor crew are liable to pay any salvage, but the owner of ship B must pay a greater amount of salvage than he would for the mere saving of his vessel, as a reward to the salvor for saving the lives of the crew or passengers.2 The courts do not say, if you save B we will give you A's property to pay for it, but they do say, if you save B on A's ship and the ship at the same time, we will give you more of A's property as salvage than we 1 The Emblem, Daveis, 61. The Mulhouse, 17 Fed. Cas. 962. The Plymouth Rock, 9 Fed. Rep. 413-418. The George W. Clyde, 80 Fed. Rep. IS71 See cases above cited.
CUNNINGHAM would have if you had not saved B, and that too without regard to whether the saving of B was in any way a benefit to A. For instance, a steamship was on fire at a burning dock in New York; a number of tugs went to her assistance, her crew had been obliged to jump overboard and were struggling in the water, some of the tugs picked up the struggling men and then pro ceeded to tow the steamer away from the burning dock and put out the fire with their pumps and hose, and the court in awarding salvage against the steamship gave a larger amount against the steamship because the tugs had saved the lives of the men in the water, though it does not appear how this in any way benefited the owners of the steamship. On the contrary, it delayed the tugs from going promptly to the aid of the steamship. If the tugs had simply picked up the men and taken no part in towing the steamship away from the dock, it seems clear on the authorities, that the tugs could have recovered no salvage from the steam ship.1 Now, it is highly desirable that every in ducement and encouragement should be given for the saving of life in peril at sea and on the water, but it does not seem right that A should be called upon to pay for the saving of B's life unless it is of some benefit to A, particularly when We consider that B himself is not liable for anything to one who has saved his life. There really seems to,be no sense in the rule. The difficulty in giving salvage for life alone seems to be that the courts have hesi tated to reward a man for doing what they consider his moral duty, the saving of life, and that a remedy for salvage against sea men, and many of those who go down to 1 The Bremen, m Fed. Rep. 228, 236. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, 106 Fed. Rep. 963, 968.
