mn or·rAwA. 53
day afternoon, and returned by way of Milwaukee, instead of steering
directly for Chicago, and it is claimed that the detention from Monday
until Thursday was by reason of bad weather, which prevented the tug
from making the trip from Grand Haven to Chicago at an earlier date,
and, under the wind-bound clause of the charter, this claim is made and ’
insisted upon.
The proofs show, on the part of libelant, that on Monday morning,
when the captain was notified that the services of the tug were no longer
required, the captain of the tug visited the signal-service office in Grand
Haven, and was there told that a. storm was coming; and that several
propellers and barges were then lying in Grand Haven harbor, having
taken refuge there, and did not deem it prudent to leave until about the
time the tug left, and that the weather was so cold as to endanger the `
tug by the accumulation of ice upon her bows and over her decks. The
proof on the part of the respondent shows that the weather on Monday,
at the time- the tug was discharged, was not threatening, and the water
not rough enough to make navigation at all perilous to a strong, well- ,
equipped tug like the Morford, and did not become so until about noon
on Tuesday; that the captain, on visiting the signal-service oilice, was
not told that astorm was coming immediately, but that there was a storm
coming that way, and that it might reach there within 10 hours. The
proof also shows that the steamers plying on the regular line between
Grand Haven and Milwaukee made their regular trips every day, from
Monday until Thursday and Friday, without any detention by reason of
stress of weather, and that two schooners arrived in Grand Haven har-
bor during Tuesday, making the trip by sail direct from Chicago, and
that none of these craft experienced any trouble from the sea, nor from
the formation of ice.
I think the testimony may be taken as conceding that, if the same kind
_ of,weather had prevailed on Monday that prevailed from Tuesday noon
to Thursday, it might have been prudent for the tug to have remained ·
inside the harbor; but I think the proof leaves the case in precisely this
condition: The weather was pleasant, and not so threatening in its ex-
ternal indications as to make it probable that a severe storm was near at
hand at the time the tug was discharged. The tug could have left
Grand Haven by 11 o’clock Monday morning. It is probably true that
the sergeant in charge of the signal oihce told the captain of the tug that
there was a storm coming, but there was no storm signal displayed, and
he had not been ordered at that time to display one, and no storm did
occur until time enough had elapsed for the tug to have made the entire
trip from Grand Haven to Chicago.
Now, then, we have just simply this case presented: This captain,
learning from the signal-service office that a storm might come,-and an
experienced navigator on these lakes need not have consulted a signal-
service officer in the month of December to learn that,—saw fit to remain
in port, and wait until he could have smooth water and warm weather
for his home run. There were no portents in the weather itself foretell-
ing a severe storm, and other navigators whose duty required them to