Corrigan Transp. Co. v. Sanitary District of Chicago

• Decision Date: 13 October 1903
• Docket Number: 9,457.
• Parties: CORRIGAN TRANSP. CO. v. SANITARY DISTRICT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

125 F. 611

CORRIGAN TRANSP. CO. v. SANITARY DISTRICT.

No. 9,457.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Northern Division.

October 13, 1903

Harvey D. Gualder and C. W. Greenfield, for libelant.

Seymour Jones, for respondent.

KOHLSAAT District Judge.

Libelant seeks to hold the respondent for damages alleged to have been incurred in towing the barge Algeria from Elevator C, on the Chicago river, west of Halsted street, to a point near the mouth of the river, by reason of the current created by respondent's canal or drainage channel. The barge is 288 feet long, has 44.6 feet beam, and draws, when loaded, 16 1/2 feet of water. Libelant claims: (1) the barge was delayed about 12 hours; (2) that she incurred an extra expense of tug hire of $328; and (3) that she sustained damage by the straining of lines and timber heads.

The above items, it is insisted, were all caused by the greatly increased rapidity of the current. Owing to this cause the tugs were unwilling to start with the barge until daylight on October 5, 1900. She started down the river about 5 o'clock in the morning in charge of two tugs-- one forward and the other at her stern. These, it is claimed would have been adequate in a current not exceeding 1 1/4 miles per hour. In passing through the Halsted street draw a third tug was engaged-- two forward and one astern. She was half an hour in clearing the bridge draw. The same trouble was repeated at each draw from Twenty-Second street to Washington street. There a fourth tug was procured, and the trip down the river was finally concluded. While the current offered considerable resistance all the way down, the greatest current was encountered at the bridges by reason of the congested channel at such point and the obstruction caused by the barge herself.

Libelant insists that respondent is liable for any damage caused by its acts in increasing the current, claiming incidentally that the increase was largely in excess of the 1 1/4 miles per hour alleged to be contemplated by the Secretary of War. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that its acts in respect to an increase of the current were under the control of the government of the United States, that it was acting under the permit of the Secretary of War, and that it committed no illegal act in accelerating the river current.

By Act Cong. March 3, 1899, c. 425, Sec. 10, 30 Stat. 1151 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3541), it was provided that it should be unlawful to modify the condition or capacity of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, 'unless the work has been recommended by chief of engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to the beginning the same. ' This act covers the Chicago river. The respondent was organized in 1890, under the act of July 1, 1889 (Laws 1889, p. 125), in reference thereto, passed by the Legislature of Illinois, in which state the Chicago river is wholly situated. The district was by said act authorized to construct a drainage channel of sufficient size and capacity to produce and maintain a flow of water of 300,000 cubic feet per minute, and a current of not exceeding three miles per hour. Provision was also made for the increase of flowage, in the event of a greater population, without an increase of speed of current.

In pursuance of and conformity to the above act, respondent proceeded to and did construct a drainage channel from Robey street, in the city of Chicago, in said state, to Lockport Ill., a distance of about 28 miles; it being the intention to use the Chicago river from Robey street to Lake Michigan as a connection between said channel and the lake. On June 16, 1896, the respondent, by its president, made application to the Secretary of War for permission to make such improvements and changes in the Chicago river as would meet the requirements of the said channel and the law under which it was constructed, and submitted therewith a map of the proposed changes. On the recommendation of the government engineer, the Secretary of War granted a qualified permission on certain conditions. Clause 2 of this permission provided that the authority granted should 'not be interpreted as an approval of the plans of the sanitary district of Chicago to introduce a current into Chicago river. This latter proposition must hereafter be submitted for consideration. ' Clause 4 provided 'that the United States will not be put to expense by reason of this work. ' The other clauses are not pertinent here. Afterwards more complete plans were furnished by respondent, whereupon, on November 16, 1897, upon the recommendation of the government engineer, the Secretary of War approved the same, and granted a permit, subject to the same conditions as above set out.

Some time prior to April 24, 1899, application was duly made to the Secretary of War for leave to connect the said drainage channel with the Chicago river at the south branch thereof at said Robey street. This was referred to the chief government engineer. On May 8, 1899, the Secretary of War granted permission to respondent to make such connection, subject to certain reservations, to wit (1) That the matter should be submitted to Congress, and the permit should abide its action there; (2) that, if at any time the current should be found to be unreasonably obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the right was reserved to close or modify the discharge through said channel to such an extent as may be demanded by navigation and property interests along said Chicago river and its South branch; (3) that respondent must assume all responsibility for damages to property and navigation interests by reason of the introduction of a current in Chicago river. In January, 1900, the...