The Government may claim salvage for services rendered by its public vessels. By the Act of July 1, 1918 (Stat. L. 40, p. 705, c. 114), the secretary of the navy is authorized to cause vessels under his control, adapted to the purpose, to afford salvage service to private or public vessels in distress, and to determine and collect reasonable compensation therefor when such salvage serv ice is rendered by a vessel especially equipped for the purpose, or by a tug. The implication which might be drawn from the statute that, where the service is rendered by a public vessel not specially equipped for salvage service, such as a man-of-war or a transport, the Government may not demand and collect a salvage award, has been rejected by the courts. The Government has sued for and been allowed salvage award for salvage services rendered to a British merchant vessel by a merchant vessel owned by the U.S. Shipping Board and operated as a munitions ship for Government account (The Impoco, 287 Fed. 400). In the case of salvage services rendered by any merchant vessel owned orloperated by the United States or the U.S. Emergency Fleet Corporation (now U.S. Merchant Fleet Corporation), it is provided by s. Io of the Act of March 9, 1920 (Suits in Ad miralty Act c. 95 ; Comp. Stat. s. 1,251), that the United States and the crew of any such vessel shall have the right to collect and sue for salvage services rendered, and any moneys recovered therefrom by the United States for its own benefit, shall be paid into the U.S. Treasury, to the credit of the department of the Government, or of the U.S. Shipping Board, or of the Emer gency (Merchant) Fleet Corporation having control of the pos session or operation of the vessel.
Salvage Award.—By statute, the master and crew of the salving vessel, in rendering services to another vessel of com mon ownership, are entitled to salvage award (Salvage Act of Aug. 1, 1912, c. 268, s. 1; Comp. Stat. s. 7,99o). In the absence of request by the distressed vessel, salvage services, to merit an award, must be rendered directly to the salved It has been held that where a dry-dock is on fire and tugs extinguish the flames, if a vessel in the dry-dock does not request such serv ices and has other means of protecting itself, no salvage award may be claimed from it. The services were rendered directly to the dry-dock and perhaps incidentally benefited the vessel lying in it, but no salvage award may be claimed from the vessel (Merritt and Chapman D. & W. Co. v. United States [The Levia than], 274 U.S. 611). So, also, where vessels are moored along side a river quay, services rendered by tugs in extinguishing a fire on one of the vessels do not give rise to a salvage claim against the vessels near by, unless the vessels against which the claim is made requested the salvors to perform the services (The City of Atlanta, 56 Fed. 252). In the same circumstances, however, if the salvors devote their attention to the other vessels and tow them away from the burning vessel, then salvage award may be claimed from them. It is not essential that there should be direct contact between the structure, gear or personnel of the salving vessel and the vessel saved. A word of warning to a
vessel heading for a shoal, which enables her to avoid destruction, is a salvage service (South American S.S. Co. v. Atlantic Tow ing Co., 22 F. [2d] 16). Likewise, a vessel which stands by another in distress, even though she does nothing else, is en titled to salvage award (The Sapinero, 5 F. [2d] 56; The Man chester Brigade, 276 Fed. 41o).
It often happens that while the services are rendered under the apprehension of grave peril, the result shows that the vessel was not in danger at all or at least not to the extent anticipated. In such case it has been held that it is the apprehended danger which fixes the value of the services and controls the amount of the award. The owner of the salved property will not be heard to argue that subsequent developments showed that the salvage was unnecessary or that the risks taken by the salvors were less in fact than they appeared at the time the services were rendered (The Lowther Castle, 195 Fed. 604). But see The Sapinero, 5 F. (2d) 56, holding that the master of the distressed ship exag gerated the plight of his vessel. Apparently it is the peril reason ably apprehended which controls.
Success is of the essence of a salvage service. But if a salvor undertakes a salvage service and is ready and able to carry it to completion, he cannot be summarily dismissed on the arrival of other assistance and thus deprived of salvage award. If a salvor is dismissed after he has contributed to the ultimate success of the operation and is ready and able to continue, he is entitled to share in the salvage award. Cases frequently arise where salvors are relieved by other vessels belonging to the same owner ship as that of the distressed vessel. It has been held that the first salvors are entitled to share in the salvage award (The Annie Lord, 251 Fed. 157; The Manchester Brigade, 276 Fed. However, a salved vessel need not retain incompetent sal vors and is free to obtain whatever assistance is available. Whether or not the first set of salvors are entitled to share in the award depends on what they did and what they were able to do (The Santa Rosa, 295 Fed. 35o).
Claims for Salvage.—In making demands for salvage, and in exacting security under process in rem against the salved property, salvors must be careful not to be exorbitant in their demands. The amount of salvage award is entirely discretionary with the court. A grasping attitude on the part of salvors will often work against their claim for salvage. Indeed it may cause the court to dismiss their claim entirely where their conduct is of such character as to destroy whatever merit there may have been in the service (The Gypsy Queen, 284 Fed. 607). The salved interests must also show the proper attitude. Owners of salved ships should make reasonable offers of award, or else the court may penalize them for putting the salvors to the expense of liti gation (The Western Star, 157 Fed. 489). Interest on the amount of the award may be allowed, in the discretion of the court (The Naiwa, 3 F. [2d] 381).