would be permitted to prove amount of its loss and obtain a recovery against the Cushing and her owners for such amount. If such libel does not include a claim for the loss of the cargo owned by the United States, then a libel should be filed against the Cushing to recover the loss of the United States. 579.14, June 4, 1919. A cargo of raincoats and uniforms of the value of $104,292.70, belonging to the Army, was lost when fuel oil came in contact with the same, for the reason that a valve between the "deep tank" and the "settling tank" was negligently permitted to be open when the ship left Rotterdam for Hoboken, and oil was thus admitted where the cargo was stored and destroyed it. The "deep tank" was ordinarily used for storage of fuel, but its use was not necessary on this voyage and it had been emptied and cleaned out to receive cargo. In the usual course this valve would have been (and it should have been) closed at the time when the ship loaded her cargo in the "deep tank" and started upon her voyage. It can not be said that there was fault on the part of any member of the crew in failing to inspect the valve during the voyage for the crew was justified in assuming that the vessel before sailing had been properly prepared for the voyage with reference to the foregoing facts. The vessel was insured, but an opinion has been expressed by the Shipping Board that there can be no recovery for the loss under the policy, on the ground that the ship was seaworthy when the voyage was begun and so protected by section 3 of the Harter Act (27 Stat. 445). This office holds a contrary view. The negligence of the officers and crew, which is the determining factor in this case, consists of their failure to close the valve in the pipe when the "deep tank" was cleaned out to receive cargo before the ship left Rotterdam and at least before cargo was actually ladened therein and the ship began her voyage, so that she was unseaworthy at the inception of her voyage, and the owner is therefore not relieved from liability under the terms of section 3, supra. The underwriter is liable under its contract of indemnity to the United States Shipping Board if the terms of the insurance policy were such that the identity of ownership of the damaged cargo and of the carrying vessel is immaterial. Upon a trial of any action brought by the Shipping Board against the underwriter the burden of proof of showing seaworthiness will be upon the underwriter. (The Wildcroft," 201 U. S. 378, 386; the "Southwark," 191 U. S. 1.) The following cases are in point and sustain the conclusions above reached: The "Manitou," 116 Fed. 60; The "Brilliant," 138 Fed. 743; 159 Fed. 1022; The "Fitzgerald," 212 Fed. 678, 686; Int. Nav. Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., 181 U. S. 218; The “ Manitoba," 104 Fed. 145. 579.14, Sept. 27, 1920. VESSELS 864. Where a steamer, after being notified that she was anchoring too near another boat, ignores such notice. she assumes the burden of keeping clear and must respond in damages resulting to the other boat caused by impingement during tide. (The "Robert Rickmers," 131 Fed. 638.) 579.14, Feb. 6, 1919. A vessel was operating under "bare boat" form of charter to the United States Shipping Board and by it allocated to the Army. While lying at anchor off Liverpool, England, with anchor lights burning, she was in collision on December 9, 1917, with a British merchant vessel under requisition by the British Government, at the time in tow, coming out of a dock, in charge of a compulsory pilot. As the collision occurred prior to January 1, 1918, and the British vessel was in charge of a compulsory pilot, she would not under the English Law be liable for the consequences of the pilot's negligence. (Carver, Carriage by Sea, sections 30-32.) Whether an American court might not sustain a suit in rem predicated upon the pilot's negligence is a question not entirely free from doubt. (The "Cuzco," 225 Fed. 169; The "Eagle," 8 Wall. 15, 22; The "Kongsli," 252 Fed. 267.) Under the laws of both countries the pilot is responsible to the owner of the vessel for such negligence in the performance of his duty as brings about an injury. (1 Parsons, Shipping and Adm. 118, 119; The "Protector," 1 W. Rob. 45; Sideracudi v. Mapes, 3 Fed. 873.) A shipowner, seeking to avoid liability in personam for the negligent navigation of his vessel while traveling in charge of a compulsory pilot, must bear the burden of showing affirmatively that there was no fault on the part of the officers or crew of the vessel in any way contributing to the damage. (The 'Diana," 1 W. Rob. 133; The China," 7 Wall. 53.) The United States Shipping Board should be reimbursed for the damages sustained. 579.14, Feb. 12, 1919. 66 The Waalhaven, owned by the United States Shipping Board, was being operated in the United States Army Transport Service and manned by a Shipping Board crew. While the Waalhaven was being discharged by the Atlantic Coast Shipping Co., contracting stevedore, a sling load of rails struck and damaged a life raft. Under the terms of the contract of the Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. with the Government, these damages must be borne by that company. No negligence on the part of the War Department is shown, and no property of the War Department was damaged. The stevedoring company claims that the damages were due to the negligence of the ship's officers in failing to remove the raft which had been requested by the stevedores. The neglect by the ship's officers to remove the life raft does not relieve the stevedoring company from the damages occasioned by it. It is recommended that sufficient money owing to the contracting stevedore be withheld to cover these damages. 579.14, July 1, 1919. LOSS DUE TO ERRORS IN TRANSMISSION OF TELEGRAMS 865. A Government telegram delivered to a telegraph company for transmission read: The Secretary of War finds it necessary to retain you here on account of prospective important duties. In transmitting the same the word retain was changed to return," in consequence of which the officer to whom it was directed traveled from the place where he was located to Washington, D. C., and return, for the purpose of reporting in pursuance of said supposed order. By a stipulation printed on the back of the blanks used by the telegraph company its liability in case of error in transmission was limited to a certain amount unless the message was repeated. The message in question was not written upon such a blank. The telegraph company had assented to the rates fixed by the Postmaster General in pursuance of section R. S. 5266, to be charged for Government telegrams over lines of companies receiving benefits from the public domain, which rates were fixed without reference to any special contract limiting the liability of the transmitting companies. Held, That the telegraph company was liable in failing to correctly transmit the telegram (37 Cyc. 1670), and that the expense of the officer's travel, being a proximate result of the error in the transmission of the message, should be charged against the company in the settlement of its accounts. 22-050, Sept. 11, 1914. Under date of December 5, 1918, a telegram dated at Helena, Ark., was delivered to a commanding officer, Camp Lee, Va., stating that a soldier was being held who claimed that he had been discharged at said camp. The telegram requested advice. On December 6 the commanding officer telegraphed that the soldier should be held pending further advice. Subsequently a guard was sent to Helena, Ark., to get the soldier. It later appeared that the soldier was being held at Baltimore, Md., and that the telegraph company in transmitting the message of December 5 had erroneously substituted Helena, Ark., for Baltimore, Md. For such negligence the telegraph company is liable for the cost incurred in sending the guard to Helena, Ark., and return. 159, Mar. 29, 1919. INTERDEPARTMENTAL 866. On September 11, 1918, the Tjikembang, lying at anchor in the harbor of La Pallice, France, was damaged by the negligent collision of the Mauban, the latter vessel, under bare-boat charter to the United States Shipping Board and by it allocated to the War Department, being manned and officered by a Navy Department crew. The status of this crew as between the departments is not disclosed. The War Department, under this charter, must, before the vessel is returned to the Shipping Board, pay these damages to protect the Mauban against the maritime lien which would attach upon her return to private ownership. The ultimate burden for these damages must rest upon the War Depart ment, because the beneficial use of the vessel was being enjoyed by that department. (22 Comp. Dec. 390.) There was no implied agreement by the Navy Department that its officers and men would exercise due care, and that it would charge its appropriations with the consequences of their negligence. This is because the arrangement between the Army and the Navy had been treated in practice as not implying any promise on the part of the Army to pay for the beneficial services rendered by the Navy. 579.14, Sept. 10, 1919. As ownership of property belonging to the Government is not ownership by any department thereof, the War Department may not reimburse the Treasury Department for damages to Coast Guard vessels by an Army boat. 569.14, Mar. 27, 1926. Secs. SET-OFF 867. AGAINST AMOUNT DUE CLAIMANT. 868. AGAINST AMOUNT DUE UNITED STATES. AGAINST AMOUNT DUE CLAIMANT 867. A contractor for furnishing oats for the Army having defaulted in making a delivery, a supply was purchased in the open market in accordance with the terms of the contract at a cost aggregating over $500 in excess of the contract price. The contracting officer advised the department that there was due the contractor $87.03 for oats delivered on a previous order, and he requested instructions as to whether this sum should be paid to the contractor and the whole amount of excess cost of procuring oats elsewhere, due to this and any other default, collected from the surety, and in this event whether he should take steps to make the collection. Held, That the $87.03 referred to should be checked into the Treasury by the contracting officer as part collection of the amount due the Government by the contractor, this being justified under the common right of set-off, and that he should promptly notify both the contractor and the surety of the default and the amount of their liability resulting therefrom, less the set-off referred to, and that upon their failure to make prompt settlement the matter should be referred through the War Department to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who has charge of the enforcement of bond obligations. 76–742, May 27, 1915. AGAINST AMOUNT DUE UNITED STATES He 868. A contract was made for the manufacture of treenails for the Emergency Fleet Corporation. The contractor entered into a contract with the Government for the purchase of merchantable treenail timber on a military reservation and agreed to pay therefor to the United States at the rate of $25 per cord. Under this contract a large amount of merchantable timber was cut and removed, but the contractor has failed to make payment for same. admits the correctness of the amount claimed as due, but because of the cancellation of his contract by the Emergency Fleet Corporation and his consequent inability to work up all the purchased timber on hand he has refused payment. The claim of the Government against the contractor under the War Department contract is not affected by cancellation of his contract with the Emergency Fleet Corporation. 411.1, Jan. 10, 1920. 869. APPROVAL. 870. ARBITRATION. 871-873. ASSIGNMENT. 874-875. AWARD. 876-885. BIDS. 886-889. CANCELLATION. 890-891. CIVIL LAWS AFFECTING. 892. COMBINATION OF PROJECTS. 894. DEBARRED BIDDERS. 895. DELIVERY CHARGES. 896. DEMURRAGE. 897. DISCOUNT. 898-907. EIGHT-HOUR LAW. 908-913. EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTOR. 914. EXECUTION. 915–927. EXPENSE; LOSS; DAMAGE. 928. FRAUD. 929. INSPECTORS. 930. INTEREST IN CONTRACTS. 931-934. LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OF PROPERTY. 935-939. MODIFICATION OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. 940-941. PATENTS. 942-945. PAYMENTS. 946-950. PURCHASE PRICE OR QUANTUM MERUIT. 951. REFORMATION. 952. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 953. TRADE CUSTOMS. 954. VARIABLE QUANTITY. APPROVAL 869. A certain bid for laundry work at an Army hospital was accepted, the Surgeon General directed the supply officer of the hospital to enter into a contract with the successful bidder, and a contract, subject to the approval of the Surgeon General, was drawn up and transmitted to the bidder, who signed and returned it. Subsequently, but before he had formally approved this contract, on the ground that the circular advertisement had not made plain the method of award that would be followed, the Surgeon General directed that all bids be rejected and another circular advertisement issued, and caused the supply |