Abe Fortas

“ We find in the Act no support for such an absolute right of abandonment. The provision upon which petitioners place most reliance, the final clause of § 15, creates a 'duty of the owner of (a) sunken craft to commence the immediate removal of the same, and prosecute such removal diligently.' Because 'failure to do so shall be considered as an abandonment of such craft, and subject the same to removal by the United States as provided for in sections (19 and 20) ,' petitioners contend that such failure in no case has other consequences. ”

“ We do not assess any of the Court of Appeals' conclusions, nor do we decide whether petitioners may be subject to the criminal and other remedies of § 12 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 406, which applies to violations of § 10.↑ It bears emphasis that we are here concerned with the careless or negligent sinking of a vessel, which is specifically declared not to be lawful by the first above-quoted clause of § 15. Negligence is the sole theory of recovery in the Government's libels. ”

“ It would discourage commerce to hold him to so severe a duty; for who would engage in trade, if, when he has lost his vessel, he might be forced to incur an expense of more than her original cost in removing the wreck from some difficult position? If compelled by the accident to abandon his property, the duty of removal should rather fall on the public, who are interested in the navigation, than on him.'
Cases cited for petitioners that do not rely on Winpenny either do not support petitioners' claim of a nonstatutory rule, see, e.g., In re Highland Nav. ”

“ The United States demanded that the owners and operators of the barge reimburse the Government for its expenses. This demand was rejected. In January 1963, the Government brought suit, in rem against the barge and her cargo, [2] and in personam against the owner of the barge, the owner of the boat that had been pushing the barge when it sank, and the owner of the chlorine cargo. [3] The libel charged these parties with negligence and fault in the design, towing, manning, mooring, and equipping of the barge. The Government sought a decree for the costs it incurred in removing the wreck. ”

“ The shipowner should know the value of his vessel and cargo. If he believes that value is greater than the cost of removal, he may, within 30 days after the obstruction is created, raise the vessel himself. ”

“ We therefore hold that the remedies and procedures specified by the Act for the enforcement of § 15 were not intended to be exclusive. Applying the principles of our decision in Republic Steel, we conclude that other remedies, including those here sought, are available to the Government. ”

“ Section 20, an emergency provision applicable only when a sunken vessel obstructs a waterway 'in such manner as to stop, seriously interfere with, or specially endanger navigation,' 33 U.S.C. § 415, is similar in structure to § 19. [7]
Finally, petitioners emphasize that § 16 of the Act provides criminal penalties for ' (e) very person and every corporation that shall violate, or that shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of the provisions (of § 15) .' 33 U.S.C. § 411. ”