§ 6972. Burden of Proof of Seaworthiness.-The vessel-owner has the burden of proving seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage;13 and the fact must be established by clear, direct and credible evidence.1 There is a strong presumption of unseaworthiness where the vessel, without meeting any unusual or boisterous weather or other perils of the sea, shows a leak when but a few hours out.15 § 6973. Faults in Navigation or Management.-Where the owner has furnished a vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, he will not be liable for faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel.16 But it is always to be understood that a fault in the management cannot be urged as a defense where there has been a lack of due diligence in the above respects by the owners before the vessel starts on her voyage. 17 Where a vessel-owner had satisfied the requirement as to "due diligence," he was absolved from liability, on the ground that the loss was due to a fault of management, under the following circumstances:-Where the cargo was injured by water by reason of the failure to close a port for which an iron shutter was provided, after the glass cover had been broken out by the seas, where the cargo was so placed that the port was readily accessible;18 where the damage was caused by a lack of proper attention to a vessel's pumps, which might have disclosed a leak and prevented the damage to the cargo;19 where those in charge of a vessel failed to test the valves before removing water ballast through pipes passing through cargo compartments;20 where sluice-gates descending to under-bilges were neglected for twenty days during heavy weather, every other respect, cannot be held liable for damage to a cargo of wheat by water, on the ground of unseaworthiness at the beginning of the voyage, because of the insufficiency of the hatch-coverings, where the wooden covers were tight and well fitted, and over them were fastened two canvas covers of No. 1 hard duck-one new, and the other nearly so such as were usually considered a sufficient covering, and which were specifically approved by the underwriter's surveyor under whose inspection the loading was done, and where shortly after sailing the vessel encountered a threedays' hurricane, during which the seas broke over her, dismantling her steering-gear and producing a general straining and leakage, resulting in injuries which it cost $14,000 to repair. Under such evidence, the damage must be attribu ted to perils of the sea: The Hyades, 124 Fed. Rep. 58; aff'g s. c. 118 Fed. Rep. 85. 13 The Aggi, 93 Fed. Rep. 484; The Phoenicia, 90 Fed. Rep. 116. "The Manitou, 116 Fed. Rep. 60. 15 Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 180; s. c. 36 C. C. A. 135; The Queen of the Pacific, 75 Fed. Rep. 74. 16 Act Cong. Feb. 13, 1893, ch. 105, § 3. 17 International Navigation Co. v. Farr, 181 U. S. 218; aff'g s. c. 98 Fed. Rep. 636. 18 The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462; s. c. 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7; Farr &c. Man. Co. v. International Nav. Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 675. 10 The British King, 92 Fed. Rep. 1018; s. c. 35 C. C. A. 159. 20 The Mexican Prince, 91 Fed.. Rep. 1003; s. c. 34 C. C. A. 168. and water overflowed the bilges and damaged the cargo;21 and where the master of the vessel, obliged to put into port during a voyage for repairs, through an error of judgment did not effect sufficient repairs, and the cargo was injured in consequence.22 But the unloading of the cargo into the port of discharge by stevedores has been held not to relate to the "management of the vessel" within the meaning of this provision. 23 § 6974. Vessel-Owner Adjudged Free from Liability under Harter Act Cannot Demand Contribution.-The owners of a vessel adjudged exempt from liability for damage to the cargo resulting from a firedue to the negligence of one of the crew, under the Harter Act, on the ground that they exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy and in fit condition for the voyage, and were without personal negligence or fault, cannot maintain an affirmative action against the owners of the cargo for contribution in general average to the vessel's loss; but where they are invited to such an adjustment by an action brought by the sole owner of the cargo, the ship's loss must be taken into consideration, as the effect of excluding it would be to make the same act for which they are acquitted of responsibility by the statute the basis of an indirect recovery of a part of the damage which was in issue in the direct action.24 "The Sandfield, 92 Fed. Rep. 663; S. c. 34 C. C. A. 612. The Guadeloupe, 92 Fed. Rep. 670. 23 The Germanic, 124 Fed. Rep. 1; modifying s. c. 107 Fed. Rep. 294. "The Strathdon, 94 Fed. Rep. 206, |