NORMANDIE.
151
something new and patentable is introduced protection for it may be obtained. If the other claims of Lillie's 1888 patent cover such new things they will of course be sustained. That question is not involved. here is simply that the claims under consideration embrace nothing new and are invalid.
THE
NORMANDIE.1
THE' CHARLOTTE WEBB. O'SULLIVAN
et al.
'V. CoMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUB.
O'SULLIVAN st'
al.
11. THE
" " . . (Distr£Ct Court. S.D. NeW Y()Tk.May 20.1800.)
'L COUISIOlr-STIUM: AND BAIL-FoG-ExCESSIVE BPEED"";DtJTt ToRBvtm8B. , CoUisjpn occurred toward" midnight of May 28,1889, from, jive to eight mUes east 'by south of Sandy Hool£ light-ship, in a dense f\lg, l;>etween the N'OrnmIidleand the pilot-boat Charlotte 'Webb, by reason of which tile was "The steam-ship,. having left New Yark on one of her regular trips, had been put upon a course of east by south, on which courlle she continued until witl;lin a few momentil of collision; The Jlllot-boat wall cruising forveBllels. She was sMt. lng, slowly,on:a cOurse Of E. N. E.; anq crossing the steamet's course. ;When the steamer's whistles were ,first helll'd, which was from IS.¥> 80 minutes, petore the collisIon; the pilot-boat'continued 'to sound her fog-horn,which Was blown by mechanical meilns, at regular il!.tervals. and '6B:the Normandie's whistles continued to approach, bearing in the s\Wle direction, two bombs were fired by the pilot-buat. and a fiash light was twice shown over the p'ort side. She did not altel' her course at anytime. ,". She was struck by thestesmer on her port side, ,half out through, alQng with the steam,er for a short Mriod, until ",he dropped :oa The stesmerls speed had been from 11 to 12 knots, her maximum speed bemg 16 knot"" lJ!lOn hearing, the pilotr-boat's; ,horn ahead,' her enginell were.slowed. She contmuedon at this speed for about a when the light of the sailing vessel came iil siglit;only a short distance ahead. By reversd before the collision her to four,or ftveknot" facts being tound on very con. ftlqting evidence, that there was no fauit in the pilot-boat, in ber sig'nals or maneuverll;' that the speed of the steam-sbIp was in excess ohhe ",peed requWed: in, Ii fog. by article 13 of, tlle collision rules;. tbat she was also to biamefor not reversing, instead of slowing, when the horn was ahea4 and near-; and that she alone was responsiblef6rthe collision.' , So SAMB-'l'wO iND 'STOPPING PowER. " llpontwo suits1,n personam and in re..'I'n, s1l.ccessively brought tor the, same demand, Iiosecuri ty being obtained in the former, decree should be given in the suit in'rem, with one bill <If only, but not unt.il after the availa\)lewitnclIs, ,had been produced and called therein.
In,Aclp:ljralty.
Action!! for
by collision.
Carte,r& for li1;Jelant. CO1Idet:113i:{)s., for defendants. of the;'
,:
J . The above libels were filed to recover damages for the loss G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York :
Charlotte Webb, with the personal effects ,of; those on
(' /:RepQ1'Uld' by
152
REPORTER,
vol. 43.
\:loard, through collision with the French steam-ship La Normandie, in a dense fOK at sea, from five to eight miles east by south from Sandy Hook light-ship I towards midnight of May 28, 1889. The first-named libel js against the owners of La Normandie in personam; the second, hrought by the same libelant with one other libelant, who was a passen"on the pilot-boat, is against the ship in rem. The Normandie is a steam-ship of the first class, plying regularly between Havre and New York, about 464 feet long, 50 feet beam, 25 feet draft when loaded, displacement at 21! feet draft, 8,392 tons, and between 7,000 and 8,000 tons burden. She has triple expansion engines, of 6,600 horse-power; a single right-hand propeller, about22 feet in diameter, with a pitch of 9 meters and 80 centimeters, (about 32 feet,) giving under her ordinary full speed about 56 or 57 revolutions per minute, and a speed of 16 knotsPe.r hour. .The Charlotte Webb was a twp-masted schooner, 85 feet long, 23! feet beam, and was in the service of licensed pilots. The Normandie left her dock at New York at 7 A.M. of 'the 28th of May. Encountering a dense fog at Sandy Hook, she came toanchor. A little before 10 P. M.,'the weather being still foggy, she resllIbed her voyage, passed 11 little to the northward of the Scotland light-ship and the Sandy HOClklighkship, both of which sbe made, the latter at 20 minutes past 11 then put upOl1,a COlme ofeast by south, and 80 continueduntil her wheel was ported. a few moments before collision. The CharlotteWebb left Stapleton, Staten island, between 11 and 12 o'clock of the same morning, on a cruise at sea in search of pilot service. She had on bpardfour pilots, six seamen, a:nd Green, who was a passenger or volunteer. The wind was light, about south-east by east, and she .",as saUing upon the. starboard tack, with her booms to port, and her jib, foresail, and one reefed mainsail, all close-hauled, and a stay-sail hauled to the mast, with the sheet to starboard, making 110t over one or two knots per hour, upon a course E. N. E., or N. E. by E. and crossing. therefore, the steamer's course at all angle of from three to four points to port. The fog continued dense up to the moment of col,lision. . The, pilot-boat was struck near her fore rigging on the port side, the8tem oithe steamer, at an angle variously estimated to be from 6e to 90 'degrees. She was a more than half cut through by the blow, carried along in the jaws of .the steamer for a short period, until, as the steamerstop'ped by the backing of her engines, she dropped from the -,stem ofthesteamer and sank in 13 fathoms of water. Several of her jurn'ped overboard, 01' went down with the schooner; two of whom (Malcolm, the wheelsman, and Fitzgerald, the boat-keeper) were drowned; the rest had got into,the yawl, which had been 'hove overboard before the collision, and, after being upset, .they were rescued by the The libelants contend that the collision arose in consequence of the immoderate speed of the steamer, of her failure to heed the signals given pilot-boat,and her neglect to stop and back in time.. The respondents ,claim that the steamer was in 00 faukin these respects, and that the collision arose through the failure of the pilot-hoat to give proper signals, or to veer, as it is claimed she might and ought to havedone,
THE NORMANDIE.
153
out of the line of the steamer's cour-se when it waS perceived that the steamer was coming directly upon her, and could not avoid her. Damages for collision are given under our law only upon proof of fault, actual or presumptive. As between a steamer and a sail-vessel, upon proof that the latter has observed all the rules of navigation, fault in the steamer in case of collision is presumed, except on an issue of inevitable accident, (The Florence P. Hall, 14 Fed. Rep. 408-416, 418, and cases cited;) and the burden is upon her, if she would avoid liability, to satisfy the court that she has observed all the rules of navigation, and of careful seamanship. If this be proved to the satisfaction of the court, she is entitled to acquittal. The loss is ascribed to inevitable accident, or perils of the sea, and remains where it fell. The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 550-556; The MarpeM, L. R. 4 P. C. 212-219. The Pilot-Boat's Signals. On careful consideration of the testimony, and of all that has been urged in behalf of the claimant, I must find that fog signals, as required by law, were duly given by the pilot-boat, and that she is without fault in this respect. When the Normandie's whistles were first heard two persons only were on deck, Capt. Scott, who was at the wheel, and in charge of the watch after 10:-40 P. M., and Olsen, who was the lookout, lind blowing the fog-horn. The horn was blown by a mechanical appliance of approved form, giving blasts andible, as the testimony states, at three or four times the distance at which a horn blown from the month would be heard. Olsen went on the look. out at 10 P. M. He and Capt. Scott testify that the horn was' sounded regnlarly at intervals of about a minute from that time to the collision; the signal being one blast, in conformity with the rules of navigation, the pilot-boat being on her starboard tack. The fog signals of the Normandie, as they testify, were heard a considerable time before. collision, estimated at from 15 to 30 minutes. These signals, according to the claimant's testimony, were given at intervals of about one minute. Capt. Scott testifies that he located these signals as bearing by compass W. by N., or W. N. W., and that they continued on the same bearing until the collision; that, alter hearing six or eight of those signals, he called up Pilot Hammer, who thereupon came up and remained some time sronding in the companion way, and watching for the steamer. Both used glasses. Soon afterwards Hammer called up Pilot Hines. Hammer and Freeman testify to hearing the signals from the Normandie upon the same bearing, and that the pilot-boat replied thereto regularly for some time before the collision, and that they heard the pilot-boat's previous signals before they came on deck. Four other witnesses testify to healing the horn blown while they were below. After Hammer came up Capt. Scott ordered a bomb to be fired, which was done, giving a report, it is said, louder than a cannon. To get, to fix, and to fire the bomb took "about a minute." After the bomb, a flash light was shown over the port side for about a minute. After that, another bomb was fired, and then the flash light was again shown on. the port side. Meantime the boat-keeper and all hands had been called from below. The steamer's lights were first seen about the time, or soon after, the second bomb was fired. She
J'EDERAL REPORTER,
was thefi probably. not overa quarter of a mile distant. It,was then, or very soona.fterwards\ that the yawl was hove over, before all the men below had got on deck. Scott and Hammer jumped into the yawl at once.' Two others below, roustldby the calls and the noise above, came up, saw the steamer's lights, and got into the yawl; they did not pull away before they were upset by the collision. Larsen estimated that the yaw-twas lauJ!ched eight minutes before collision; Anderson, three or four minutes. 'Freeman thinks the second bomb fired was a half hour befbre collision. These estimates carry no weight. Capt. Scott, the other pilots, and Olsen say the boat was thrown over just before the colHsion, and of that I have no doubt. The whole testimony on both sides bristles with discrepancies as regards the estimates of time and distance. Little weight is to be attached to such estimates, unsubstan.. tiatedot':'unoorrooted by other facts. The acts done, and all the circumstances: ()f t1me,place, and navigation, afford a better tneaus of judging ofsuch particulars. Kennedyv. TheSarmatian. 2 Fed. Rep. 914. Several blasts of the Normandie's sirenwere heard between the two bombs; Scott thinks, two Or three blasts; three or four. Taking all the evidence and the circumstances into account, I think it most probable that the Normandie's :whistles were first heard about 15 minutes before col· lision;that the interval between the bombs was probably from one to three'minutes; that the last bomb was fired about two minutes before collision, and the steamer's lights first seen a few moments after the last bomb was fired; andthat.the yawl was hove over about that time. The steamer's witnesses testify that only one bomb was heard by them, and, belore the bomb, only one blast of the hom, which was immediatelybefore the bomb; that, after the bomb, the pilot's horn was heard often, and. was soon blown almost" continuously. ll'or the defense it is !Urged that ,Olsen's testimony that he assisted in exhibiting the torch1ill;hts, and: also in heaving the lead once after the steamer's whistles were first heard, as well as in launching the yawl, proves that other duo _ties were imposedtipon him incompatible with his duty to keep a proper , lookout·, 'and to give the proper signals. Capt. Scott, however, testifies :that ·he himself threw the lead, and took the of 13 fathoms; a.hd that Olsen merely hauled in1tbe line, a matter of a few seconds only. -Both Scott andFIammer testify that the torch-lights were shown by thetn, alldnot by Olsen, and the latter so stated on his original exam.. ination. The fact, also, testified to by five of the claimant's witnesses, that the horn was heard just befdrethe bomb, confirms the testimony of Scot. and Hammer that Olsen. was not called off from his duty to fire the bomb. The"other circumstances on which Olsen's alleged neglect to sound the horn regularly is based: are too slight to have any weight against the mass of direct evidence. as well as the probabilities of the case, that the .proper signals were given. The event shows that Capt. Scott had accurately located the bearing of the steamer by her as west by north. The whistles continued, he says, to bear 'in the same direction ishowing, therefore, that the. steamer was. coming directly for the· pilot-boati and he was fully alive to fact. It is extremely
THE NORMANDI&
15&
improbable that, under such circumstances, the use of the ordinary fog signals, which had beed given all along, should be neglected then. Many:witnesses testify that theSe signals were given, and given oftener than is required by the rules; and the firing of the two .bombs was an additional precaution that was employed because they knew the steamer was coming towards them. It is not credible that such added tion. should have been adopted, and the simple and usual precaution of blowing the horn neglected. That it was not neglected is proved by all the direct testimony that the case makes possible; and it is confirmed, as I have said,. to some extent, by the steamer's evidence that the foghorn was heard before the bomb. Such a mass of testimony I cannot discredit, merely because the hom was not heard earlier on board of the Norm:andie. Her witnesses say that only one bomb was heard, yet two were certainly fired. The first, bomb was probably within a few minutes of the second; at all events, it was some time after the first signal from the Normandie was heard on the pilot-boat; and the first bomb should ordinarily have been heard on the Normandie. If not heard, the failure to hear the first bomb, as well as earlier fog-horns, should be set down to abnormal conditions of the atmosphere, or to inattention. Bradley..... The John Pridgeon, 38 Fed. Rep. 261, 267; McCabe v.Steam-Ship Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 238; The Lepanto, 21 Fed. Rep. 651, 656-658; The Zadok,9 Ptob. Div. 114. The theory that the yawl was launched some eight minutes before collision,for the purpose of sending a pilot to the steamer,and that the crew were occupied about that business, encounters too many opposing circumstances and too much opposing testimony to be adopted. Nor could the pilot-boat safely depart from her course. before the steamer could be distinguished. No rule required that; and, had she done so, it would have been at her own risk. There was nothing by which she could determine whether to turn to the right or the left; and, a:fter the steamer was seell, there was nothing, I think, which she could, have safely done. She could not tell what change the steamer might be making. It requires a very clear case to condemn a sailing vessel for observing the general rule to hold her course, instead of departing from it. This is not such a caee. Ths Normandie's Speed. The Normandie's speed before slowing is estimated by her officers at from 10 to 11 knots, but no reason appears for estimating it at much less than 12 knots. For more than half an hour she had been making 42 revolutions per minute. The general conditions for speed were favorable. Her loading was not deeper than usual. Fifty-six or 57 revolutions give her 16 knots, and 42 lutions should therefore give 12. Computed from the pitch of the propeller of over 31 feet, with 10 per cent. slip, 42 revolutions should give nearly 12 knots. It is not very material, however, whether her speed was 12 knots or 11. Either is considerably in excess of what has been adjudged in many cases in the courts of this country an excessive rate of speed in a dense fog, and therefore a violation of the thirteenth article of navigation. I am not at liberty to depart from these adjudications. notwithstanding the opinions of witnesses and the argument of
I'EDERAL REPORTED,
counseUhather speed was moderate, and was the safest for herself and for other vessels. No doubtthe question ofwhatis "moderate speed "is largely a question of circumstances, having reference to the density of the fog; the place of navigation; the probable presence of other vessels likely to be met; the state of the weather as affecting the ability to hear the fog signals of other vessels at a reasonable distance; the full speed of the ship herself, her appliances for rapid maneuvering, and the amount of her steam-power kept in reserve, as affecting her ability to stop quickly after hearing fog signals. No doubt. also, that, in the absence of circmnstances of special danger, navigation is not required to be suspended on the high seas on account of dense fog. Neither the rules nor the ordinary practice of seamen require that. The rules intend that signals shall. be given which are expected to be heard in time ,to enable vessels to avoid each other; and no speed is sufficiently "moderate," under given conditions ofwind, sea, and weather. unless it is so reduced as to enable the vessel to perform her duty to keep out of the way from the time when she has a right to expect that the other signals, under the existing conditions, will be heard. For the Normandie it is contended that her speed in this case, considering all the circumstances, was moderate speed, because her speed was reduced, and was such as, considering the utility and necessity of rapid evolutions, was most effective to enable her successfully to avoid collision with other vessels that observe the rules of navigation. The recent case of The Champagne and The City oj Rio Janeiro in the French courts has cited in support of this contention. There the Champagne was running in foggy weather at a speed of 14! knots an hour.. She heard the whistle of the Rio Janeiro ahead, or a little on her port bow, and thereupon ported, and reduced her speed to 10 knots. The Rio Janeiro heard, and erroneously located the whistles of the Champagne on her starboard bow, and accordingly veered to port, which brought the two vessels into collision. The vessels had in fact 'been approaching very nearly head and head. The erroneous location of the Champagne's whistle by the City of Rio Janeiro was ascribed to inexplicable fatality, or the reverberations of the sound of the whistles froD:lstrata of fog, of different density. The court of appeal at Rouen adopted the finding of the tribunal of Havre, that the reduction of speed from 14! to:1 o knots was. in keepitlg with the circumstances, and proper for makingthe necessary evolutionstbat are required to execute maneuvers as quickly as possible in order to avoid collisions. Both courts, however, found the further fact that the speed of the Champagne did not contribute to the collision in that case, nor have any direct relation to it, and therefore released the Ohampagne. International Mar. Rev. pp. 500-543. The court of cassation, in affirming the judgment, did not consider the question whether her speed was moderate within the rule, 'but affirmed the judgment on the finding of fact below that the rate of speed was in that instance immaterial, having no direct connection with the collision. Id. 1889-90, p. 7. In a still later case the court of appeals at Montpelier held the steamer Tonkin in fault for
157
going in fog at a speed of 10 knots instead of 5. ld. 1889-90, pp. 204-207. Very similar arguments in favor of higher speed were addressed to the supreme court in the case of The Pennaylvania, 19 Wall. 125, and overruled; and I am not at liberty to treat the question as an open one in tbis court. The maximum speed of the steamer in that case was 13! knots; and, under circumstances very similar to the present, a speed of 7 knots was held excessive. With improvements in steam-engines, and increased facilities for handling, it is not impossible that one-half the maximum speed, when full power is held in reserve for use in emergencies, may come to be held a moderate speed, even in dense fog, in those parts of the high seas )Vhere other vessels are not specially liable to be met. But the speed of the Normandie in this case was more than half of her maximum speed. There is no case in the courts of this country where a speed of two-thirds of the maximum speed, under such circumstances as the present, has been held to be moderate speed within artide 13. No doubt certain evolutions could be effected more rapidly with a speed of 10 to 12 knots than with a speed of 6. But a speed of 10 or 12 knots was not more necessary to the Normandie's safe navigation in this case than was 7 knots in the caSe of The Pennsylvania. Besides, the question is not whether certain evolutions can be executed in less time, but whether the Normandie,. when meeting a vessel suddenly in a fog, could, as a rule, more effectively avoid her under a sReed of 10 or 12 knots thQ,n when under a speed of only 6 or 7 knots. TIle experiments with the Normandie, testified to by Lieut. Chambers, do not favor the higher rate of speed, because they show that .the ship stops in less space, and turns more within a given area, under a speed qf 8 knots than under a speed of 12 knots. See White, Nav. Arch. 631-635. 1 There was nothing to prevent the Normandie from proceeding at a much slower rate. The shows that soon after the fog-horn was heard, her revolutions were brought down to 16 or 17 per minute, equal to about 5 knots speed. The testimony of the engineer in charge and9f the f;lrst officer shows that this continued about a minute, whereupon her engines. were reversed; and the commander testifies that this reversal was ordered at the time when the pilot-boat's light came in sight, distant less than half the steamer's length. Upon other adjudged cases I also think the Normandie is to blame for not reversing at the time she slowed, because at that time the signals were heard nearly ahead, and must have been perceived to be near; and, considering that she was then at a sPeed of from 10 to 12 knots, on hearing such a signal near and ahead, she was bound to check her speed as soon as possible by instant reversal. Leonard v. Whitwill, 10 Ben. 638,647; The Frankland, L. R. 4 P. 0.529; The Martello, 34 Fed. Rep. 71, 74; The City ofAtlanta, 26 Fed. Rep. 456, 462; The Britannic, 39 Fed. Rep. 395, 399, and cases there cited; The Wyanoke, 40 Fed; Rep. 702, 704. From the fact that t4e pilot"bpat was not cut through, it is not probable that at the moment of 1 See Dote
I, post, 159.
lI'EDERAt'REP6:R'1'ER,
the steamei'wl'ts at/the rate of more 5 knots, '8.'lid'such:is the testimony cif Pilot Hines tends ,to'd6nfirm this. He'--says he wentdtllwn with,the pilot-boat, and that 'dll rlsing to the sUrface he saw the 1lights of the steamer,; and kept them in view all the time until he was picked up.' Had not her speed been reduced very much 'below 10 01"12 knots, the pilot-boat would have been cut through, and the Normandie would have gone out of sight before stopping.: Mr. Forrest, a. passenger on the Normandie, .testifies alsolhat through the port-hole of his state-room on the saloon-deck on the starboard side he saw men struggling in the water very neat the ship; .that he· threw life-preservers to them; and' afterwards saw them hauled aboard; and that when he first looked out the 'ship waS then running only very slowly ahead. This confirms the conclusion that at collision the steamer's speed had been reduced to 4 or 5 knots. It is not possible to reconcile the testimony of the master and the men -on the lookout as to the'shortness of time between the hearing of the first signal and the collision with the testimony of the ·first lieutenant "and the engineer. The master thinks that the reversal of the engine .took place within 5 or 6, seconds after the pilot-boat's signals were first heard; and within 20 seconds of the collision; and the order to reverse he says was given 2 or 3 seconds after the order to slow. It is not perhaps necessary to determine which is correct on this point. But the master must be mistaken, if at the collision the Normandie'e speed was reduced t04 or5 knots, as he estimates; for she could not retard from 11 knots to 5 in less thana minute and a half, even on instant reversal of the engipes at 'full speed; and' if during a minute of the interval she ran at the rate of 16 or 17 revolutions ahead before reversing, she could not retard to 5 knots in less than 2 minutes; and the distance run, I am confident, would, on the last supposition, be as much as a quarter ora mile. Such, ornearly such, are, I think, most the facts of the case. The master's testimony, also, that he did not reverse until a second blast of the pilot-boat's horn was beard nearer, agrees with the engineer's testimony that'there was about a minute!s slowing before reversal. Upon this view, had the engine been reversed full speed When the horn and bomb were first heard,whether that bomb was the first that was fired or thest'cond,the steamer would have passed astern of the pilot-boat, and the collision would have been avoided. I do not say that she would have been fully stopped before reaching the line of the pilot-boat's course, for there is uncertainty both as to her actual distance from the pilot-boat at that time and as to the distance within which she could have been but I am confident that the estimates as to the disstopped by tancesrequired for stop'ping given in the testimony are much too small. 1 By reversing when the bomb was first heard the Normandie would have passed astern, both from the delay consequent on her reversal and from her greater change of heading to starboard. This change would have been from two to three points. As it was, the testimony shows that she i
De'
J
See note II, post, 160.
THE 'NORMANDIE.
159
changed but one point. The difference from both causes would have Qeen sufficient to allow the pilot-boat, going from.l50 to 200 feet a minute, to escape. If some uncertainty, however, remains on this last point, I cannot doubt that"had the Normandie been going at such moderate speed as the adjudications of this country require, she would have been sto"pped before reaching the pilot-boat, had she reversed when the first signals were heard so nea1!, and the collision would have been thereby avoided. A decree must therefore be given for the libelants in the suit in per(l()'lW,m, with costs. In the suit in rem, the testimony not being Gomplete, and the omission to call the lookout not being satisfactory, no decree should be given until some necessity for that suit shall appear and the omiSsion be supplied. The defect in the testimony in the suit £nrem being subsequently supplied, and it that that suit had been brought because no security had been obtained in the prior suit in personam, and that the stipUlation given in the suit in rem wassufficit'nt to cover the libelants' demands, a decree was directed'to be entered in the suit in rem only, with one bill of costs. See The Normandie, 40 Fed. Rep. 590. ' . NOTB L The following is a summary of the observations of Lieut. Chambers, U. S.N., in his 'ell'perimenta with the Normandie. The experiments were made in tlie English ohannel, oit Bar Fleur light, under the lea of the land. in '.11 fathoms of water, in alight. wind and smooth sea. The ship was light, drawing only 213i' feet, 8 feet less than whenloaded. .' , (1) Twming. The helm is worked by steam. The propeller is right-handed. After the order to port or to starboarll is given, it takes 28 seconds to get the helm hard over if the sh'ip is going at her maXimum speed of 16. knots, 20 seconds if she is going at 19 knots speed, a.nd 18 seconds if She. is .going at 8 knots. In turning to starboard, the ship bl;lgins to change almost as soon 8S tile helm is moved; but in going to port, and at 12 knots speed, not until she has traveled nearly a length. Going 16 knots, she makes a circle to starboard in 18 minutes and 5 seconds; going to port, In 15 minutes. Going at 12 knots speed, she makes a circle to starboard in 14' 30"; to port, in 15', Going at 8 knots, she makes a circle to starboard in 20' 25". Though the steam-power is kept the same, the speed is diminished nearly 25 per cent. in turnlngtbe first quadrant, through the drag of the rudder, the increased friction of the ship in swinging, and the indirect thrust of the propeller. The ship's path is not an exact circle, but a spiral, ending inside the point of departure, andin advance of it, viz., when beginning under full speed, 30 feet inside the point of departure; When beginning at 12 knots speed, 155 feet, and when starting at 8 knots, 820 feet inside. (2) Rate of Change. Goingjat full speed, (16 knots,) it takes 50" after the order is given to change 2 points to starboard; to change 4 polnts,l' 38"; 8 points, 8' 14"; 16 points, 6' 38"; 24 points, 9' 50"; 89 points, 13' 5"; average speed for first 8 points, 181 knots; for the whole 82 points, 12 knots; diameter of circle, 5,180 feet; average change of one point in a little over a length. Turuing, to port, and going .12 knots, it takes 1'16" after giving the order to change 2 points;. to change 4 points, 2' 4"; 6 points,2' -56"; 8 points, 8' 48"; 16 points, 7' 25"; 82 points. 15'; cirole,4,480 feet diameter; average speed of first, 8, points, 10.6 knots; of the whole 82 pomts,9 knots. Turning to starboard, going at 12 knots speed, it takes 58" to change 2 points; to change 4 points, I' 50"; 8 points, 8' 40"; 16 points, 7',19"; 24 points, 10' 55"; 32 points, 14' SO"; diameter of circle 4,050 feet; average speed of :first8 points, 9.8 knots; of whole 82 points, average, 8.9 knots; of 1 point in about 5-6 of a length. Going at a speed of 8 knots, to change 2 points takes l' 29"; 4' points, 2' 38"; 6 points, 8' 48"; 8 points, 5' 2"; 16 points, 9' 59";24 pomts, 15'; 32 points, 20' 25"; diameter of circle; 3,885 feet; average speed of first 8 points, 6.5 knots; of whole 82 points, 5.4 knots. According to these experiments the Normandieturnsfaster to starboard than to port. Under a speed of 16 knots she turns 4 points to starboard in 93" after the order to port is given, going about 2,200 feet; at 12 knots speed, she makes the same. change in 110," in going about 2,025 feet; at 8 knots speed, 'the same change in 158," going about 1;750f6et. (3) Backing. On reversi,ng full speed the rudder is said to have no perceptible eitect, and was therefore put amid ships. No observation was made, however, as to the pos,. sible effect ,of a port or,lItarboard helm during the first minute after reversal. See The Auranl&" 211 Fed. Rep. 122, note. ln the fusl; experiment, reversing from full
FEDERAL REPORTER,
·peeI ahimd,18,1mots, to full speed .lItern, Normandie ran lengths without of heaeling; she then fell olf rapidly to, starboard, and stop,pad with a change of 411OOn1i8, in 245 seconds. In the second experiment, reversing full speed from a preVious sPeed 12 oots, (1) she changed points to starboard, and stopped in 165 seconds. (1) ID reversing full speed from a previous sptled of 8, knots, (I) lIhe turned points to starboard and stopped in 121 seconds. (t) When loaded, as at the, time of oollUiion, 8 feet deeper, oausing an increased displaC'3ment cf at least 1,400 WIIS, (onecsixth,) the times of stopping and distances, advanced would be increased prob\looly about onectenth. See note 2, sub. 6, infra: The observations as to tbe actual speeds at which the above experiments were begun were lost. They are given as estimated,prElsenting, doubtless, some errors, ut, infra., ', (4) Dfstances Run in Stopping. These distances were not measured, but were es" timated as follows: In the first experiment, stopping from 16 knots, 1,771 feet; in the tlecond, stopping from 12 knots, 0)818 feet; in the third, stoppinjr from 8 knots, 645 feet. These estimates are inconsistent and irreconcilable. Comparing the second with the,third, they would make the ship, while retarding from 12 knots to 8, run only 173 feetil'i 44 whereas the distance run in that time, going at the mean rate of nearly 10 knots, must have been about 700 feet. So a comparison of the estimated distances run in t,he,fl"rst and second experi,ments shows only 953 feet traversed in l' 20 while retarding 'knots to 12i but if that retard took SO"H the distance run must have been about 1,800 feet. Th,ese inconsistencies are probably due to errors in the second and third experiments, because,there is no probaoility that in, the first experiment the time noted was too muoh, eithel' by delay in reversing at the beginlling, or, by counting time .afterthllshlpstopped; nor could the speed of the ship at the start have, been more than full speed; whereas, in the second and third experiments, thelnitialspeed might easily have been below the ahd the tillle ofstopplng might also ha\Te been noted too tloon. ·In the absence of ranges, and considering the very slow movement of the ship during the last ,half minute, (see table, infra,) and especially if the quick-water is already runnin« ahead of the observer, the exact time of stopping must be difticult to observe. In a paper by: Lieut. F. F. Fletcher in the volume on Naval Mobilization, published in June,I889, by the oftlce of naval intelligence, it is stated at page 456 that the estimates of the'distances advanced before coming to a dead stop after reversing the engine are muchl&s8 than in similar cases where the distances have been measured. The appendix <!Itates the time required to stop in the cases of some 50 vessels, but no distances. In several eases the different tiDies are also given for stopping when light and when loaded; the former being about twooothirds of the latter, a much greater difference than computation would indicate for the Normandie. On the basis of Lieut. Chambers' 1irst experiment, the least distances in Vlllich the Normandie could stop from 16 knots, 12 knots, and 8 knots would probably be about 2,750, 1,850, and 970 feet, respectively. See note II, infra.
8"
H
;
,
NOTB II. In tbe absence of any tables showing the rate at which steamers retard knot by knot on reversing, the sUbjoined tables, computed by approximation, without the use,of the calculus, and based on Lieut. Chambers' first observation of stopping in 245", will be generally intelligible, and found capable of many ,useful applications. A few explanations are prefixed. By Newton's first law, the amount of retard under a constant forceis proportionate to the time the force acts. The time required to retard a given mass a given amount, ullder different forces, is inversely proportional to the acting forces. To obtain tbe times occupied in stopping, and the distances traversed during each interval, knot by knot, it is therefore only necessary to know the comparative amount of the retarding forces at work during each of these intervals, and the whole time it takes to stop; in this case, 245". The retarding forces are (1) that of the rec versed engine and propeller, which may be assullled to be constant, or llearly so; (2) the resistance of air and water, wbich il variable, diminishing mostly as the square of tbe ship'svelooity. At high speeds, the ratio of the water resistance approaches the cube of the velocity; but as tbe square gives the least distance traversed, and applies for the most part, and the object being to find the least possible theoretical distance, the rule of the square is appl1ed througbout. The cube rule applied between 16 knots and 12 would result in a net increase of less than 40 feet. At the full speed of any vessel tbe resistance of air and water just equals the effective propelling power of her engine. If the full-speed propelling power of the Normandle (16 knots) be repre'lented by 16, tbe resistance of air and water at her full speed will be 16 also. If, then, 0'\ rec versing full speed, the engine and propeller worked as effectively astern as ahead, the combined retarding forces would at first be represented by 82. But neither the engine nor the propeller blades are so constructed as to work astern as effectively as ahead; the loss in different vessels has been estimated to be from 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. Supposing tbeNormandie'. backing power to be 60 per cent. of ber propelling power the combined retarding forces on reversing full speed would then be, ,at first, 9.00+16 -25.60. As will appear below, the precise amount of the assumed loss of power in baoking, is not very: material when the time Is fixed. In the first computation, the retarding force of the engine and propeller is taken afl -9.6, and as constant throughout; in the second oomputation, (columns 7,8, and 9,) as equal to the propelling force -16. As
'.l'BE NORMAN DiE·.
161
regards tlie variable resistance of air and water, It is suftlciently accurate to take the force and speed at the mean between the successive knots for those intervale, where the intervals are SO small. The error is less than one-fourth of 1 per cent. This resistance at a speed of 16 knots, being represented by 16. Will, for the interval between 16.and 15 knots, therefore· be to 16 as s: (16) '1 or 15.016. The second column of the table gives the proportionate amountot air ana water resistance computed in the same way for the mean of each interval down to stopping. Adding 9.6 for the constant retarding force of the Normandie'sengine,gives (column 8) the total'amount of theretardihg forces for eacl1 interval. Let 'l! ·represent the tIme it wc:>uld take for the engine alone, exerting a constant force -11.60, to retard the Ship one knot, then the time required to retard from 16 knots to 15, by the combined forces, will be toT, by the inverse proportion of the forces, as 9.6: 24.616-.890 T. The tIme required to retard dUring all the other intervals being found in the same way in multip,les of T, (column 4,) their sum, 11.800 T, equala by observation 245". T therefore -21'.6808; and this value, applied to column 4, gives (column 5) the time in seconds for retarding each knot. Multiplymg this time by the mean speed per second for each interval, gives (column 6) the advance of the ship during each knot's retard, aggregating 2,757 feet. The computations in the seventh, eighth, and ninth columns are made in the same way, but on the assumption that the retarding and propulsive forces of the engine are the same; and 16, as the engine constant, instead of 9.60, is therefore added to column 2 to obtain the whole retarding force. 8PBD. .RBSIST.
I
A.&W. 111:016 18.140 11.890 9.786 8.266 6.891 6.641 4.516 8.016 2.611 1.890 1.266 ·768 .891 .141 .016
TOTAL RESIST. FORCE
SECONDS.
FilET.
I 1'.&18 T.549 T.584 T.m T.659 T.899 T.789 T.780 'J\.820 T.894 T.9:rT T.964 T.978 T.991 T.999
FaBT.
18-111 11)-14 14-lJ 13-12 U-11 11-10 Ie.- 9 9-8 8-1 1-6 8-6 1)-4 4-8 3-2 S-1 1-0
24.616 22.740 20.990 19.866 17.866 16.491 15.241 14.118 1s.I18 12.241 11.490 10.866 10.866 9.991 9.741 9.816
T 11.300=245" C. E.208.1 T21,"6808
--
T ·.890 T.422 T.457 T.496 T.5S7 T.1I82 T.8lIO T.880 T.732 T.11l4 T.886 T.883 T.926 T.981 T.986 T.998
-- -
8.4611 lI.15l1 9,916 10.742 11.650 12.821 18.656 14.745 1·.869 17.CO 18.11 19.1li4 20.071 20.882 21.869 21.642
221 224 226 227 226 219 212 201 186 168 145 118 88 64 18
m
T.8li8
2767
T 12,5678_245" T_19."49457
10.08 10.70 11.89 12.11 12.811 18.88 14.41 15.20 11i.98 16.78 17.48 18.01 18.60 19.03 19.84 19.47
28U 282. 24M
2li9.7 256.11
241.6 28l.8 20U 183.6 162.1 187.8 110.
2921.4 C. E ·..sl1.9
49. 16.4
8O.a
columns 5 and 6 in the above table the Normandie, in stopping from 16 knots ill. 245' , would advance 2,757 feet, or about 6 lengths; from 1::1 knots speed she would stop ill. 212", advancing 185\1 feet, or about 4 lengths; and from 8 knots speed, in 154", in 978 feet, a little over 2 lengths. If she could stop from 12 knots speed in 165", she would stop from 16 knots in 199", instead of 245". (1) Columnll6 and 9 show that, when the time of stopping is given, but little durerence results in the distance advanced, though a large decrease be assumed in the backin" efficienpy of. the engine. A proportion of the work is thereby assigned to the water resistance. A decrease of 40 cent. in the assumed backing efficiency, the time being fixed, is shown to make the distance advanced only about .6 per cent, less j the distance is less because the less the proportion of work done by the engine, and the greater that done by the water resistance, the greater must be the effect of the variable water resistance in diminishing the distance run below what would be run (3,810 feet) if. the en"ine alone could stop the ship in the same time. (2) Saving .this small percentage of variation through differences in backing effi· clelicy, the. above table is applicable to all propellers that stop in the same time on reversing full speed from the same maximum speed of 16 knots, Without regard to the model or mass of the ship. (8) The proportion of work done by the engine in retarding each knot is expressed by the decimals in column 4. MUltiplying the different times in column 5 into the con. stant engine force (here 9.6) and into the variable water resistance, column 2, the sum of the products of each gives the relative proportions of the work done by each during the wh01e or any part of the interval. From 16 knots to 12, the engine does 44 per cent.. of the work; from 12 to 8, 61 per cent.; from 8 to 4, 81 per cent. j from 4to 01 OO%' per cent. ; from 16 to 8, 53 per cent.; from 8 to 0, 88%, per cent. If the engine's oacking power equaled three-fourths its propelling power, its proportion of the work done in stopping from 16 knots to 8 would be 57 per cent.; from 8 knots to· 0, 92 per cent. The power of the engine is therefore a verx Important factor in determining the time and distance required to come to a stop. .nut see, cO'!"-tra, White, Nav. Arch. 604.
Br
V.43F.no.2-11
..
total'retarding force and time; as .given, ineotum.M 8 and 5; multloonstant throughout. Tbisproduct.,SlO8.l, roprelljlnts the ·.E.) requisite to retard the Nomandiellmot; on her supposed of 6-1il. ,If this efftcienoy equaled 75 per cent. of her propelling pOwer,snd the time required to stop remailied the same, the oonstant would be 248; il it·eq\lAled 100 PAr cent., it would be 811.9" Dividing the oonstant of energy by the total retaioQingforce for, any knot, gives the time required to retard that knot. · f!i) .The gain in time aDd distance from any increased, backing efftoienor of the angine actual backing power were lI:loreased from i,l thus ,jUUlily deduced. If the N 9.60 to lS,each item of total retarding foroein column 8,would be inoreased by 2.40, a lIIDd.the ,times and dilltanoee in columllJl Ii and 6 reduced saving Clf 87"ln time, and of 870 feet in distance advanced. :If her backing power were increatll!d from 9.60 to 16, so as to equal' her propelling power, as In the case of boats, the stop would be madein 168", and in 1,940 feet, a. gain of 82" in time, and of 807 feet in,sP¥8. From 8 knots speed, as in fog, the stop would be made in 97", and in 789 feet., ,,The, importance of keeping a full heaa of steam in reserve when going at mod· erate speed in a fog is thull apparent. ; (6) Other things being equai, the times and distances forstoppini'vary directly as the'l'lI.(l-88, and inversely as thecombintld'forces of engine and water resistance. The greater the water resistance at the same speed, in the oase of different vessels, owing to differences of model, or of the same vessel when more deeply loaded, the greater force necessary to ,attain that speed; and hence the greater the combined retarding forces on reversing. If the water resistance inoreased precisely alI··the mass,or weight, or draft of the ship, these opposite effects, would neutralize eacb..,otber, and the stop fromtbe same sp.eedwould be made inJ.be same time and df.s., mnoe. But rate of inorease of the water resistancll ,&epending ohiefiy on the sUbJP,erged surfacll of thelihip, (White, Naval Aich. 460,) does not )lsual· la-muoh excelld, that, of the draft; an,d an increase'of therefore inoreases tbll,stopping distance., ' .' I · ·IIi stopping from the same spelld, however, thll proportional values given in columns 9,' 8, and 4 are, independent pf mass or any particular Ilngine power, or water resist8nee; ,and hence the distances advanced, (column 6,) by di1fetent vessels in stopping fl'9lJl the S(\IJlEl speed, are in proportion to the observed tiJ:l!.es.lhey occupy in, stopping. , The follj)wi,ng table shows .computations for (1) the' \'Y illamette, (length 88D teet; gross'wunage, stopping from. ,10: knots in 120"· (2) the Pennsylvania, (848 feat; tons, 8,104,) stoppIng from 12 knots in 140"; and (8) the Wyoming, (866 feet; tons, B,288,> stopping from 14 knots in 160" stated in the appendix to Lieut. Fletcher's paper, ut'l/:Pra; also for the (4,) and for an IS-knot steamer, (5):
pu"".. togetp;r,. produce a
1)'.(&)'
MAL
STOPa IN.
EllGINIi CanT.
PU CUT. 88 76 60
li)1l8INIi. " STOPS. FEET.
0 .. AD"'.
P.. CT. O.E. 42.8 108.8 42.' '126.9 41.6. 20U 256.6 41.6
STOPS PROY HAL" O.. P17LL SPEED Ill.
tll.'.i"· "t ·
'140" ·160"
120"
Mil 8.
a.
12111 2'1'117 8420
874
43.
711.8
4 J,8 ,.. 6)'a: ·.to'
246" 270"
11.
uo
1588
lit
110" 1211 .. -14.8
'la." 300 ft.=H·8 per cent. .. 811."6 418 .. -14.6 99.'1, 556 u-14.7 llW' 976" -14.8
.
(7) Fro1Il the lost table the distance advanoedby auy other steamer in stopping from either of.the full speeds above given, or from balf that speed on i'8V8rsing fun speed, when het time of stopping iBkri.own, may be approximately ascertained ; the distances being in the proportion of the ,respective times of stopping. The distance· traversed for 'any parti01llar knot or k'tiotsmay be ascertained by first obtaining the time required to retard that knot by diViding the tabular Constant of Energy-(C. E.) for similar speedbythewbole retarding forces at that knot, as per above tables, and then inoreaslng or diminishing the time so obtained in, the proportion of the whole observed times of.thetiwo vessels' stopping. From this tbe distance is readily obtained. (8) From the ,above tablesU will beseell, as previously deduced, through the shorter method of the.caloulus, bY Lieut. Fletcher. townom I am indebted for various facts and sUggestiollJl, ill 'the,'above calculations, tbat the whole advance which may be expected· to be madebysorewpropellers in stopping from full speed is· from 41 per cent. to 48 per cent. of the eed advance for the same time; and that the stopping distance from halt at, full s , on reversing aUull sp8ed\· ie abou·t 1'-7 otthat advance. The tables shoW that t ernie should be general, llubjeot only to the small vaviation above noted, (sub.:l,) and thattbernle would apply on reversing from any given speed with the SaIne pOwezou8ecl in going &head. These oonclulioDIIllearly accord' with the few multl'belt, repOl1ielL ' ' ·. , .' ,· :.. . · . ",' '-" ",', ; I"j ,
163 . THE ADDIE
B.t
THFi J. J. ABRAMS 'IJ. THE
DRISCOLL.
J. J.
DRISCOJ,L.
(Dl.sWWt C01./I1't, E. D. New York. July 16,1811O.) SALVAGE-NEGLIGENCE.
A ;vadht was lying at anchor; when a gale arose,. and the yacht became in danger of gOlng alOhUre. To. render h4;n' a salvage service, a tug took hold of the yacht to tow her off shore. The anchor of the yacht remained down, which fact was known to the master of the tug, but no effort was made to have the line taken in, the anchor being allo",ed to·drag, until it cllought in the anchor of libelant's yacht, whi!lhwas thereby torn from her moorings, arid subsequently went ashore. Hew., that it ·W8S the fault afthe tug. .. .
In Admiralty. . SuiUor damages caused by stranding. A. VanDe Water, for libelant. HylmndJc Zabriskie, for claimant. BENEDICT, J. This action was commenced by Henry B. Abrams, then the owner of a small vessel called the "Addie B.," to recover of the steam-tug J. J. Driscoll for damages done to the Addie B. by stranding, under the circumstances hereafter stated. Abrams having died quent to the. commencement of this action, it is now prosecuted by his daughter as executrix. In September, 1889, at 10 A. M., the Addie B. was lying off Whitestone, made fast to a mooring-stone, when a dangerous wind blew up from the north-east. Her owner, to make her secure, put out two ,more lines to anchors, and then left her, thus safely moored in a proper plaoe. The yacht Amaranth lay near the Addie B., and, being in danger of being driven on shore, the tug J. J. Driscoll, for the purpose of rendering a salvllge service to the Amaranth, went to her assistance, took hold of her by a line from her bow, and commenced to tow her off the shore. At the time the Driscoll began to tow the Amaranth the Amaranth had anchor down, and this the captaIn of the Driscoll knew, as he himself says. This anchor was being allowed to drag when the Amaranth passed the Addie B. in tow of the Driscoll. The dragging anchor of the Amaranth caught the anchor of the Addie B., and in this way the Addie B. was tornfrolllher mooring, and she was towed by the tug' for some distance by. her anchor lines, when, the anchor lines· parting, the Addie B., being thus freed from tpe Driscoll, brought up on her line, that was still fast to ..the The storm was heavy, and, the mooring-stoneproving insufficient to hold the Addie B., she. was driven ashore, sustaining the injuries for which this action is brought. The first point made in defense of the tng is that was no negligeoce of hers that the AUlaranth's anchor was down, and so caught
'Reported by Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New YOl'k-bar.