808
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43.
1889,during a. dense fog, to the northward and westward 'ofWhitefish point,.intake Superior, resulting in the sinking and .total loss of the Sheffield. ,The libel of the Sheffield averred that, while upon a trip from ,Ohicago to. Two Harbors, Minnesota, aJ?d after passing Whitefish point,and :being put upon a W., N. W. course,. she encountered a which gradually became denser and steadier. While upon this course, with a sDlooth sea and a light wind, and with her fog,signals regularly blowing, she, heard the, distant Bound of a steamer's whistle, nearly ahead. Herenginel'l were at once checked, when the si,gnal was heard againa little upon her starboard bow. She was again checked, and a signal of two blasts blown, to which no an$wer:was received. The signal was repeated, and the Sheffield starboarded half a point. The approaching steamer, which proved to be the NorthStar, replied with one blast still a long distanCE;! away. To make certain whether this was blown as a fog-signal or a passing signal, the Sheffield blew a signal of two blasts or three times, to each of which the Star answered with a ,signal of one blast. 1-'hereupon the Sheffield, acquiescing in the deto port, blew one, blast and ported. The mand of the Star to vessels were then from a half to two miles apart, the Star ,iog less than,a .point upon the Sheffield's starboard bow. ,.'rhe Sheffield :was steadied under her port wheel N. W. by N. This threw the Star upon the port how of the Sheffield. The steamers approached, ing signals of one blast, until the .Btar was apparently well off upon the t() be past. port side of the Sheffield, and all, risk of collision While in this situation; a signal of two blasts was heard from the Star, a.pparently four points off the Sheffield's bow, the vessels being now too close to change 'sides by starboarding. The Sheffield answered with one blast, and ported:; hard. Again the blew two blasts,which were allswered again by one, and the Star appeared through the fog peading for , the Sheffield, two lengths or more distant, on the port side,' and coming at great speed. The master of the Sheffield at once signaled: to the engine for and ordered the wheel but too late to of service. The North Star struck the Sheffield at about right angles, and near her port mizzen rigging. cutting mto her six or eight feet and sinking her within five minutes. The answer averred that the North Star, 1?,eing on a voyage from West Superior, Wis., to Buffalo,N. Y., upon a course S. E. by E. half E., and running under check, .heard a signal of two. blasts of a steam-whistle about three-quarters of a point over her starboard bow. Knowing this tAl be a passing signal of a steamer bound up the lake, it was promptly answered by two blasts from the North Star. In less thana minute afterwards, a second signal of two blasts was heard, still upon the starboard bow, which was again answered by a similar signal from the Star. This was again repeated. After the last signal was given and answered. the approaching steamer, which proved to be the Sheffield, suddenly blew a signal of one blast, still off the Star's starboard bow. As soon as this Wf1S 1;>lown. danger of collision was apprehended, and the Star promptly ,nswered this signal by adhering to her own signal of two blasts, ,and
be
THE l'ORTH STAR.
809
her speed was still further checked down. Again the Sheffield blew a signal of one blast, still upon the starboard bow, but closer. The engine of the Star was then immediately stopped, and, while this order was being obeyed, the Sheffield hove in sight near to, and heading across the bow of the North Star from starboard to port. Notwithstanding that a collision seemed inevitable, the master of the Star immediately ordered her wheel to port, so that she might swing. under the stern of the Sheffield, and possibly pass her, and ordered the engine to back', and im:mediately followed. this order by an order to back strong, in response to which every available pound of steam was given the engine,. ;The steamer was backing with full power. Notwithstanding these precautions, the collision occurred practically as stated in the libel. The ,case was argued before the district judge, assisted by Capts. J()o .seph' Nicholson and James W, Millen, nautical assessors. ' H ·. H. Swan &:- H. D. Goulder, for the libelant. E.' Kremer and Robert· Rae, for the claimants.
a.
BROWN. J., (oraUy.) We are entirely agreed in our opinion of this case, and feel so clear as to its proper disposition that'we havenbt deem,ed it necessary to confer at any length, or to prepare a written ion.. Indeed, speaking for myself, I can say that I wlis prepared to d¢cide the' case upon the pleadings; but, out of deference to counselllrQil the probability or appeal, I deemed it my duty to listen to the testimony;, and, although without any doubts in my own mind,to obtain the advice of the gentlemen who have kindly consented to sit with me. I may s,ay tha;t .ll.practice of nearly 30 years in cotlision I can hllrdl}: 'recall a case where, the negligence seemed so gross and inexcusable, none where the consequences were so disastrous. Indeed, judging froin the frequent collisions which take place in thick weather, the hardest lesson which the masters of steam-vessels can learn seems to be the proper method of each other in a fog. As was remarked by Mr. Justi,ce BUTT, in one of the last cases reported, (The Resolution, 6 Asp. 363,) cided only a yearago: ' . , "Masters can al ways carry.out the maneuvers in that way, (that is, by stopping:) al1,! I wi1l not yield to what I know is the strong disinclination of the masters of these large vessels to stop their engines. They hate and abhor tbe very idea. but it Is to my mind their duty to do so, if they cannot otherwise re(luce their speed sufficiently." As illustrating the duty of masters under such circumstances, will take The John McIntyre, 51 Law T. (N. S.) 185,9 Probe Div.135,one of the earlier CaSesl,lpon that subject, in which the master of the rolls said: "If a steamer in a thick fog, so thick she can hardly see before her. hears another vessel in her neighborhood on either bow, not being able to see 'her, and she herself not going at her slowest pace, the question is whether, under those circumstances, the officer in charge of the steamer ought not to that it. is necessary, in order to avoid risk of collision" that he should stop and reverse. I do not hesitate to lay down the rule. not strictly as a. matter of 10 w; but as a' matter of conduct, that the momen t such circumstances as these happen. It·is· necessary. under the article. to stop and reverse." ..
we
FEDERAL REPORTER I ,vol:
48.
rule ,ann0':Uced, ,that jt is clllt.r but to reverse I IS somewhat ,too later,cases to qualify it. ,,' In case o(The P<>rd9gWitPl :Law 650 1 Prob. ,10 same judge lays in the language: " "", ""''f,Tb,,,refoJ(e,r i,f;a sbip at S6a in such a ,fog 1\ ,whistle ,which would invessel mile or a mile and a ,haJf' off, she ought at once ,sHeed t08 spel'd, tho}lgll, JIlotlerate sveed under thes,e clrcumlitances be very dIfferent to !ponetAte spet'd when the vessel$'cam;e'o16sar' together. This 'case is not to be determined by what was done'llt 'the It'i'me thefirBt wbistle was beard. Here ,we have three,; lind per'hapsmore,:Buccessive whistles. all coming closer. What can be sion to biHlehved fromthqsewhistles?, ,We kno,wthat,tn.Jact these vessels to each other. WEl, however" have to jUdge of what ought"to be the Qoncl\l;sion9r sll,lwicion of the charge of the Dordogne. What 'wonldtb,at sU,ccession 'of Whistles tell him? . For myself, I should have had no doubt; 'when you have a sllccessionofwhist'les, each one coming closer, that each whistle would "show him that the other vessel is coming nearer. · · ·. I do not think it signifies whether the signals get ,b/.'oader·oR bow or not, if they show that the vessel ia.ooqJing closer. If it.fs in a dense fog, every o,M"kno,wli that in a SO.lIld of her ,tell ,the which j1n;WAing.lIre not tbo!!e such as.sb,o\ild lead apruuent officer to suppBse that if be went tin there woul'dbe dt\nget? ... ... ,.'Tliat" wb'icll is moderate apee<l'\t,hen,the vessels are two or thr$8 mliesaPi\rkis: speed :w,henthe vessels are wi,thin \ balf a, mile of each other. Aa:the'vessels get as possiout ·. ,If ;his he If the other IS him, he6;tight 'to obey article elghteell, and stop and reverse. "'" not P!¥y l!l;love . ' , : " , " : ' l" \ . ' : '" : ' ,.' , ·
adds:,;; n.otto consjder.what'w8s the conductor the·Dordogne when the It is clear that tllere was Il of wllistles; that coming nearer Ilod,nearer" llnd, in fact, getting very near another. Now it was the dnty of thl'i'Dordogne to stop andreverse her engine if there was risk of collision. But it is' said that\ inasmuch as·theS8o.wbiStiles weregettlng broader and broader on the the officer of the , Dord0g'Ji6' (might reasonablyoonclUdti there was no' danger. However. tbat will !no1t,"ofn:my opinion, the Dordogne for disobedience to articte 18·. tnan can see nothing, he cannot'form any safe Ophlion as to the direction of another vessel, IInu he shonld, in'sllchclrcttmsta:nces, by the master of the rolls." . But witho1il,ti quoting' further from the language. of the opinions, it is sufficient to .say 'that the same rules have been since' applied by the EnProb. DiV. 25; 6 Asp. 363; and .The Cas. 670. The AmericalH:ourts have also practically affirined and, reaffirmed this ,rule. . I had oC(lllsion myself to do so in the Fed. Rep. 807, where i[ 'held that the Osborne, the 'rnteof aOOllt.five hour,ought to have the i,ndica.ted that Iilhe apprOaChll)j :s,nd pearel' to her.
was
THE N'ORTH STAR.
SIT
In that case both were held in fault; the Alberta for excessive speed, and the Osborne for not stopping when she heard the whistles approaching. '1'hat there is no relaxation of the rule demanding extraordinary care in cases of vesselS approaching each· other in a. fog is evident from the remarks of Judge BROWN of the southern district of New York in the case of The Lepanto, 21 Fed. Rep. 651. It is not necessary, however. to read further authorities upon this subject. The question is considered, and with practically the same results, in the cases of The Britannic, 39 FecI. Rep. 395; The Wyanoke, 40 Fed. Rep. 702; and The Iberia, 893. The courts are all agreed as to the necessity for strict caution in these cases; and so critical have they been of the conduct of masters of steamers in fogs of this kind; that His ,'ery rare that their action has met with the full approval'of the courts,-so rare, that in the case of The Alberta, in this court, The Oily ofAt1a1tta, 26 Fed. Rep. 456, The nic, and The Wyanoke, in the courL'! of New York, and in the English cases of The John Mclntyre,The Dordogne, The Ebor, The Resolution, and The Frankland. L. R.4 P. 0.529, the masters of both vessels were found to be in fault. Now, let us measure the conduct ()f these vessels by those rules. and within moderate limits I propose toeriforcethem in this court. I think it is the duty of a vessel hea'ring the signal· of a steam-ship ahead in a fog (and· by ahea.d I do not mean dead ahead necessarily, but within 'one or two points upon eitht)r bow) to reduce her speed; and, if she hears a second and third whistle nearer in the same direction, itis her duty to stop and wait until !;lignals have passed between the two vessels which shall determine upon which side each shall go, and that both veesels should proceed at them:ostmoderate speed, keeping themselves well in command, until they bring themselves off eliCh other's bow to such a distance as to make it absolutely certain that by continuing under check they will pass each other in safety. I do not think that they have any right to resume their full speed until they are directly or nearly abeam. There are certain disputed questions of lact in this case which we cannot settle, and we do not propose to discuss them. The best that coun'" sel can ask of us is to take the facts as each side has sworn to them, and examine the case in the light of this testimony. I have tried too many collision ('a6e81o attempt to reconcile the testimony of the crews of different vessels where it is so conflicting as it is in this case. Nor are we at all embarraRsed by that difficulty. Weao not ,think it necessary to pay much regard to mere numerical superiority in the witnesses upon one side or the other. We- shall take the salient and uncontradicted facts as are sworn to by eaehside,-the course of the vessels, (in regard to whi,ch there is little temptation to deflect from the truth,) their as testified by those who made them, the angle at which the vessels came together; and the extent of the injury,""-anddetermine, to the satisfaction of our own minds, the probabilities 'of the case. Let us take the case of the Sheffield. She was proceeding up the lake, bound frotti'Whitefish point to Keweenaw pdint on scourse W.N,':W.. She waablttwil1g her usual fog-signals, her whistle being operated by an
812
Automatic device, which blew a fog-signal· once in 58 seconds. At 4:42 P. time, she was checked to half speed. So far I see no criticism to be made of her conduct. While upon this course, she heard very faintly, at a great apparent distance, and a little npon her starboard bow, a single blast from the Star, in. answer to which she blew two. blasts and checked. She received no answer. Her master then came on deck, and, hearing whistles on her starboard bow, he blew two blasts andstarboarded half a point. The other vessel answered by a single blast. Now, whether that was in.tended as a fog-signal or a passing ,signal is uncertain, but at any rate it was a circumstance which called for immediate caution. He blew two blasts again, and that was answered byonej and, the signal.was then rtlpeated with the same response. There was evidently a confusion of signals, and the first criticism I make in re:gard, to hisconductis that, aa .those vessels were getting nearer, he shOUld: have stopped until he located the signals and the course of a:pproaching vessel. . Instead of that, he assumed that the North Star passing,signals, though peha.d no asspraJ;lce.that they were not fog-signals; a fog-signal and a port signal being practically the same, tbougldt:iasaid the port .signal isJpnger. Instead of stopping, however, he ported, a.nd ported very decidedly; and, while going W. by N' j halt N."beported aod .steadied at N. W. by N:. At the same time he ordered as he says. In the first plMe, he ported l;Ipon theass1,11l;lption that the Star was blowing a passing signal instead of a . fog-signaJ" which may have been,untrue. It is quite evident that, if it had· been .4' passing signal. the sound Would have crossed from his board to bis,pol:t bow, Or at Jeast it would have closed in; but there is no testimouyto indicate that. He swears that the whistles continued upon hia' starboard bow until after he ported. Now the very fact that the signal.' diq., not close in or pass. from his starboard to l;Iis port bow should, have indicated to him, as it seems to me, that the Star had not changed her course down the lake,but was blowing a fog-signal. and thathisi portingwQuld ultimately throw him directly across the bow of his second fault. The third fal;lltwas in not stopping. :He had arrived at a point where hesbould have unquestionably stopPed,. because he. was laying out anew. departure. He was. acquiescing in the signllls of the North Star.if her single blasts were intended as portsignals. and was throwing himself across her bow in case she should keep as the indications .were she was d,oing. Now he says. that he exchanged six· or eight signals of one blast with the North Star. I! doubt this" Qut, assume it to be true, (and I wish to dispose of. the case, as fa:ras possiblej upon the assumption that each side is telling the J1e six or eight signals of one' blast, and then, very m;uchto his Burprise, as he says, after he had gotten the North Star away over on ,hiapPrt bow, the Star blew two blasta, which he answered, by onet,aPA ported hlud. He did n.at stop then, and the signal peated.·· R& not only have stopped; but he should have stppped and and backed strong. Tha.t was the only Poslilib}e safety to: hi);U!p But after. the second signal of two ,whistles, to ,
THE NORTH STAR.
813
which he answered with one, the vessels came in sight of each other.. I pass no criticism upon what occurred then upon either side.. The vesa collision was inevitable, and he had a right to go sels were in ahead at full speed, or do anything else that offered a possible escape. I do not criticise his conduct at that time, but, prior to the vessels coming in sight of one another, we think he was guilty of three or four manifest faults. . Let us now examine the case of the North Star. Her course, and by this I mean her direction, is certainly open to much less criticism than that of the'Sheffield. Indeed, I do not know that I have any fault tofind with it, even though she may have starboarded a little when she heard the signal of the Sheffield on her port bow. She claims to have been running under a check from the time the fog set in; but we think that, time she left Manitou light with the time and locality of this collision, her speed could not have been greatly reduced. in mind that she coverlld 66 miles in six hours and a half, her check could not have been a very slow one. Her speed must have been aboti,t 10 miles an bour. But let us assume that she waS running under check of 5 miles an hour. How does the case stand then? . Diql she hear the fog-signal from the Sheffield? She claims she qid not, and all the witnesses produced here by the respondent claim that she did not hear the singll:l blast of the Sheffield, and that the first signal that she heard was a blast of two whistles, which did not exceed four and five minutes before the collision. Now, gentlemen, we do not believe that: We think she must have heard the single blast of the Sheffield for some considerable time. It is tru'e the windw8s blowing over her stern, but it was a light breeze, and not such a one as would prevent an ordinary fog-signal being heard for more than a mile. We think that she must have heard this fog-signal-:.Fir8t, because the mate says that he heard .it; and, aecond, because the protest indicates that he heard it. The protest 8I1YS: "Heard steamer blowing fog-signal on starboard bow about 5:10 P. M. Few minutes after, heard this steamer giving two blasts'on the starboard bow." Now, undoubtedly the whistle she heard on her starboard bow was the fog-signal of the Sheffield. These protestea.re,..1 think, very cogent evidence. They are made when the memory·orthe witnesses is fresh, .and nothing is present in their minds but the facts of the collision. They are unadulterated by legal advice, and are made at a time when no temptation to deviate from the letter of truth has presented itself to them. But, in addition to the testimony of the mate and of the protest, the witness King, who acted as porter, and who was lying in his berth, says that he heard the single blast of this vessel three 'or four times, and all of a sudden they changed to two blasts, a.ndhe jumped out of his berth and ran ahead, evidently thinking there was danger of a collision. We have no indication that the Star moderated .her speed up to that tilne beyond the check at which she had been going since the fog set in. In fact, it was about that time that the mll.ster aent the. mate to the engineer to tell him to hurry up a little,-topnt on a little more steam, -whilll signals of two blasts were being blown 3t
a
FEDERAL:REPORTER ;
f.anoenot exceeding a it A point upon which ,there, isa good' deal uf!testimoDy and a' great deal of doubt is from which steamer did the 6ftwo blnJsts;col!Je? We cannot answer that question" We that' we':areinclinedto think the signal came first from: the Star; atHHbis becausethetSheffieldwas under a porf;.wheelat that time, arid' two' 'blasts of a whistle while the steamer was porting would indicate a dE'gree of recklessness inconsistent with good sense. Indeed" 'it seems -to us incredible that' a steamer should be blowing a signal bftWo blastswl1ile 'under It port-wheel. As to what took place at th'at'time,'wetefer to! the; allegations 'of theans'Wer, althougH it is qualifiediWilromeeKtent by theornl testimony: , :.' as this was. blown, danger of collision was apprehended. and the North. St1tr promptly answered this, signal' Ill.St blown by the Sheflil"ld by adh('ringto'her passing signal of two and her master.immediate1y took theprecRution tocheckdOW:Ilstill fUl'tller the speed of tlle N.ol'th ::ltar,whieh waathljD. however, again bleW.a of one i>last her .still on North Star's starhoard bow, but closer. The engll;l.e of Star WIl8 'then Immediately stopped. aud, while this order the Sheffield hove In sight, near to and heading across the was :North Star's'tJo:w alld COUrB6; from starboard to port. The vessels were then 80 tbliatb: other tbat:a'collision seemed but. notwithslanding this,: the master, dUheNdtttb Star immediattlly ordered her wheel to. port. so that,sbe D:J:.gb't:sWinjl; stern Sheffield, andposaibly pass her, ,liln<i ,t"ee,ngipe, to and immediately followed this order by an in I.'esponse to this order. every available pound of steam Wall slventhe engine." " " I' ,\ :" '" .,',' , " , , ,.' '. 1
TO!;
'I
: I
" Now it is tnanifest that at the time this signal of two blasts was heard on the:Nortb: ·Starthe signals of the two steamers were conflicting, and the circuIIlstances a:llil1'dicatethat theycollid not have been more than amHeapartj'rhevessels wereapproachillgeach other at a speed which would them together in five minutes,andit was the instant duty 'of.the.,NorthIStiar to stop and back. It is claimed that she did this, but 'it iSll.lsi)':uncontrttdicted that she checked. Now, why did she check? 'l'here'wttS'norenson forit., Her duty was to stop; arid llercounsel have reeO'gnize<Uhia as her duty· by saying that a cluster of signals to check, back, and back strong were all given substantially at once, andasJol!lli ollcler: In view of the allegations 'of the answer, we cannot belie\7e tbmi The pretest not iudicate that any such celerity of Dlovement'WI1Smll.nifested.The mate went down to the engine room, ahd'whllrllle.<lame ba:ck,these orders were given, and ,they lillsay they were'gi"eb!:t!uccessively, and not"'as,if one order had been given. But 'tb'ereWtt:S'M:ithnttime habgingup in the engine room a direction to this 'a vessel:is'goingahead,anda aignal of two bells is givenj,that'isll.bOrdertobaek and,backstrong.I"i,Thatj,sthe signal that shou]dlbll\t$ been given beyond all possible question:'11 : My own .view' is, and irFthls' the' riautieal,'Qasessors'conciur with ms;rthll.tthe first .order given'l\tlls!to; (jliElck waited' until they! got ,another blast from thtl ShtfffiEfld, and then they stoPpedi that·· the!Sheffield immediately -hOV6';ittl sight,' when they reversed their 'dngines,but too late to' be ,ohny
to
The consequence was that she ran into the Sheffield ·. What speed does that indicate? ,Upon the (>De hand, it is said 'bya witness for the Star, who has made a·mathematicalQalculation, based upon 'the weight of the Star and the strength of theSheffield's hull,thathet' speeu could not have exceeded. a mile au bour. But we do not think this witness sufficiently estimates the resisting power ·of lUld our opinionsmthercoincide with:thatQf ,the intellig.ent:witnesses produced by the l{irl:>y Q,I).dl\'Ir. iAngstrotn,-';who ·te$tified thaUn' their opinion she;muet,ba'le been, goiqg to '"seven. :miles an: hour. The experienoed, seamen: WJlO, sit I with meiinLthis· casegiv lit, as their o,pinion that,sha ,must. been Ilnd all ta,.at a speed,Qf ;Ilbout! fi>ve miles an hour, ana I concur mthat otllmon.. ' , .'i·,,:, '/utihar oOrrohotation of this, we have ,the oLa, DUtbbeIl :of 'upon the l.Sheffield, who were looking for., the h(ftl'e in:sight;'and,$sythatshe ·camest. "a!ll.rge;bQue '!il':l! 'Ui>onthe other hand; .the witnesseilupon ae6lp t;o:;have taken·theprecaution1to:look overber stem and wasQO ;bonethere,tWe deem it extremely the Jvit';neases'u:pon the'8ta'!:shoUldhll.'Ie been looking,at her' cUfnwater ;TbelY the alarm, anclwere on. the,lookout for $p"pearancs'Q1' the INe are of the ,opiDiQO. that was, ate fa'1l1t-'forlnbt :takitig 'prompter measures to. stop .and: her "engInel' . ," ' j " ':'d . ';;.;,'",:, ': Ther,e'mnstbe '" decree dividing afld' referring ,the, to! a' cGlnmiissioner to compute and report ,j' ' . ,',; , ; been avoided. C,'
Now wehaveno doul:>t that if, when the signal tocheGk was had beert 'given to back strong, thiscolIision would'have
,:;In
i
I
n
I' it:
;,
"
SmUUPT
.'
.RfA])ING·, p.,' 'l'HESdHwriT. . (CircuU 'OQurt,E. D. Penn81/lvanta; October 11, 1800.)., ·1" TO ;KEEP V(IGILANT
,
The lQoltout9f a steamer, which was crossing the Counie of's schboner that'bad , her lights properly set and burning, falied to see tbe sch<loner .on a dark, :but! Olear , BDdmoon.1Elss, withinf9ur ,the ;,>teawerl!!l.l;ldlt had been seen by those on the schooner at the dlstance of ,two mlles. HeW;'The steamer was in fault for not keeping a vigilant lookout. ' ..',.' " . ";;"" ' which. Anding crossl\lgthe course ofa !,chooner On the taok, alid about four' lengths {rom her, attempte to avoid Iler by merely bard, ill in fault {or not also revening. . .' :', : , ,J,,', CoUjR811IN liJ,xT;REMIS.. " . ' ,,;" ' , .',.'
'.
, " ",.
·
S. SAME--'STiuKAND SAIL-])UTY :OF;
'1'0 RlIV,ll:JtIlE..
. . .
A steamtlrwas crOllsing the 'couraeof a scbooner. The veSsels had &PProoohlld to'wltbfnabout foUi' 'lengtbs'of each other; The achoonerwaaon'bet JporIlit.adt, 1 Reported
by :Mark Wilks Collet, Esq., of the \
'
816
DDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 48.
aM heading about north. The steamer was headi!1¥,eastsouth-east, When about ",folU"lengths apart, the sohooner starboarded. , ' change of course was 1In Bel.G, this " , ,
" ,Appeal from district court. See ante, 898, for the opinion there de'livered, and the facts other than as !let out in the present opinion.
'John-G. Lamb andTh08. Hart, Jr., for appellant, Reading. Henry R. EdmunrU and OurtiB Tilton, for appellee, Schmidt.
lisioil with the steamer Reading off the coast of Massachusetts, about two miles to the westward of the Cross Rip light-ship. (2) The nightwRs 'clear. , ' "1'herewas no moon. The lights of the ,vessels could be soon two , ttliles ,distant. There was no unusual sea. The, wind was from the north-west, blowing a brisk breeze. (3) The schooner was bOllnd down 'the ooast,With a cargo.of ice from Gardiner, Maine, to Philadelphia. The steal;rier was ,bound upthe coast on a voyq.ge from Philadelphia.to . Salem, Mass" with a C8J'go of coal. (4) The schoonel'was. beating ,through 'the channel marked by the Cross Rip light-ship and was on her 'portitaclt,elbse hauled by the wind, with all her lower sails set,and heading about north, and nearly across the channel. The steamer was cohling'down the channel on,a course east south-east, crossing the conrse of thb' SChooner. (5)i The schooner's lights were properly set in the rig, gitig,' ilndwel'e 'burning brightly. The master was in charge, and the watch onduty. ' A lookout w.as properly stationed at the bow, and two other men were upon the deck, one of whom had the wheel. (6) While 'the 8(llJoonerwa:8upon her port tack, heading about north; the green light of the steamer was reported by the lookout, and seen by aU of the men on the schooner, distant about two miles, and bearing about three points on the schooner's por:t b()w. The light was carefully observed by the men on the schooner, and the steamer was seen to approach without changing her light or making any change of course until she was within four lengths of the schooner,and there was imminent danger of collision, The schooner then starboarded, and the steamer had ported, and struck the schooner on her starboard side, breaking it in and damaging the cargo. lookout of the steamer and others 1n charge of her navigation did not see the schooner's lights until they were three or four a,nd hard ported, the,rnate helping the ::w!?-eelsman:,to'put, it over; and when it was hard a-port, it was imme;,<ijatel) ordered harda-st1\tboard, and the vessels struck before the last order could be fully executed. o,f La?JJ: steameds responsible for the collision; (1) for lockout; and (2) for not changing her co.urse seasonably, and preventing the vessels getting into a dangerous proximcity; (8,), fPr: her engines in ,time to prevent the vessels frQID dangerous situation and proximity ; .(4) the chl!-nge of course by the schooner was in extremisj (5) and the steamer is responsible for the damages caused by the collision.,
BRADLEY, Justice. The Facts: (1) On the morning of September 23, lS89 t , tl.bout 1 o'clock,- ,the schooner Charles E. Schmidt came into col-