head-winds and storms, with which, through the Tancarville's lack of proper steering power under sail:, she was wholly unable to cope. The case was therefore one of urgent necessity to the Tancarville, while the value of the ship and, cargo employed in the service was large. The other ele«i,ents which are usually regarded in determining the amount of a salvage award, namely, the difficulty or danger attending the enterprise, and the oourage, daring, or skill employed in it, exist here in but a minor degree. Having reference to adjudicated cases so far as their objects designed to be secured by salvage analogies extend, and to compensation, I think that 88,000, with $200 for damage to hawser, allowance to the salvors; for which amount; will in tbis case be a with costs, a decree IJilay be entered.
ROANOKE. 1 THE ROANOK:£.
(DtBtrict Own, 8. D. New York. April 8, 1891.)
COLLISION-.;BflUV AND SAIL-CHANGB OJ' COURSB SBVBN POINTS BY SAILING VBSSBL.
off the Jersey coast, steering S. S. W., W., on a clear moonlight night. She saw nearly ahead the green light of the brig whioh was sailing N; E. by N. with the wind one point free. Thefreen hght of the brigJlOOD, after shut in, and her red light appeared, nearly ahead 0 the. steamer, whereypon the hard a-ported, and held the port helm until the collision. The velmlls at the time the steamer ported were about half a mile apart. When the vel\aels' !Were very near, tJ1e green light of the brig reapPeared, whereupon the steamer stopped and backed, but was unable to avoid collision, and the brig was sunk; Hela, on theevidenoe, that the collision was due to the fault of the brig in changi'llgher cqurse when the vesae1swere very near, and that the steaxp-ship was not for the collision.
Suit to recover damages caused by collision. (frlfY & Sturges, for,claimant. Gewge Black, for libelant. '
Bttow:rq, J. On the night of October 20, 1888, the. steam-ship Roanoke, bound south, came into collision with, the brigantine Hyperion, bound north, off the Jersey coast, to the eastward of Absecom light. sank not long after the collision, and both ship and cargo The were lost. 'This libel was filed to recover for the loss of the cargo .. The question if! whether the steamer was in any degree in fault. . The wind was freah ff\)m the north-west, the night clear, with moonlight, and poor for seeing lights. The previous course of the steamer was S.S. W., by t W.; that of the Hyperion N. E. bS N. The latter was on her port tack, with the wind one point free. In steering she yawe<lapout one point each' WlloY from her mean course.. The libelantclairQs that tho
Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
Hyp'eriori Kept her' course, subject'tO this' yawing, uhtil It few moments before collision, when she ll'lfi'ed:to ease the blow ; and changed thereby from two to four points' only. The claimants contend that the steamer took timely and sufficient measures to go to windward of the Hyperion, and that the collision was 'brought about sOlely by the latter's unjustifiable luff. Repeated examination of the testimony of the chief witness comcerning the navigation of each vessel, and the probabilities by the officers of the of the case, satisfy me that the account steamer is substantially correct; that the steamer's wheel was put hard a-port when she was nearly half a mile from the brig, and had the latter's red light straight ,ahead, or nearly so, the previous green light hav. ing been shut in; that at the time of collision the' steamer. must have been at least 500 feet to windward of the course on which the Hyperion would have been had she kept the course she was on when she first showed her red light to the steamer, and when the latter ported; that the steamer's porting as soon as the red light was seen was a timely and sufficient maneuver to perform her duty of keeping out of the way, by a reasonable and safe margin; and that this maneuver was thwarted without necessity and without excuse by the Hyperion, either through ,in the handling of her she luffed carelessness or so as to change her head' from seven' to nine' points to the westward. The angle of collision in this case is of controlling importance,because it proves a great change made inthe Hyperion'scoufse.. The night was Qlear and light, and observation of the angle Of collision was easy. The chief witnesses on both vessels agree, and their diagrams of the collision shqW, that the starboard bow of the Hyperion struck the port bow of the steamer near the cat·head ofeach, and that the angle 'Of collision was only about tHree p()ints. , That the angle was small is confirmed alspby the fact that' the:Hyperion's jib.boom was not touched. Asthe mean the steamer by course of the Hyperion was previously crossing that about one point to eastward, it. follows. that the cOIBbined changes of course 'riJ.adebY the two vessels amounted to about even more, if the Hyperfon was as seems. probable, on an easterly yaw. At collision the steamer was not heading more than one a change of seven points on her point north of west;sQ ,that, part, seven or eight points remain made by the Hyperion. This is as favorable to the Ityperionas tbe headings at the moment of collision will admit. . . . On plotting the necessary courses of the two vessbls;,;in order to reach. collision in this manner, their situb:tion from tim!'l, .time accords so nearly with the testimony of the steamer's officers as Mrongly to confirm their story; while it is not compatible with the accoun(given by the to starboard Hyperion as respects her red light. In turning 7 a vessel 287 feet long a:n:dof 2,354 tons under aport helm; the burden, must have made a distance of at,least 900 or 1;000 feet abeam' of the line of her formercourse, (see Naval Mobilization, Juoe,'1889, p. 462;) and considering that she slowed and backed a part of the time while turning, this change must have occupied at least two minutes. The
vellsels must have been, therefore, nearly half a mile the steamer ported, l!.S the mate testi&es. All the steamer's witnesses agree in saying that at that time the Hyperion's red light only ,was visible. There is no reason to doubt this testimony, nOl'is there any other imaginable reason why the mate should' have ported. The mate undoubtedly saw the Hyperion's green light a short time before, and it was a little on his starboard bow. The Hyperic:m's testimony to this extent confirms the mate. The steamer's green light would naturally be seeJ;l much earlier than the Hyperion's. Each.then showed green to green, and there was no need of immediate action. Cqn!3idering the probable destination of the Hyperion, the fact that she was probably on her port tack, and might be making a course to the ea$twardio;fthe as she really make an additional waa, and that in that case she would also half point leeway to the eastward ,under the fresh wind from the northwest, it was proper forthe mate of the steam,Qr to wait a little, and see what change" if any, the brig might show, before he undertook to pass to leewanl, rather than ttl starboard, which, under suchcircuUlstances, might be the better course. This delll-Y was soon justifiedQy the fact that the brig presently shut in her· green light and showed her red light ahead, when still nearly .halfanriledistant, indicating that she was going to the eastward of the steamer's.<lourse. It was then right for the steamer to port her helm, Which she immediately did, thus very speedily bringing the brig's red light consic:lerablyupon her own port bow, and the steamer continued her ,port helm, till collision. Thesteamerhada right to expect that she would thus pass easily port to port, and that the leeway of the Hyperion would II$sist in giving a good space hetween them. This maneuver was in abundant season. It would have given the steamer a large margin in passing to windward but for the brig's unexpected luffing afterwards, and it was a complete and tiIJ;lelyfulfillment in the fill\t, instance of the steamer's obligation. The Powm.ac, 8 Wall., 590. 1nthe case of The Star of Scotia, 2 Fed. Rep. 591. tll-e helli! liable because she did not continue her straightened up too soon. It was the sall)e in the case of 'fM Beta, 40 Fen. Rep. 8.\19. " The only question that rer:nains is whether, aftertht\lHyperioQ.'scbange of courSe was made known· by the reapp$rance of her green light, the. steamer had still sufficient opportunity to avoid collision by an observance of the rules of navigation, and the use of reasonable nautical skill, notwithstanding the Hyperion's fault. The Gulf Stream., 43 Fed. Rep. 895. When the green light reappeared, it was evident that their courses were again crossing, and that there was danger of collision. It was therefore the duty of the steamer to reverse, unless the vessels were so near each other that there was no reasonable chance of escaping collision by that means. If there was no such chance, it was a case in extremis, and no legal fault would be imputed to the steamer, whether at such a moment she adopted the best maneuver or not, as the danger was brought about by the fault of the Hyperion. The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U. S. 514, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468. The mate, who was in charge, testified
thlit he'had a.lreadYslowed; that he estimated thedistanoe of the brig at that time to be only about 600 feet, and that oollision was unavoidable, except by going ahead; that he accordingly rang to go ahead full but that the captain, who about that time came to the wheel-house, ordered the engines reversed, and that order was obeyed. The other witnesses all agree in making the vessels at that time very near each other. From the size and from the speed of the Roanoke (then not less than S or 9 knots) she could not stop by reversing full speed in less than 800 or 900 feet, or in less than H minutes' time. The Normandie, 43 Fed. Rep. 162. To make that mode of avoiding collision possible, these vessels would therefore have to be more than 1,200 feet apart. The evidence leaves no doubt tnat their distance apart when the gretln light reappeared was much less than that; so that there seems no probability that the Roanoke could have avoided collision by instant reversal when the green light reappeared, and the delay in reversing was in fact but short. This is also confirmed by inspecting the probable courses of the two vessels. To have reached the place of collision so far to the westward the Hyperion must, I think, have been yawing to the eastward when she showed her red light,! and very soon after have begun to recover herself by swinging to the northward, thus keeping the Roanoke nearly ahead, but not ettough toehow her green light again, until her final lUff, probably nearly a minute before the collision. Prior to that luff, she must have had the Roanoke's red light for at least a minute on her own port bow. In one place the mate of the Hyperion, who was in charge,saye that the steamer luffed and showed her red light only when she was three-fourths of a mile'distant, which would make the time much longer during which the two vessels showed red to red. Her change of course towards the steamer iti such a situation, about a minute before collision, was a gross fault. Doring the last minute the speed of the steamer was probably much reduced, though not to a stop. This is the only way in which I ow account for the collision, according to the best proved It confirms the oredit that seems otherwise due to the steamer's witnesses,' showing the steamer without fault, and that her maneuvers were thwarted by the fault of the brig in luffing some seven or eight points, and that this luff ,,!tS! not discoverable until too late to avoid collision. The Ameriia, 87 Fed. Rep. 813. Libel dismissed, with costs.
THE JOSEPHINE B.l THE ARROW. WOODBURY
THE JOSEPHINE B. AND THE ARROW.
McALLISTER v. THE ARROW AND THE MAUD.
(District Oourt, S. D. New York. April 7, 1891.)
CoLLISION-VESSELS MEETING IN HELL GATE-SIGNALS-SUPERVISORS' RULE
8. A schooner in tow of the tug A. was going east through Hell Gate. As the tow rounded Hallett's point, it was gradually overtaken and passed by a large Sound steamer, which was near the south shore. Another tug was also in the neighborhood, near the north shore. In the vicinity of Negro point, the steam lig-hter J. B. was met. As the Sound steamer passed the A., she gave one whistle, to indicate to the A. that she was passing. This signal was answered by the A., and then by the lighter. No other signals were given by any of the vessels. The A. expected the lighter to go to the right. Instead, she attempted to pass between the tow and the Sound steamer, which she claimed was the only thing she could do under the circumstances. The lighter collided with the tow of the A. Held, that in that part of the river, dangerous from its windings, sunken rocks, and cross-currents, vessels must reasonably comply with the supervisors' rule which requires them to signal when approaching- within half a mile of each other, t.o insure a common understanding. Fortheir failureto so signal, both the lighter and the A. were held in fault.
In Admiralty. Cross-suits for damages caused by collision. Goodrich, Deady &: Goodrich, for the Maud. Hyland &: Zabriskie, for the Josephine B. Wilcox, Adams &: Macklin, for the Arrow. BROWN, J. Between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon of June 12, 1890, as the steam lighter Josephine B. was going westward past Negro point against a strong flood-tide, she came in collision with the schooner Maud, bound eastward in tow of the steam-tug Arrow upon a hawser about 225 feet long. The schooner and lighter both sustained damages, for which the above cross-libels are filed. There is considerable difference in the testimony as to the preciRe point of collision. This is, perhaps, not to be wondered at, considering that all agree that the tide was running flood at the rate of from 5 to 7 knots, and that in such a current the boats in a very few moments after collision, when attention to the precise spot would be first given by most of the witnesses, would have been considerably changed. For this reason I think it probable that the place of collision was somewhat more to the westward than the witnesses for the Arrow suppose,-probably between Negro point and Pot cove. The Arrow went up with her tow between Hallett's point and Flood rock, going probably from 4 to 5 knots through the water, in addition to the speed of the current. As she was rounding Hallett's point to the eastward, a large Sound steamer, (the Northam,)
lReported by EdWlOrd G. Heoedict, Esq., of the New YorkblU".
about 350 feet long, overtook her, and gradually passed her on the starboard side at a distance variouslyestimllted l:\t ii-om 75 to 150 feet. The lighter claims that, when she found the Arrow and the Northam ahead of her, she had no alternative but to attempt to pass between the two, which she did, clearing the Arrow and the Northam, but running into the schooner behind,which had sagged, somewhat to starboard of th" Arrow's course. When the lighter passed between the Arrow and the Northam, the of the latter was about abreast of the stern of the tug. The lighter passed very near the quarter of the steamer, and, after doing so, starboarded her wheel, in order to clear the schooner; 1mt the latter at that time, as the lighter claims, sheered towards her, and thwarted her endeavor to keep away. The master of the Northam testified that when coming up nearly abreast of the Arrow he gave her a signal of one whistle to indicate that he was passing, and that the Arrow should not crowd upon him; that the Arrow, and then the lighter, each answered with one whistle, and that no other signals were given by any of the vessels. The witnesses for the lighter confirm this statement, while the witnesses for the Arrow state that they heard no whistle from the other two vessels, but only one whistle from the Arrow, given when she was at a considerable distance ffom the lighter. The master of the Northamalso testifies that wHen the whis.tle of the A:d'ow was given the lighter was to starboard of the course of the Arrow, and that it was impossible for her to cross the course of the Arrow to the northward, and that she had no alternative but to pass between them, as she did. The various witnesses for the Arrow contend that there was abundant room for the lighter to have kept to her right, i. e., to the northward of the Arrow, in accordance with the ordinary rule of the road; and that her course was so directed till shortly before the collision, when she sheered to the southward, crossing the Arrow's .course in that direction without necessity, and attempting the dangerous passage ,between the Arrow and the NorthaIll. The pilot of the Arrow lidmits that he could have shaped off, so itS to go to the right his course, when a considerable along Hog's Back, ,but that he did not do so, because it was customary and necessary for tugs like the Arrow, when they had a tow on such a hawser, to go well over towards Hog's; Back on the northerly side, to prevent the 'sb:ong tide that sweeps oyerfrom that point towards Pot cove on the opposite shore from carrying such a tow upon. the rocks on the Long Island side. Such a direction of the flood-current is admitted, as of going well towards Hog's Back to avoid well as the that But it is contended that this has not led to any change of the rule of going to the right as respects vessels meeting ,and passing in that vicinity, and that the lighter, in accordance with the general rule, ought to have gone to the right on the Ward's island aide, as the tug Willie did, which was bound westward, only a few hundred feet astern of her. There is a conflict of testimony, also, as respects the custom of taking vessels through Hell Gate in a strong flood upon a hawser. Several experts testify that such a method is unsafe, while an equal number tes-
tify that for a single large schooner it is quite as safe as towing alongside, and that the former is the practice in the majority of cases. As "espects the rule of the road, the burden of proving any variation from the usual rule is upon those who assert it. I cannot say that they have sustained this burden by any preponderance of proof in their favor; and the absence in the supervising inspectors' rules of any provision changing the mode ·of meeting and passing, considering the fact that the inspectorshave made special provisions in regard to overtaking vessels in that vicinity, is negative evidence of some weight against them. What seems remarkable, however, in the present case is that, though four vessels were navigating in the most difficult and dangerous waters in this whole vicinity, where a narrow channel, a swift tide, sunken rocks, a winding and cross-current, and rocky shores all combined to make navigation most difficult, and safe only by trained experts, not one of them complied with the rule that required them to give signals when approaching within a half mile of each other, to insure a common understanding for their common safety. In the pleadings, none of the parties have alleged this fault,perhaps because all were alike remiss. The pilot of the Willie (nota party) says he gave no whistle, because he was near the north shore, and intended to keep there, so that it was unnecessary. The Northam (also not a party) claimed to havebeenas nharthe 80uth8hore as was safe: But, as respeCts the lighter and,the Arrow, who, reference to the other two boat:s, were towards the middle of the narr6l" channel, no possible excuse';can be for nelt giving timely signals, as required. A signal from the Arrow as soon as she had passed Hallett's point was specially important to the lighter, because the Arrow was expected to go over towards Hog's Back, and from there to swing unavoidably back again across the river, more or less, with the set of the current. For the same reason, a timely signal from the lighte: was important to the Arrow. By their directions they were crossing, and it was of the utmost importance that a common understanding should be had as to the mode of passing. That the Arrow did not give any signal while approaching Hog's Back, nor till she had rounded to starboard, is certain from the fact that at the time when she gave her only whistle she says the lighter was on her port bow; and while approaching Hog's Back she certainly had the lighter on her starboard hand; and the signal given by the Arrow, heard by the pilot of the Northam and of the lighter, was when the vessels were within 500 feet of each other, and was too late to be of any use. The change of the lighter's position and heading, as testified to by the witnesses for the Arrow, whatever it may have been, was probably caused by the current alone. It is not credible that the lighter, when within 500 or 700 feet of the Arrow, and knowing the necessary set of the Arrow towards the southerly shore, would have voluntarily crossed the Arrow's bows, in order to run in between her and the Northam, if at that time the Arrow had already passed Hog's Back, and had the lighter on her port bow, with plenty of space to the northward.
In such a. conflict of teatimoqy; ,the court is notcaUed on to decide what, un4er such difficult circumstances, might or might not have been possibly done within the last few moments, or to treat any speculations of that kind as a substitute for the rule requiring timely signals, or as an excuse for not complying with that rule. If vessels are not to be held to an observance of that rule iusituations like this, it might better be dropped altogether. It is a rule, however, of the highest utility. Had timely signals been given by either, and repeated, under rule 3, until a common understanding was had, no doubt this collision would have been avoided. The lighter and the Arrow were equally in fault in this raspect 1 and they must therefore both be held liable. As the 'propriety of taking a single schooner through Hell Gate by a hawser, the conflict between the experts is so great that, in the absence of any special regulations on the subject, I express no opinion. I have considerable doubt whether the schooner was managed in the best manner in the last few moments; but the appearance of the lighter coming through the narrow passage, not 400 feet distant, was so sudden and unexpected, the time, practically, was so brief, (probably not over 15 seconds,) and the danger was so obvious, that the schooner can hardly be held responsible. It was a case .in extremis. Some sagging by her to starboard was .unavoidable. This and the lighter's starboard wheel would explain the blow, even without any materialljlheer. r do not hold the schooner in fault. Decrees may be entered in accordance herewith.
END 01' VOLUME