The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

18 MARINE REVIEW. NORTH STAR-SIEMENS COLLISION CASE. JUDGE HAZEL OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, BUFFALO, HOLDS THE NORTH STAR ALONE AT FAULT--A CASE INTERESTING ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAULT RIVER BLOCKADE THAT FOLLOWED THE COLLISION. In November, 1899, the Rockefeller steamer Sir Wm. Siemens was sunk in Little Rapids cut, just below the Sault canal, by the steamer North Star of the Northern Steamship Co.'s fleet, and for several days thereafter navigation to and from Lake Superior was completely blocked, as the position of the Siemens in the narrow channel at that point in the river was such that other vessels could not pass. The law suit resulting from the collision was not tried until a few months ago in Buffalo. The owners of the Siemens libeled the North Star and a cross-libel against the Siemens and her tow barge Alexander Holley was filed by the owners of the North Star. United States District Judge Hazel has entered a decree. He finds the North Star alone at fault, dismisses the cross-libel and refers the cause to a commissioner to ascertain and report the dam- ages. About $30,000 is involved, including demurrage. Goulder, Holding & Masten with Clinton & Clark of Buffalo represented the Siemens. The - North Star was represented by Shaw & Cady of Detroit and Joseph C. Dudley of Buffalo. In the first paragraph of the written decision, which is at hand, the court says that the law regulating navigation on the great lakes is the White law, but that the law to be invoked in this case is very plainly the special rules and regulations governing the navigation of the St. Mary's river. Such special rules for a particular locality, upon the prin- ciples of statutory construction, must take precedence over general rules, where the special rules apply, while at all other places and even in the special places where the special rules do not cover the situation, the gen- _ eral rules of navigation must dictate the movements of vessels. The de- cision, practically in full, and including the court's statement of the case is as follows: Early in the morning of Nov. 28, 1899, five vessels were moored abreast at the government pier, generally known as Old Fort Brady pier, ready to proceed down the river through Little Rapids cut, so-called, a narrow and difficult channel, 300 ft. wide, where there is a current of two to three miles an hour. The distance between the light-house crib at the northern entrance to Little Rapids cut and the government pier at Sault Ste. Marie is about one and one-half miles. Little Rapids cut is about four miles long from its northern entrance. The five vessels re- ferred' to were moored at the government pier in the following order: North Star, tied to the pier; the Pennsylvania with barge in tow, abreast; 'Sir William Siemens and her consort, Alexander Holley, made fast abreast the Pennsylvania's tow. The North Star is 300 ft. over all, keel 299 ft., - beam 40, gross tonnage 2,400, full speed 12 miles per hour, and at the time of the collision was drawing 16.8 ft. of water, laden with package . freight and bound from Duluth to Buffalo. The total length of the Sir William Siemens was 432 ft. over all, her keel 413 ft., 48 ft. beam, and at the time of collision she was drawing about 18 ft. of water. The Alexander Holley is 361 ft. over all. The Siemens carried 5,222 and her tow 5,000 tons of iron,ore. At about six o'clock in the morning, bright and clear, just about sunrise, the steamers Angeline and Hackett came through the ship canal, and passed down the river without stopping. They passed the moored vessels, the Angeline going ahead; the Hackett signaling to the Siemens, which at the time was getting under way and was even then ahead of her tow. The masters of the Angeline and Hackett, when in Little Rapids cut, heard signals afterwards given by the North Star to the Siemens, and being attracted thereby observed the North Star and Siemens abreast, making the turn into Little Rapids cut at the northern entrance by the crib light. The Siemens was the first -of the moored vessels to get under way and had previously proceeded out 'into the river and made up her tow, using about 600 ft. of steel cable.' The -cable was wound on a drum by an automatic towing machine which paid out the cable speedily and without interference in getting under way. She, therefore, quickly chose her course and was soon moving at a rate between 6.and 7 miles an hour through the water, or 8 or 9 miles over the ground. The Siemens headed to the south of the Bayfield ranges, distant about 1% miles, in a northerly direction from the government pier. . When passing the red can buoy at the Bayfield rock her captain, who was on the bridge over the pilot house, heard the North Star blow two blasts of the whistle, indicating her intention to pass the-Siemens on the left or port hand, as provided by treasury rule 5. This was in that part of St. Mary's river between the government pier and the crib light-house at the north- ern entrance of Little Rapids cut. The North Star at this time having cleared the government pier was abreast the Siemens tow. The captain of the Siemens immediately responded to the signal give: when the North Star was abreast the tow by five or six rapid blasts of the steam-whistle, as testified to by him.and.by others on the Siemens and the barge Holley, intending to give notice as required by rule 5, that he did not think it safe for the steamer astern to attempt to pass at that point. The witnesses for the North Star who heard the Siemens reply say that it consisted otf four distinct blasts of the whistle. These whistles were interpreted by the captain of the North Star as assenting signals and indicative of the Sie- mens desire to have the Star 'come on and hurry up." Considerable expert evidence was given on the trial in behalf of the North Star to establish that four blasts of the whistle are generally understood by navi- gators of the lakes as an invitation to "come on and hurry up," and that at the time of the collision it was the practice to so interpret that signal. MAURICE B. GROVER CASE NOT OF THE SAME KIND. Proctors for the North Star strenuously urge on the consideration of the court the case of Maurice B. Grover. That case was' decided in 1897 before the treasury rules relating to the St. Mary's river were promul- gated. From an examination of the facts in that case, it appears that the steamer Moran went aground in the St. Mary's river near the light crib at Sailor's Encampment island. The Grover. gave the usual bend: whistle to warn approaching wvessels.that-she-was.coming down the river. The Moran gave no signal to the Grover, but just previous to the collision she blew a signal of four blasts for a tug to come to her assistance. The-tuo answered the signal, but those in charge of the Grover swore that they [April 11, did not hear the answer.' The court said: "A° signal of four blasts may mean a-call for a tug or it may mean 'hurry up,' depending upon the length of the blasts." The record of the Grover case shows that the blasts of the whistle were ordinary blasts and that the Moran was aground. While in this case the Siemens was speeding towards the turn, increasing her speed as she went. There is no difficulty in differentiating and classi- fying sound emanating from a steam whistle on a lake steamer. There is no substantial claim that the blasts of the Siemens whistle were other than such as caused an impression on the witnesses who heard them that there was apparent trouble or danger. The claim of the respondents that a four-blast whistle is commonly understood and interpreted by navi- gators of the lakes as a "hurry up" signal can have no substantial bearing upon this controversy. Treasury rule 5 is mandatory. Whatever custom or usage was in vogue prior to the enactment of the rule must yield to the provisions of the statute. Witnesses for the Siemens testify that the whistles of the Siemens were five or six short and rapid blasts. Other witnesses for the Siemens testify that the blasts of the whistle were four or more short and rapid blasts. Capt. Saunders of the steamer Hackett, when the first reply of the Siemens was sounded, says that as he proceeded on his course he heard several short and rapid blasts conveying to him a signal of danger and alarm. He looked astern and saw the Siemens and her consort a short distance above the Bayfield rock coming down the river, the North Star then being a little astern of the Holley. After a short interval two blasts were again sounded by the Star and the Siemens again replied with several short and rapid blasts. The North Star was then abreast of the Holley at Bayfield rock. Durand, master of the Holley, says that the Siemens twice blew six short blasts. 'Capt. Gunderson, master of the Siemens, says that his reply to the signals of the Star was several short and rapid blasts of the whistle, six or more in number; he was then going under half speed and gave an order to the engineer to go slow preparatory to making the turn at the bend. Tear, the mate of the Siemens, heard sev- eral short and rapid blasts of the whistle, but cannot tell the number. Rae, master of the Pennsylvania, says that there were as many as four blasts of the whistle and he would take them for danger signals. Other witnesses for the Siemens gave testimony that four or more short and rapid blasts, of the whistle are not understood by navigators of the lakes as a reply to "hurry up and come on," but are invariably understood to mean alarm and danger. SIEMENS BLEW DANGER SIGNALS, NOT A HURRY-UP CALL. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the answers of the Siemens to the signals of the astern vessel were danger signals and were sounded in compliance with treasury rule 5. The word 'several' is com- monly understood to imply more than two, but not very many. It must, therefore, be accepted as undisputed in the case that several blasts of the whistle were blown in answer to the passing signals of the North Star. I am satisfied from the proofs that the blasts of the whistle were short and rapid blasts, not less than four in number. It is clear that there was no justification or defehsory propriety in misunderstanding the signals that were sounded by the Siemens, in view of the situation of the vessels and the manner of sounding the whistle by the Siemens. The North Star was the overtaking vessel going in the same direction as the Siemens and tow. The obligations of precaution and care imposed on her as an over- taking vessel were most flagrantly violated and set at defiance. There may be said to have been a deliberate intent to pass the Siemens and tow, irrespective of.laws or.rules governing the movements of vessels in St. Mary's river, and for the express purpose of being the first to reach the channel, where passing is prohibited. Navigators of vesséls on the lakes must be presumed to have knowledge of the rules 'and laws governing St. Mary's river. The captain of the Star had actual knowledge of these rules, and yet, without observing or giving heed to an important restriction, he attempted to pass the vessel ahead without receiving an assent. The Siemens and tow at the time that the North Star cleared the government pier were a quarter of a mile distant, heading for a narrow channel 1% miles from the pier. Moreover, the North Star had the Siemens in full view during her entire attempt to injudiciously pass the Siemens before reaching the turning point at the light-house crib. The speed of the Siemens was increased to almost the statutory limit immediately after the reply was sounded by the Siemens to the Star's declared intention to pass on the port side. In view of the law and the facts applicable thereto, I do not hesitate to find that the North Star in her attempt to overtake and pass the Sie- mens without first receiving the signal prescribed by treasury rule 5 was at fault. The question of contributory fault by the Siemens at the point where the turn by both vessels was made is not free from difficulty. The North Star's negligence in coming abreast of the Siemens and_in attempt- ing to pass her without receiving the assenting signal required by law did not justify the collision if it could be avoided by the exercise of proper care. The claim of the North Star is that the Siemens' master intended to prevent and endeavored to prevent the Star passing, not only by wrongfully accelerating the Siemens' speed, but also by crowding the Star and by wrongfully directing his course to port just as the Star was about passing clear, thereby precipitating the collision. Capt. Stewart of the North Star testified that after.receiving the last four blast signal he was not overtaking the Siemens as fast as he had-the Holley; that the tow was increasing its speed. Nevertheless, the Star at a time when prudent seamanship prompted reversing or checking, increased her speed with the apparent object of overtaking the Siemens before reaching the prohibited channel. : SIEMENS WOULD NOT HAVE ACTED PRUDENTLY IF SHE HAD REVERSED. I think the preponderance of the evidence shows that it would not have been prudent seamanship for the Siemens to reverse at this time. The Siemens and Holley were laden with iron ore. The length of the tow from the bow of the Siemens to the stern of the Holley was approximately 1,500 ft. The distance from Bayfield rock to the turn into Little Rapids cut is 2,700 ft. The Siemens, therefore, was 1,200 ft. from the turning point and within 200 ft. of the place where maneuvering is ordinarily commenced to make the necessary turn into the channel, at the time sig- nals were first sounded. Both vessels were then going, approximately, the statutory limit of 9 miles over the ground. Obviously, -the master of the Star must have been aware of the imprudence of the attempt to over- take the Siemens. There was no obligation on the part of the Siemens