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

12 THE MARINE RECORD. APRIL, 12, 1900. F2, Chicago [Yautical School 1513 Masonic Temple, CHICAGO. W. J. WILSON, (ate Lieutenant U. S. Navy), Principal. A full and complete course of instruction in lake and ocean navigation. Also special branches taught those desiring to qualify themselves for better positions in the marine service. $200 in prizes (Great Lakes Regis- ter) awarded annually to students. Students taught by correspondence. Students may begin at any time. Send for circular, £5 OF TREASURY DECISION. RULES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF PILOTS. Opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury.—Rules of the Board of Supervising Inspectors, Atlantic and Pacific Coast Inland Waters, not in conflict or inconsistent with the statutes. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 29, 1900. GENTLEMEN: Referring to your communication of the * 14th inst., presented in person by Mr. Robert D. Benedict, one of the signers thereto, alleging that certain of the rules . for the guidance of pilots, Atlantic and Pacific Coast inland waters, adopted by the Board of Supervising‘ Inspectors, 1899 and 1900, were in conflict or inconsistent with the statutes under which the supervising inspectors claim authority to act in such matters, having been referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury foran expression of his opinion upon the legal points presented in your communication, as per your request _. therein, that officer has rendered an opinion, dated the 27th instant, adverse to your contention. Appended is a verbatim copy of the Solicitor’s opinion, Respectfully, L. J. GAGE, Secretary. Hon. W. W. GoopRIcH, Judge, Supreme Court, State of New Vork, et al. New York, N. Y. OFFICE OF SOLICITOR OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 27, 1900. Sir: By reference of March 20, 1900, Assistant Secretary Spaulding transmits to this office certain correspondence re- lating to the 1899 edition of the Pilot Rules of the Board of Supervising Inspector of Steam Vessels, and requests my opinion upon the questions whether certain of those rules are in conflict with the act of June 7, 1897, relating to colli- sions. The rules in question have been criticised in the following particulars : \ : (1) The act of 1897, Rule IX, article 19, provides as fol- Ows: “When two steam vessels are crossing so as to involve risk - of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own star- ‘board side shall- keep out.of the way of the other.” Inspector's Rule II provides as follows : “‘When steamers are approaching each other in an oblique ‘direction, as shown in the diagrams of the fourth and fifth situations, so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which ‘has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other, which latter vessel shall keep her course and speed; the steam vessel having the other on her star- board side indicating by one blast of her whistle her inten- tion to direct her course to starboard, so as to cross the stern of the other steamer; and two blasts, her intention of direct- ing her course to port, which signals must be promptly an- swered by the steamer having the right of way, but the giv- ing and answering signals by a vessel required to keep her ‘course shall not vary the duties and obligations of the respec- ‘tive vessels. ”’ It has been objected to this rule that the situation therein described is fully provided for by the act above set forth, that the term ‘‘crossing’’ includes vessels whose courses - meet at converging or diverging angles, and that the Board ‘has no right to make a particular rule for a course ‘‘in an oblique direction.” The act of 1897, article 31, section 2, provides that the Board shall establish such rules to be observed by steam ves- sels in passing each other ‘‘* * * not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as they from time to time may _ deem necessary for safety.’’ : Iam unable to see that this portion of inspector’s Rule II DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, } is ‘“inconsistent’’ with the act. Whether the rule be super-. fluous, or injudicious, or likely to lead to confusion, isa _ question which I do not feel called upon to consider, so long - as it is not in conflict with the act. Tog ¥, a Pintsch Gas Lighted Buoys Adopted by the English, German, French, Russian, Italian, - and United States Light-House Departments ‘for :channel and ~ harbor Controlled by 2) It is objected that the provisions of inspector’s Rule II that the vessel having the other vessel to starboard shall indicate by ‘‘two blasts her intention of directing her course to port’? enables the restricted vessel to cross the course of the vessel having the right of way, in violation of Rule Ix, article 19, of the act of 1897. This objection would be well founded if it was intended by the rule to give the restricted vessel the right to cross the bows of the privileged vessel arbitrarily, or at pleasure, by merely indicating her intention with,two blasts of the whis- tle. But this rule must be read in connection with article 22, Rule IX, of the act, which provides that the restricted vessel must “‘if the circumstances of the case admit avoid coming ahead of the other;’’ and with article 27, which pro- vides that in obeying the rules regard must be had to ‘“‘any special circumstances which may render a departure from the rules necessary in order to avoid danger.’’ Assuming that the rule was intended to provide for such cases, I can sée no objection thereto, other than the want of language restrict- ing its application to cases in which a departure from articles 19, 21, and 22 of Rule IX of the act of 1897 is made neces- sary by the circumstances of the case. This objection would be removed by the insertion of the following words ‘‘where that course is justified by the special circumstances of the ‘case, under articles 22 and 27 of Rule IX of the Act;of 1897,” immediately after the words ‘‘her intention of directing her course to port’’ in the last clause of the rule in question. (3) It is further objected that the import of whistles given in Rule II is wrong in this, that one blast does not, on in- land waters, show an intention ‘‘to direct her course to star- board,’’ but merely ‘‘to pass on the port side of the other vessel,’’ and that the language used tends to confound inland with international or ‘‘high-seas’’ signals. This objection raises merely a question whether the use of certain terms in the rule has been judicious, and involves no « question as to inconsistency or conflict with the statute, and hence presents no question proper to be considered by me. - (4) Inspector’s Rule III provides as follows: “If, when steam vessels are approaching each other, either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other, from any cause, the vessel so in doubt shall imme- diately signify the same by giving short and rapid blasts; not less than four, of the steam whistle; and, if the vessels shall have approached within half a mile of each other, both shall be immediately slowed to a speed barely sufficient for steer- ageway until the proper signals are given, answered, and understood, or until the vessels shall have passed each other.’’ The first clause of this rule is a transcription of Rule III ° of the act of 1897; the second clause was added by the board of inspectors, and has existed, in substantially the same form, for a number of years. It is objected that the last clause is in conflict with Rule IX, article 21 of the act of 1897, which provides as follows : ‘When, by any of these rules, one of the two vessels is to peer ce of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.”’ a other words, the objection is that Rule ITI, in requiring both vessels to slow down when the intention of the one is not understood by the other, violates the provision of the act ee the privileged vessel to keep her course and speed. Prt is to be observed that the act applies only to cases in which one vessel is required ‘‘to keep out of the way of the other,’’ that is, cases in which one of the vessels is restricted and the other privileged. It would seem plain, therefore, that the rule is not in conflict with the statute so far as ves- ‘sels approaching each other “‘head-on’’ are concerned, for in such a case both vessels are required to keep to the right, and the expression ‘‘one of the two vessels is to keep out of the way’’ can not be applied toeither. There are many ‘cases in which it has been held that a prompt observance of the rule in question would have prevented ‘collision. (The British Queen, 88 Fed. Rep., 1003, 1008; in re Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 92 F. 1015.) If slowing down is conducive to the safety of vessels ap- proaching each other ‘‘head on’”’ and misunderstanding sig- nals and intentions, I am unable to see why it would ‘not also be conducive to the safety of vessels crossing the courses of each other. It is true that, the vessel having the right of Over 800 gas buoys and g i gas beacons in service. distance ‘of six milés, hs AND LIGHTING Co, §60 Broadway, New York City. e lighting. BAINES BROS... 5 Burn ; PROVISION MERCHANTS S8SHIPPERS OF "~ g Continuously FEF, MUTTON.PORK& POULTRY from 80 to 365.days and : 7 LARD. SAUSAGE,ETC { tas -nights without | atten- VESSEL ay eae ELK STREET MARKET patel ie 3 tion, and can be seen a SC enEGAtiN UFFALO. NY. scesensag ane JHE SAFETY GAR HEATING| a way, is entitled, under ordinary circumstances, to keep heres speed as well as her course, in pursuance of article 21, above. — This contemplates that there is no misunderstanding as to — ‘the right of way, and I am of the opinion that this provision — was intended to apply only to cases in which the signals and intentions of each vessel are understood, and not to a casein © which either vessel is it! doubt as to what the other intends todo. To say thatthe restricted vessel must ‘‘keep out of ‘the way of the other’? when she does not understand what course the other intends to take seem unreasonable. It does not seem possible that Congress intended that the privileged vessel, in close proximity to the other, after being warned by successive blasts of the whistle that her signals and in- tentions are not understood, or after having given similar — warning that she does not understand the signals and inten- tions of the.other, should bear down upon the other without abatement of her speed. It might, indeed, happen that keep- ing her speed under such circumstances would avoid a colli- ‘sion’ (asin the case of The Britannia, 150 U. S. 130), but it ‘can hardly be. doubted that in most cases of misapprehen- sion and misunderstanding the safest course would be the ~ slowing down of each vessel. I can not resist the conclusion that if Congressintended — that either vessel should keep her speed under such circum-— .stances they would have so declared, in plain and unmistak- able terms, by an addition to Rule III, as it standsin the act _ of 1897. Very respectfully, es j MAURICE D. O’CoNNELL, Solicitor. ’’The Secretary of the Treasury. TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS. Passengers may be transported on foreign vessels to foreign ports and brought back to the United States on American vessels. © ; } ar, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 2, 1900. Str: This Department is in receptof your letter dated the _ 20th instant, inquiring whether the management of the Can- adian steamer North King may legally issue to passengers on that vessel from Charlotte, touching at Port Hope and Coburg, and then proceeding to Rockport, Canada, tickets ‘enabling them to contiue their journey from Rockport to Alexandria Bay in an American steamer. The Solicitor of the Treasury, on submission of the matter to him, expresses the opinion that the question should be > answered in the affirmative, he finding no act of Congress forbidding such transportation. The act of February 17, — 1898, provides that no foreign vessel shall transport passen- gers’ between ports or places in the United States either di- — rectly or by way of a foreign port, but does not seem toem- brace cases like that you present. Action may be taken ac- a cordingly. Respectfully, ; O. L. SPAULDING, Assist. Secretary. Mr. Howard S. Folger, Kingston, Ontario. re ore MARINE PATENTS. Patents on marine inventions issued April 3, 1900, Re- ported especially for the MARINE RECORD. Complete copies -of patents furnished at the rate of ten cents each. a 636,522. Cooling or ventilating attachment for cars or vessels. .G. A. and R. F. Dunn, Dinuba, Cal. BS 646,553. Wharf construction. H.C. Holmes, San Fran- cisco, Cal., assignor of one-half to Carl Uhlig, same place. oy 646,591. Ventilating and lighting arrangement for steameres, and. steamships.. Arendt Angstrom, Toronto, Canada, af} signor of one-half to F. E. Kirby, Detroit, Mich. 646,712. Water motor. J.‘E. Symons, Boise, Idaho. 646,713. Water wheel. J. E. Symons, Boise, Idaho, Se a ONS E> MME OE a PN fx SORTER ON Se eo aT 646,745: Clutch for propeller shafts. A. A. Low, New B York, N. Y. BS, 646,767. Lock gate. T. T. Stoddart, Ottawa, Can. 646,769. Hydraulic dredge. S. C. Swarts, Bangely, Col. | 646,800. Means for preventing ships from sinking. F. _O. Broughton, Anerley, England.