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

steamer was plainly an overtaking vessel; she Bi , being nearly astern on her starboard MARITIME LAW. COLLISION—NIGHT—STEAM AND SAIL—OVER- earlier. The case on their part, however, rests manily on the testimouy of the single seaman who was forward. For the second TAKING VESSEL—FAILURE TO SHOW TORCH | ofiouy states that he was traversing the deck —NEGLIGENT LOOKOUT. U. §. District Court Southern District of New York. ‘The schooner L. A. Lewis was proceeding up the Atlantic coast in the vicinity of the ort of New York, heading about for the Beotland Lightship. The night was overcast and dark, though the atmosphere was clear. Her witnesses claimed that they saw astern, alittleon their starboard quarter, the red light of a steamship overtaking them; after- back and forth, looking out while doing so, | but that at the moment when he saw the schooner he had just stopped amidships and looked forward and saw her. The court, not having the benefit of official nautical experts sitting as as-ociates on the trial of such ques- | tions, must rely upon the tesmony of persons | specially called as expert witnesses, in con ‘ | experience and the history of maritime canses. { Considering this state of the evidence, the ere wards both colored lights became visible, i junction with the knowledge derivable from long history of navigation, the laws and usages of the sea, the prior adjudications, and when the master wen. below to get a torch,| that no expert navigators have been called by but before it could be shown the steamship ran intothem. The steamship did not per- ceive the schooner uatil she was within a few feet of her. Held, that the schooner was in required by law. t of collision by night, a vessel not showing the statutory lights must be held in fault, that fact does not relieve the other vessel if under the same circumstances she would have been held in fault before the passing of the navi- gation rules, andin this case the steamship was in fault for not earlier perceiving the schooner and avoiding her. ‘Ihe damages were therefore divided. : On the night of March 30, 1889, about six miles SE of the Highland Lights, the _libel- lants’ three-masted schooner L. A. Lewis, coming up the coast, was overtaken and run into by the steamer City of Savannah and badly damaged. The night was overcast and dark, but the atmosphere clear with the wind about WN W. Both were heading nearly for the Scotland Lightship, the City of Savan- nah directly for it, the schooner, with her booms to starboard, keeping the light just a little on her port bow. The schooner was, therefore, slightly crossing the line of the steamer’s course to starboard. The steamer’s stem struck the stern of the schooner about 20 inches on the port side ofthe rudder and carried away the schooner’s stern quarter. The schooner showed no stern or flash light, and she was not seen by the steamer until the latter was within a few feet of her. Collision occured at the moment when the order to stop was given. The libel alleges that the steamer when first seen showed her red light only, a little on the schooner’s starboard quarter; that the steamer afterwards changed her course so.as toshow both colored lights, whereupon the master went to the cabin to get a torch light, | but before it could be procured and shown collision occured. The master was drowned. The evidence is not sufficient to establish any change of course by the steamer. The weight of proof in that respect is with the claimants, that there was no change. If only the steamer’s red light was first visible, the two colored lights afterwards came into view probably because the schooner was slightly fault for her failure to show a flash light as | Held, that, though in cases) | the claimant to break the force of the testi- mony of the libellant’s experts, I am satisfied that the weight of proof and probability is with the libellant, that the schooner ought to have been seen in time to avoid her, anda stricter watch maintained. It was not until 1858 that the use of signal lights at sea was made obligatory on sailing vessels (1 Par. Sh. & Adm. 556 note.) For centuries before that time navigation had been carried on without the nse of signal lights, and vessels often ap— proached each other on dark nights at a much greater rate of speed and more dangerously than these were doing. Collision was ordi- narily avoided by a vigilant lookout ahead, and, although the carrying of lights, except under special circumstances, was not obliga— tory until made so by the recent statues and international rules, sailing vessels recovered their full damages against steamers for colli- sion in dark nights, though no lights were exhibited. The Ross Wm. Rob, 2. The Columbine do 27. The tron Duke do 377, The London- derry 4 Notes of Cas. 31. See The Louis- ianna2 How. 1. The Neptune Olcott 496 The Parkersburgh 5 Blatch, 247.) In the Osprey (2 Wall Jr. 268), the vessels were ap- proaching each other faster than these, and it was distinctly proved that the barque was not sooner discoverable. In the Sarmatian 2 Fed. Rep. 911) the schooner wasa small oyster craft; only the flat edges of the sails were presented to the steamer; there was no cabin light a slight haze was over the water; and apparently no point was made or proof given as to whether the steamer could have perceived the schooner earlier, and the court found she could not, The statutory requirement to show a light was not designed to admit of relaxed vigil-— ance in the lookoutor to justify it; and though now the vessel not showing the required light must be held in fault; that does not relieve the other vessel, if under the same circumstances she would have been held liable before the statutory rules. (The Helen Mar. 2 Low 40 44; City of Merida 24 Fed. Rep 223-4) The dis- tance at which vessels can be seen at night isa matter of frequent testimony in maritime courts. On moonlight nights sailing vessels without lights are seen two or three miles dis- crossing the line of the steamer’s course to starboard, and by reason of the schooner’s lee-way in the strong N W wind. The fault of the schooner is clear. The was more than two points abaft the schooner’s tant (See Baker vs. City of N. Y. 1 Clif. 84.) When the sky is overcast and without moon or stars they are only visible of course within much less distance; but the inference to be de- rived from ordinary experience, from num- berless reports of cases and from the trial of The schooner could not know, and ‘ht to act upon the guess or assump- the steamer was moving off more to The contrary was the fact, and she to show, even tothe red light, a t or a flare-up light under Rule LI. nt’s evidence shows, however, that “s two colored lights were seen or four minutes before the colli- was manifest negligence in the t ve at least a lantern ready once, and notto show it in ‘than three or four minutes. sulty in the case relates steamer, and whether she id to blame for not seeing sooner, notwithstanding the of any stern light, and in time to avoid her. The steamer’s speed was about 18 knots, the schooner’s, according to the estimate of her mate, about two knots; accord- ing to the claimant’s estimate, seven or eight knots. As all the witnesses agree that there was a good breeze, the wind from one to three points free, and all the schooner’s lower courses drawing, I cannot doubt that the schooner was making some four or five knots. The steamer was overtaking the schooner, therefore, at the rate of about eight or nine knots per hour, or 800 or 900 feet per min- ute. It is to be observed that the relative posi- tions and courses of the two vessels were the easiest possible for avoiding collision. The second officer of the steamer says that eight or ten turns of the wheel, 100 feet away, would haye been sufficient to clear her. Not to hold the steamer to so narrow a space as that, if the schooner had been seen and re-— ported at three times that distance, 300 feet, steamer would have had to travel over 450 feet before reaching her, which she would have done in about 20 seconds, ‘That was time enough and space enough for the steamer to sheer a couple of points, and a change of a single point, 150 feet away, would have cleared her easily. Am I justified upon the evidence in hold— ing that the night was such that the schooner could not have been seen by a reasonably vigi- lant looking 300 or 400, even 500 feet distant? On the steamer there wasa seaman at the bows, also the second officer pacing the fore- castle deck athwart ships, and the master standing by the wheel. All claimed that they were keeping a sharp lookout, that they all saw the schooner at the same time when right upon her, and only about twenty or thirty feet distant. The master says he could see the lookout stationed in the bows, 30 feet dis— tant from the wheel. The schooner was a large-object; the surface of her sails, and not merely their edges, were presented to view; the mainsail and foresail were new and white. The second oflicer says that the loom of a schooner without a light may sometimes be seen “on a cloudy night without stars for a mile or a mile and a half, when the night is not too dark.” Five nautical experts were called by the libellant, who all testified that on a night such as the claimants describe this to have been, overcast, cloudy and without stars, but with a clear atmosphere, without haze or mist, sailing vessels would be seen by a good lookout from a quarter of a mile to causes, is that it is only in thick or hazy weather that vessels ahead or without lights cannot be seen at all, or until within the dis- tance of a few feet. At this time there was no thickness of the weather; it was merely cloudy with an overcast sky, without moon cr stars. Such nights with a clear atmosphere wou!d not prevent seeing objects at a moderate dis— tance. (The Columbine supra. The Parkers- burg 5 Blatch. 247. The Saratoga 37 Fed. Rep. 120.) The testimony of the experts that in ‘such a night the loom of a vessel ahead would be perceived at least a quarter of a mile dis- tant accords with frequent testimony of a similar effect in other cases. One third of tbat distance was more than sufficient to en- able the steamer to avoid this schooner. The claimant, if not satisfied with the judgement of the five nautical experts, should haye called other disinterested experts to rebut that testi— mony. I cannot disregard it. The schooner, moreover, had a light burn- ing in her cabin, and there was evidence that the light could be seen a mile astern through the cabin windows, and had been seen that dis- tance by the witness in following the schooner out of Mobile Bay. A tenth part of that distance would have been more than enough warning to avoid the schooner; I must there- fore hold the steamer also to blame. Decree for the libelant for one half of the damage and costs. March 28, 1890, A UNIQUE ISSUE. As advertising is the medium through which thousands of employment seekers find they procure situations. I cannot but com— prehend that it also is the most convenient mode for a marine man to bring his case be- fore the judgment of lake vessel owners, es— pecially when itis within his reach to use the columns of a valuable paper, entirely de- voted for the general welfare of the lake marine, asis the Martine Recorp and asa matter of course always being read by promi- nent marine men and vessel owners. It is said, that however crowded a certain branch of business is, there always consists a demand for “first class mea,’”’ Now, who will be considered a first class man as master of a vessel on the lakes? We would say that, he is supposed to be a man of experience, both as a practical sailor as well as a navigator, is expected to be just as familiar with the spli- cing of a rope, as with the more scientific work of determining his ships position on the chart; and that a man capable of so much; with com- mon education enough to enable him to give all other parts of the business a proper care then he is beyond doubt. He should bea man of temperate habits, of energy and cour- age in connection with good common gense and if heis in possession of a rebust consti- tution and in his best age he should without doubt be entitled to be called a “first class man.’’ If now any one of our many vessel three-quarters of a mile distant. Opposed to | Owners should find it convenient to try a per— these, no disinterested witnesses were called son, that as near as possible is possessed of by the claimant; but only the persons on ‘board the steamer who are always liable to be. more or less swayed by their bias and pre- possessions, good lookout and could not see the schooner and they say that they kept a all his power in the above mentioned qualifications, he would certainly find a man willing to “turn to” with AvoLpH Frintscn, 607 Fifth St. Sheboygan Wis. Whe Marine Record. Improvement in Steam Windlasses for Tug Boats and Barges. Patented April 29th, 1890. HE accompany- ing cut repre- sentsan improv- ed steam windlass which has_ recently been brought out by __ the American Ship Windlass Co., of Prov- idence, R.I. Onmany of the tug boats there is not room enough for a steam windlass on account of thespace taken up by the warp- ing bitts. Inthis wind- lass the warping bitts are attached to the windlass deck plate, thus making a very strong and reliable warping bitt without taking up any addi- tional room. The deck plate for this wind- lass is made very thick and heavy and the bitts have heavy flanges and the cast- ings are braced on the inside so as to make them as safe to tow by as the wooden bitts that go down through the deck to the deck below. In addition to the saving of room, we would say that the cost of these bitts isnot much if any more than the wooden bitts would be themselves. : beam on the arms ,of the warping bitts for driving the windlass by hand, but as the windlass not rust and can be easily put in or taken out. same as the wood bitts would be. under the deck where they are free from exposure to the weather. Company for handling their anchors and chains and for use in pulling wrecks off the shore: Co.; Yaquina, Oregon. tug building by R. F Keough at East Boston, Mass. Francisco,) have sent the American Ship Windlass Co. the following certificate: AMERICAN Sure WinpDLAss Co, anchors and starting the windlass it doubles the power of the tug. Robert Morgan off the beach at Atlantic City, we took in her 8,000 pounds of chain and 4,600 pound anchor trouble. In fact the windlass has paid for itself several times during the two years it has been on board. ANS see it: wrecking or steam tugs. (Signed) THE EARTH’S MAGNETISM. | the needle is frequently seen to vibrate fuster | a GONGRORILES : on the ship than when on shore; also to vibrate ‘ z Faster on some headings of a ship than onothers, De Te Anes ohiie, Maraneienard. thus showing that these forces sometimes con- The article of Mr. John Maurice in your spire with, instead of opposing each other. issue of April 24th, though valuable for some of its ideas, is yet so erroneous in others as to require correction before it goes to the student. He tells us that ‘a bar of soft iron in any but Mr. Maurice takes the trouble to inform his readers, that wherever in his article, he is at variance with English authorities, “his own ‘i eis i x experience and studies warrant his position. a horizontal position becomes magnetic by in- P ve ly duction from the earth’s vertical force,” and It would take vastly more experience and that “a bar of soft iron placed horizontally |*tdy than he has had, to convince such | becomes magnetic by induction from the | S¢i*ntists as the Astronomer Royal G.B. Airy, earth’s horizontal force.” Also, that “in the Mathematician Archibald Smith, the north magnetic latitudes, the upper end shows | Philosopher Frederick J. Evans, and the a south pole, the lower end a north pole. members of the Liverpool compass com- To each of the above statements he should ! mittee, who have given the subject years of have appended the word “sometimes,”? as they | thought, that he is correct in all his positions. do not always prevail as facts. If the hori-| But the last, and the greatest thing of all, zontal line should happen to lie due east and | is the “devigraph,” the instrument that is to | west, magnetic, it would be also in the neutral | find, in all latitudes, without astronomical plane, ¢. @. the plane that is perpendicular to | observation, and any known bearing, the the direction of the dipping needle, and the | amount of deviation. This beats me. It is plane at which the signs, or the character of | 80 much above and beyond my comprehen— the magnetism, change in passing from one| sion, that I haye no remarks {concerning it, pole to the other. farther than to say that I can not take it in, The “dip’’ of the magnetic needle for Lake | notwithstanding my great credulity. Erie and the southern part of Lake Michigan} It sounds too much like the boastings of an is about 74°, so that the neutral plane has an | “old salt”? who could at any time on a dark elevation on those lakes of about 16° above | night, on a lee shore, give correct soundings the north horizon, and as a consequence a soft | by simply looking over the rail of a ship, and iron bar having its length in any plane mak-| that without any use of the “lead”? what— ing an angle of Jess than 16° with the north! ever. Micu. Cure. horizon will have north polarity in its upper ; end, but not south polarity as we are told. DRAwING and rough sketching for marine In the neutral plane there is no magnetism | engineers with proportions, instructions, and whatever, and from the first statement above| examples by James Donaldson. Price $2.50 quoted, it would appear that there is no vertical | Martyg Recorp. force in a horizontal bar. But, it is well known that in any horizontal bar, except when in the neutral plane, the vertical com- ponent due to induction is precisely such a part of the earth’s vertical component, that the total force of induction .is of the earth’s total magnetic force. In the latitude of Cleveland, or say 42° north, the magnetic dip is about 74°, so that, the total inductive force of the earth’s mag- netic being unity, the vertical component of induced magnetism in a horizontal bar will be sine of 74°=.96 of the total force of induc— tion, instead of nothing as we are told, pro- vided the bar is also in the magnectic meri- dian. Again, he informs us that “both forces (i. e. the earth’s magnetism and that of the ship) “are antagonistic.’ This is another mistake. It is well known that the forces that cause deviation, also, at times increase the directive force of the compass needle, as when the compass is located in the opening of a deck, between the ends of opposite oa quently obl: count of the iri evening trips the business me! ap) and Mr. J. full, breezes of Lake Mrs. Eliza E. Poole is a licensed pilot of Massachusetts. : _—r1uGs— Branch Offices at Port Huron, Gheboy WRECKING TUG beams or catlings of iron. We see this also in the pendulum experi- ments in the magnetic survey of a ship, where LEVIATHAN Capt. Chas. E. Kirtland Stat With plenty of Wrecking Material on board s The cut shows the beam bearing and except by steam, on a tug boat, these may be taken off and laid aside and can be put back in five minutes if it is reo quired at any lime to drive the windlass by hand. The bolts to bolt this bearing for the beam on to the bitts are of bronze so that they will When the beam and beam bearing are removed it leaves the warping bitts entirely free, the The cut does not show the engines that drive this windlass but they may be hung up under the windlass or placed on top of the deck below as required and as usual with this style of steam pump brake windlass, or this windlass with these bitts may be adapted to their up- right engines as used on their new style steam pump brake windlass if requested, but generally it is considered better to haye the engines The Company are now making one of these windlasses for the tug building by John H. Dialogue at Camden, N. J., for the Export Coal Co., of New York, this being the first windlass of this style ever made, but the following tugs have steam windlasses furnished by this Underwriter, Boston Tow Boat Co., Boston, Mass.; Gladiator, Boston, Mass.; Joshua Lovett, Boston, Mass.; Wrestler, Boston, Mass,; Britan— nia, I’, Luckenbach, New York; Robert H. Rathbun, Perth Amboy, N. J.; Nathan Hale, Thames Tow Boat Co.; New London, Ct.; Interna— tional, Peter Wright & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa.; Argus, Peter Wright & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa ; Mars, John J. Schrader, Philadelphia, Pa.; George W. Pride, George W. Pride & Son, Philadelphia, Pa.; Relief, J. D. Spreckels & Bro., San Francisco, Cal.; Vigilant, J. D, Spreckels & Bro., San Francisco, Cal.; Norfolk, New York; Philadelphia & Norfolk R. R. Co.; Augusta, South America, Resolute, Oregon, PaeificR. R. * They also have orders for steam windlasses for the two tugs building by John H. Dialogue for the Norfolk & Western R. R. Go. and fora George W. Pride & Son, having used one of these steam windlasses several years on the tug George W. Pride, Jr., (now tug Vigilant, of San Office of George W. Pride & Son, 502 South Delaware Avenue and 119 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa., September 30th, 1884: GmntLEMEN:—In answer to your inquiry, would say that the Steam Windlass made by you for our tug George W. Pride, Jr. has very efficient and valuable for us, and we use it constantly in our ordinary business. In pulling a vessel off when aground, by droppi: When holding a ship in tideway, by dropping the tug’s anchor inst the ship’s, it saves much labor and time. In stripping a wreck, it is very efficient as a hoisting engine for heavy loads, In getting the 2 Fa ing palace placed at uniform courtesy which line extend to all p r WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ON DOCK, FOOT FIRST. ‘Winslow,’ ‘Leviathan,’ ‘M. Swain,’ ‘champion’ | D 1 ‘John Owen,’ ‘Wm. A. Moore’ and ‘Oswego.’ etror ("OFFICES OPEN DAY AND NIGHT. SATISFACTYO. will be very seldom used prove off the bottom LAKE ERIE EXOU. It has been decided by th: land Steam Navigation | Cleveland people just what a first class steamer from ( 7 day in the smoky whole it has been Cleveland Steam Nav the programmeone eciated by all Wi. agent in charge of - Butler territory outside of the able assistance sure that every want of looked after an land and the su doubt frequent}: D