The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-27 00:00:00

day.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—The two letters of Mr. Gray and Admiral
Sullivan on the " Fresh Stearn hip" collision ought
not to go unchallenged, although they will be satis-
factory to the public, as showing what the authors
of the existing rules have to say by way of ex-
planation of the subject.
It is quite evident that some competent tribunal
must now be appointed to take this question into
consideration.

Will you in the meantime permit me to observe
that the authors of these regulations have no power
to put an authoritative construction upon them—
but that we must look to the construction that is
put upon them by the decisions of the Admiralty
Courts, and their general acceptation by the public.
The meaning of " end on" is, I presume, on a
line with the keel, but the meaning of "nearly end
on" is indefinite and incomprehensible.
In the case of the Louisa and the City of Paris,
brought before the Admiralty Court in Ireland,
Judge Kelly said—" But when it is recollected that
the order to hard-a-starboard was given by the
steamer when the tug was but two points on her
starboard bow, it seems clear that the proper article to
apply to the position is the 13th ;" and again, " We
attribute the collision to the City of Paris for not
having ported, slowed, and reversed in time, when
she had the tug two points on her starboard how."

In the case of the Thames v. the Stork the Court
said, " In order to excuse her from porting, it must
be quite clear that there are three points of differ-
ence, and not less ; for surely it would never do to
contend, where they were so nearly meeting end on,
that if the evidence should be that it was only one
or two points only in the direction they were meet-
ing, that that would be sufficient to dispense with
the observance of this rule." _

And in the case of the Printer v. the Fingal the
Court said, " Part of the evidence says that they
were within two points of meeting end on. I should
consider that if they were within two points of
meeting end on, they would fall in with the latter
part of the statement nearly end on.' "
Now what is the plain English of this construc-
tion of the law, but that if two steamers are meet-
ing, instead of keeping:out of the way, they shall
adopt the only cou"se which will endcinge'r a collision,
and, as Sir John Hay in his letter to Mr. Bright
very truly says—" It must be recollected that two
ocean atcarnera probably may not see each other's
lights until within two miles of each other, and
that each steaming 12 knots they pass each other
in five minutes. The attempt for two long ships
to cross each other under such circumstances must
be hazardous, and if any hesitation arises on the
part of the officer in cliarg,e of either ship, a colli-
sion is almost sure to ensue. How much better
then that the officer in charge should know that in
all cases, he will do right by turning the ship's
head away from the approaching vessel," &c.
With reference to Admiral Sullivan's explana-
tion of the collision between the Amazon and the
Osprey, the officer of the watch was cashiered, not
for whatafterwardshappened—but because "he put
the helm of the Amazon to starboard, instead of to
port, when first sighting the light of the Osprey—
in contravention of the Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea"—the ships being then five miles
apart. and as the sails of the Amazon were lifting,
it was more convenient for her at that time to bear