Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1850-12-20
From the Philadelphia Bulletin.
Important admiralty Case.

interest =
The leading facts upon which my decree in this
case will rest are these
The steam propeller Columbus left Philadelphia
on the Both of November 1848 for Charleston, S. c.
and at halfpas two o'clock in the morning of the
Sd December, (cVil time, she was in the neighbor
hood of the Cape Lookout Shoals heading South
west, her starboard tack going about nine knots
an hour.
The schooner Mission new vessel of 112 tons,
was returning to Edenton, N c., with cargo of salt
from Rum Key. She was on her larboard tack steer
ING North by East going at the rate of five knots or
something less.
The wind was fresh from the Northwest: the sea
was rough from the action of Southeast wind that
had prevailed for some days before; it was star
light night
1t is said that the two vessels about three
hundred yards from each other, perhaps less per-
haps little more, when the lookout man of the
steamer the schooner approaching bearing about
point, or point and half the steamers lar
board bow. The engine was stopped at once and
1ersed but there no hail on either side, and
neither vessel varied her course The consequence
a collision of the steamers bow, and the schoon
ers starboard bow and the schooner sunk imme
diately.
Whatever of controversy there may be as to other
supposed asserted facts / believe that there is
nothing in this succinct recital have made which
does not consist with the proofs exhibited in the case
and relied on by the respondents; and, If my views
are just, it is not necessary to 60 beyond it. The
question, whether the Captain of the schooner was
was not improperly below at the time of the COLI
sion, whether the lookout man of the schooner
asleep, it might, perhaps, be difficult to decide
since the two persons whose evidence upon it would
be of most interest, were lost with the vessel But
the present issue connects itself further with the
conduct of the parties, than that conduct may
have contributed to bring about the collision.
am to decide the simple question-Was the col
lson occasoned by the fault of one of the other
vessel, or was it unavoidable? And this question,
though perhaps at first glance an embarrassing one
Tn q inf liar Of
ton that form part of the Law of the Sea- admits of
easy solution with reference to them have been
little surprised to learn from of the skilful
seamen who have been examined in this case, how
little is known of those usages on shipboard.
1t is rule, founded altogether in reason, and long
and thoroughly recognized in the Admiralty, that
on the open seas, vessels going free shall give way
to those that are going hauled and the correa-
tive is equally well established that vessel going
clOse-haued, when meeting vessel going free, shall
hold her course. These absolute rules and the
vessel that violates either of them becomes
BILE for any collision which may be the consequence
The reason OF them is plain The vessel going free
has the command of her movements much more full
ly than the one that is close-hauled. She pass
in either direction by simple inclination of her
helm, and without considerable loss of way while
the clOse-hauled vessel turn only in direc-
ton unless she goes into stays and loses her
by the maneuvre-hence the duty of the vessel going
free. And as the vessel going close-hauled might
by changing her course, place herself in the way Of
rule for the purpose of avoiding her. the duty enon
ed the close hauled vessel is equally reasonable.
The same considerations which at first suggested
these rules for sailing vessels, have, since steam has
begun to be extensively applied motive power II
navigation, grated them rule applicable tt
steamers, viz that steamer shall be regarded al
ways as a vessel going free, and must give way in
consequence to sailing vessel going hauled
And this extension of the first rule implies similar
extension of the second viz that vessel going close
hauled and meeting steamer, shall not be at liber
ty to change her course. have not indeed, met
reported which called for the enunciaton of the
rule thus modified; but cannot doubt that the
argument which led to the original rule would apply
with equal force to its modification also the Court
of Admiralty would enforce both alike
The application of these rules to the few facts
have recited, may decide the present case. 1t wa
the duty of the Mission to hold her course and i
is conceded that she did so. The steamer, tn
other hand was bound to give way-not merely t.
check her progress, but to change her course-in
wOrd to prevent the collision. 1t is conceded tina
she did not do so.
To relieve herself from the liability which shout
follow from this state of facts, two Offer
cd on behalf of the steamer Il. That when tn
schooner first deserted the distance between tn
two vessels not sufficient to permit the steame
to give way in time. 2. That from the courses tn
two vessels were steering, heading nearly toward
each other, with but three points of the compass Q
about thirty-four degrees of divergence betwee
them, the steamer could not know IN time which wa
the schooner was steering, and could not decid
therefore in which direction she the steamer OugE
to pass in order to avoid her.
The first of these excuses is clearly mistake,
the evidence is correct that the steamer had over
come, nearly overcome, her momentum before tn
collision. For it requires argument to show tina
steamer going nine knots an hour change he
direction by shifting her helm much more prompt
than she bring herself to state of rest in tn
water and this remark is especially true of prOpe
lers generally, which answer their helm more read
ly than other vessels, and is to be true in
ference to the Columbus Besides, it is demonstrab
from the allegations of the witnesses themselve
which in proof, that the accident could not hay
taken place had the steamer changed her helm
either direction or had she even kept on her way
The medium rate of the steamers motion from til
moment of seeing the schooner to the moment of tn
encounter, about Al knots, little more sa
a little more because the steamer going at tn
rate of nine knots hour at first, and because
think the manner in which the two vessels strucl
and the character of the injury sustained by tn
schooner, we'll the fact that one of the drown
ing seamen from the wreck drfted past the steame
20 to show that the steamers motion had not bee
entirely arrested when they came together. tn
schoonerS rate of motion being something less tina
FIVE knots, or about the as the medium rate
the steamer, the two vessels passed very nearl
equal spaces in the time, and simple trig
nOmetrical computation from the elements giv wen
the evidence, viz: their distance 300 yards, an
their bearing Ii points, determines for that eac
passed over ISL yards before they met. Had tt
steamer kept up her speed of nine knots she woul
have passed more than 800 yards instead
157: aud her length is on y l65 feet, and tt
sehOohers only 76, it is clear they would have pas
ed each other in safety Another result from tt
computation is that the vessels approach
ing each other for about minute and an eighth a
ter the schooner deserted space of time abu
Il