New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-16

sc1 ~ tIe uenrrsi assembly Of thr STATE OF Nav
fTk. nnd their steam FIRM. boats ,lv h.,xvse,
Williamsburgh and Peck.sl,o "
were the owners of the steam fayrv ho., 90
which. on the Goth June. 1851 wa u,.. e.. -,
the bull head, on the Williamsburgh sd. of ~
East River, ut ar near the foot Of South Eighth
81. in the Village Of Wlliamsburgh. andergsog
necessary and needn't repairs that directly ,bove
the Oneota sht was protected by the long South
pier, which guards the yaekson-st. lerry-bsats "a
they enter their dock on the Nll'ismsAurgh side
OF the nger; on the other side Of the Oneota lay
toat, or stage, made fast TO the Oneota, upon
which the men were standing while the r-pars
Were beng made the pier immediately a1ove the
Oneota extends more than one hundred feet into
The last River. at right sDgles with the bulkhead
"f WHAT tn which the OneOta was made fast;
ana al the time of the collision, plank ran from
we per TO the stern of the Oneota, upon which
me wotkmen passed and re-passed, while the re-
psns were gong on. There cor troyersy
opVue 'he iacts thus far. The answer OF
the respoi dents admits that thew are the
owners Of the steamboat Cbsl.es and nv
way OF defense, the answer alleges that az
the time oil the supposed cellision the tide
was running strong food, and from the formation
Of the docks, vessels bound up the East River
would set IN tn where the OneOta lay. They al
lege further, end make il prominent part OF the
defense. that the Oneota was in an improper
place, and that she had ard detained along side a
stage or float, which could and should have been
removed IL appears in evidence that, at IL clock
AT noon, the steamboat Chelsea was &C or near the
Navy fUd, and in an eddy outside of the carrent
of the river where she took in tow the schooner
Louisa, OF 300 tuns burden, and making fast his
tow upon the starborrd side Of the Chelsea, put
on steam for Pier No. 9. down East RIVER at
food tide running up East River; that when the
Che kea, with her tow. struck the tide she was
h, aiding on her proper course down ,st River,
bur not being on strong headway, the tide struck
H. kas
proper course and 10 bung her bacs, the wheels
of the Chelsea and the LosIsa were put hard g.
starbOard. The flood tide proved too strong, and
was rapidly carry ing the Chelsea and Louisa upon
the long pier above the Oneota and 10 prevent
this, and TO the Chelsea and Louisa from
this disaster, the Chelsea ported her wheel to
wear round and pass the pier upon her la'board
side. But the scanty room aud the strong tide,
operating together, the Chelsea, with her tow,
were taken directly upon the Oneota, and her
nOat produced the damage set forth in the Ii
bel. Substantially, these are the facts, and the
case is To be decided by the law arising these
facts it IS a controversy regarding the law, rsth-
er than controversy az TO the facts of the case.
Then, according to the rules Of law, where is the
fault The only fact about which there can be
said to be any serious dispute, 70 the posi-
tion of the Oneota at the time Of the collision.
The answer alleges, as has alresdy been stated,
that her position was an improper one, bat the
weight Of the evidence establishes beyonda doubt
tsat she was in proper place, usual place for
steamboats, TO be made fast for repairs and Tor
other purJ oses, and the Court finds the fact.
The ODeOta, then, was not IN fault. The damage
incurred by the Chelsea but whether she is
responsible, depends on another inquiry Was the
collision the result Of inevitable accident, or the
force Of the tide, without any want OF skill, or
Encouragement on the part of the master of the
Chelsea If so, then there can be no claim for
damage in this case. This is the principal inquiry,
and in order to dispose Of tins question satisfac-
tOry, Il will be necessary to recur TO the position
OF the Chelsea before she weighed her anchor, to
the state of the tide and current, the knowledge
of their power upon vessel at its full strength,
and then the maneuveriDg Of the Chelsea up to
the time of the collision. The Chelsea was
at anchor in the Wallab0ut Bay, with the
schooner Louisa made fast upon her starboard
side; she was destined with her tlw down East
River 10 pier No. 9. The master Of the Chelsea
was an experienced pilot, sccu toned TO p,lotage
on the East River and must be presumed to know
the course and power Of the tides and currents in
the immediate vicinity OF his steamb rat. And
the Court is not lett IN doubt as To this knowledge,
because, in the answer it allegej and sustained
by the oath Of the party. that at the time the
tide was running strong flood, and from the forna-
ton of the docks there, setting vessels bound up
the river into where the On-Ota lay" On this
point, the evidence stands uncOntradicted that
the Chelst a lett her mOOrngs ut about IL OF ock
at noon, at flood tide, with her heavy tow her
staboaId side, and pushed into this strong Hood
tide running up the East River; aud heading the
Chelsea down the river this strong flood tide
stuck her bows, and sheared her up the river in
spite of her stesm and helm hove hard 60 star
board. FIOm The knowledge which every skilllul
pilot should possess of these Influences Il must be
dee mtd impmdent and unskilliul IN the master Of
the Chelsea to have left her uIoorngs at that time
and IN that state of the tide, particularly with 80
Ia l,tnr Hal AT hare na.
came manageable. SOunc Judgment should have
dictated much safer course IN waiting for change
of tide, or If adopting the other alternative Of
gett ng mp u steam and Roadway before throw
iDe his boat into this strOI food tide Then il il
quite evident that the Lonsa should have been
taken IN tow on the laIb0afd side Of the Chelsea,
where the tide would have had much less power
Up0u her, driving both ont Of their course. The
next error committed by the Chelsea was ia t.
tempting TO wear around, by put, bis wheel
port affer coming INTO the strong food tile, set
ting HIS boat up the river. A much more safe add
iudlcous movement should have been ordered by
the master Of the Chelsea, and thar was to have
steered his boat up the river until she could have
reached easy point In the river, where he might
have wore ship TO the larbOard. Hal this been
adopted the master would have found sufficient
Roadway on his boat 10 have regained his intended
course in the direction of pier No. Q. But this
not done, and the master Of the Chelsea
ported bis wheel 10 wear round To regain his in
tended course down the river. He assigns as a
reason for this maneuyer, that he might have run
foul Of the end OF the long pier and injured, and
perhaps SUNK his own boat. This was an INSULT
cient reasOni first, because, by any prup-r skill,
the Cnelsea M ght have been carried up the river
past the pier; and II his wheel had been kept hard
a.stslbcsrd She would nave gone clear, with very
little loss Of time and second, the reason in
sufficient, because no man has right 10 destroy
bis ntightors property IN saving his own. it is
not only illegal, but immoral, TO avoid i'm
pending dsaster, and throw it upon another.
Suppose the Chelsea had, IN that critical mo-
ment, yielded to thislaw of morality and permit
herself to run foul Of the pier when, according TO
to tbfconvctious Of her master, this was ineylts-
bic, whut would have been the consequences
The Oneota would have been saved, aud the
Chelsea would have received the damage. IL is
believed that such result might have been quite