The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-03-27
DECISION OF JUDGE GILES IN THE U.
DISTRICT CDI-RT

In the case of the "Owners of the schooner Wm
A. Perrin against the steamer Louisiana and Geo.
W. Russell, her captain, growing out of collision
on the Chesapeake bay, on the night of the Goth
February last Judge Giles, after recapitulating the
evidence, delivered few days since the following
opinion, which ofgeneral interest to the owners of
steamboats, and sailing vessels:
| have thus given a brief outline of the allega-
tons and testimony either side and as it fire.
quenty occurs in collision cases, there is a conflict
as to the most important points in the case. But
am left, without the advice and information of ex-
perienced nautical men to ascertain who was in
fault on this occasion. This information from old
and experienced shipmasers is always within reach
of the Judges in the High Court of Admiralty in
England, and who sit in that Court as the Trinity
Masters. But in determining this question have to
guide me, the rules of navigation which have been
recognized throughout the commercial world and
have been sanctioned and adopted by the Supreme
Court. The first and one of the most important of
these rules of navigation Gin reference to the large
increase of vessels propelled by steam) is, that,
when meeting a sailing vessel whether close hauled
or with the wind free, the latter has right to keep
her course, and it is the duty of the steamer to
adopt such precautions as will avoid her. (see st.
John rs. Paine and others, 10 Howard 5S3;) and
that although Just before collision the master of
sailing vessel may have given order execu-
ted change in the course of his vessel which was
not judcious, yet this does not excuse the steamer
because it had the power to have passed at a safer
distance, and had no right to place a sailing vessel
in such jeopardy, that the error of moment might
cause her destruction. See the case of the Gene
see Chief, II Howard 461. Another of these rules
is, that when the vessels, either steam sailing YES
sells, approaching each other in parallel nearly
parallel lines opposite tacks each vessel must,
if there be danger of a collision, port her helm
and pass on the larboard side of the other and
that this rule prevails when a steamer is meeting
sailing vessel in all except where the sailing
vessel is so far on the starboard bow of the steam
or OF tic nbc lnfo
tend to bring about a collision, by causing the
steamer to cross the bow of the sailing vessel See
the case of the Rose, VIM. Robinson a; Wheeler
cs. Steamer Eastern State, Curtis l44; Steamer
Oregon Rocca and others, Is Howard 572; St
John vs.-,l0 Howard 584.
Now in this case, it is by no clear from the
evidence that if the schooners course had not been
changed few seconds before the collision, that it
would not have taken place. | think, therefore,
that the steamer was wrong, when she had such
wide water around her, in running in close to the
schooner, that if she had not changed her course,
the steamer must have passed within a hundred
yards of her-if not over her two of the wit
nesses believed. | think the steamer was also
wrong in attempting to pass to the west or on the
starboard side of the schooner for although it may
be as the pilot Ward testified, that the schooner was
p or | point on the starboard bow of the steamer,
yet the steamer should have ported her helm and
passed the larboard side of the schooner. For if
this rule of navigation be strictly enforced and gen
orally acted on, every vessel can govern itself ac-
disastrous collisions may be avoided think, also,
there gross want of skill, and proper caution
on the part of Miles, who was at the helm of the
schooner at the time of the collision. According to
his own testimony, he the steamer acesting
on him to use his own language) and he knew that
her speed than double that of the schoon-
er, and when within hundred yards of the steam
er, he attempted to 90 to west of her, instead of
putting her helm up and going to the east, which
according to Corrie's testimony should have been
done and would have avoided the collision; and this
too after COrrie, who in the look out the
schooner had called to him to put his helm up
This then makes a of mutual fault, and | shall
divide the loss, the Supreme Court did in the
cases of the schooner Catharine n. Dickinson, II
| Howard 49, Rogers and Others as. Steamer St
Charles 10 Howard los.
Before passing from this case l would remark,
| that if this collision had occurred without the
schooner having been seen by persons on board the
steamer until it was too late to avoid it, it would
have been my duty to have decided the case against
| the steamer without enquiring into any other cir
cumstances of the collision. And for the reason,
that on the night in question, the steamer had no
proper look out; for the pilot Ward, testified that
| he was the lookout. And the Supreme Court have
again and a. an decided that lookout must be one
exclusively empioyed in ,rdtchiHg the moUemens Of
sets which they meeting or about to pass and
must have for the time other occupation Or
duty See ~ Howard 462 10 ditto, 5S5 and lS ditto
| 225 | am surprised, that this steamer, that has
| been so well managed in all that pertains to the
comfort and convenience of her passengers and has
| gained so large share If the public confidence
should be found running this occasion without
| such a lookout on deck.