New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-24
THE VILE DU HdyRE DISASTER.

SUMMARY or THE REPORT or 1HE FRENCH CON-
MISSION or sHIPwRECks.
The French authorities who inquired INTO
the loss Vile du Havre we're Incorrectly s"'eu
10 be the French Admiralty Court The inquiry "as !"
reality made by the Commission OF sbpwrecks' Inc
report, winch made Dec. 30, IL signed ny 0ap'S'
Alquier and Bazille-Tama and by Vice Admiral Bose
THIS report 10 summing up the circumstances attending
the collision says;
The Loeb Earn Oh its side had the bright lights
of the long before had itself been perceived
The oaptain being informed, went deck, ana on ar
riyng gave orders u That order was not gwen lI
medatsy before the collision as capt hoperE auuS
that at the moment when he arrived The steamer,
which had at first been coming the starboard SIDE
changed her course and arrived TO arpoard ehueavS
proves that the order u not given at the very
memept collision fhe Commission has not thOught
necessary to pause assertion Of Capt Robertson
that the steamer hesitated IN its steering All the
evidence received from the Survivors or tne Ne au
Havre s unanimous declaring that the only order
gwen that OF oabord tout that to say to steer u
To larbOard. -.
The decree OF Oct 49, 1852, recognized and admitted
by all the maritime powers contains the foio" Ing
Art is. IL two vessels, one sailer and the Other
steamer, are proceeding III directions which eApose
into collision the steamer shall naheuvef
as 20 not impede the Of the other" In con
formity with that principle the officer OF the waeh on
the Vile du Havre steered, and, rightly trusting 10 the
speed OF his vessel having beside its sails spread
which might have rendered difficult ufing movement
ne kept her fun. That maneuver would have been
justified by success if the English vessel had not
changed its course Now the aforementioned decree
also says Art When, i'll consequence OF the pre-
cedng rules the vessels should steer 80 as
impede the other, the latter should continue on
its taking into account however, the feeefSa
tons mentioned III the following article"
The English vessel should. therefore, have continued
In keeping full il ran the risk OF "a col
sion. which did not menace it, and which was the more
from the greater speed acquired by the vessel
If IL had continued To keep closer 10 the wind Dol only
the collision would not have taken place, nut lad u
by possible Of Judgment on the part OF
the Vile Havre the English captain would still have
had before the wind and OF atteu
uatng danger the COLLISION of avoiding 1t en-
rey He could not do 80 after having began hls move
aback. such the reservations referred 10 at
the end Of Article H. and which permit captain 10 de-
part from fhe general rules OF navigation 10 avert an
Immediate danger.
The concluding paragraph OF the report s as follows
AS Capt Surmont, at his post the bridge he sank
his vessel and only owed ms safety 10 fortunate
chance IL his duty but II Is also his honor not ~
have failed doing The operation Of saving war
performed concert by the two French boats and three
from the Loeb Earn and the Commission Is pleased to
the zeal and deyotedness which tue English
captain and crew displayed saving life, and IN the
care they bestowed on the shipwrecked. To sum up
the Commission considers that the collision was caused
by the wrong steering Of the Bnglish vessel II fails
we'll the responsibility Of the terrible consequences
thereby entailed. The Committee Is OF opinion that
Capt. Surmont s completely free from blame and pro-
poses 10 return bls certificate 10 blm.