The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-11-09
fEuRExBArcH,s Plat.
Full Text OF tho 'ntclaI0n Which Pro. |
U. -.-.L XNkeA No n uch Talk. IVY

|, vOkes 80 Much TaIit.., 4;
We gave In yesterdays issue the subs.anc,
Of The decision OF Supervising Inspector
Fehrenba.ch restoring The papers Of David @
Keller as n master and pilot Of the first cln,s
but as the paper ia Of peculiar local intere,
we to-day givsit In full. A rood deal hal
been said |. on both sides OF III,
subject, aud f the Cincinnati TIME,
!ssar comes to the rescue with the remark thai
''tbls may be regarded as Just decision.
large majority Of Upper Ohio river lteam
boattuen endorsed Pilot Keller Ia Ills uet
tion to the Supervising Inspector, and Il
seems reasonable that 10 should have HI,
license back. In justice 10 Mr.. Fehreubatch
however, welshonld State that his decision
was influenced altogether by the testimony
presented 10 him and not by my outside pres
sure."t EN- 80 4 y "a A %I,g
U. 8. SUPERVISING Ixspkcron's OsytcE %
SEVENTH DlsrRicr, CiNclEsA1t, Nov. I, ~. y,
lieav. Hiram Young dad 7Aouias O. Wilson
IoeGi ldtretort 81. Seam Pesieis, l'2teimy,
lESHn"i l@ls L.he; IvN@ anl'
|, GxsTLkMxx-l AM In receipt Of your deci
sion In the Sci0lo and John I.omas collision
case, wherein you state thut you have "a.
voked the license OF David G. Keller, who
was the pilot on watch OIL tho Scioto ut the
time OF her collision with the John l.onias,
for violation Of the rules and regulations
governing pilots on rivers flowing into ,he
Gull Of Mexico, in that lie crossed The signal
Of the John Lou,as.
Pilot Keller appeals from your decision on
the grounds that It IL not Justified either by
the law or the evidence taken la the case,
have carefully examined the testimony, ana
! lind out OF the great mass but little which
Is not contradictory, but entirely tn accord.
ance with testimony usually given In COLI.
sion cases But what little do find enables
ne to arrive ut the following conclusion:
That the collision occurred on the Ohio
River, near place called Mingo Junction, a
short time after s O'Clock on the evening Of
July l. 1882, while the Scioto was ascending
and the John Lomas descending; that The
atmosphere was clear, nnd that the boa,s
could casily be seen at u distance OF 2OVO
yards; that the Sciot0, Il short distance above
Indian Cross Creek, o., headed for the Ohio
shore; that ut this time the John I.omas was
In the channel, fifty yards from and pusyi ~ a
small island called Mingo Arowhead, aI,ti
about 1900 yards from the scloto; that the
Scioto continued Der course until u distance
OF about 200 feet frolu the Ohio Shore. when
she. Strengthened up the river and begs1,
rounding the point; that the John Lot,tas left
the channel Of tile river and ran toward lie
point on the Ohio shore, and when distance
OF about 400 yards fronl. the Sctoto blew one
blast Of her steam whistle for the larboard
side Of tho scioto, orr hut part Of the river, ?O
feet, between the Scioto and the Ohio shor.
that after the l.onas had sounded one BIAS,
OF her steamS whistle the Rcioto answered
With, two blasts OF her steam whistle, where.
upon the Lohias replied with two biasts, in
dealing that the boats would pass TO tue rpht
or starboard side of each Other; that within a
few minutes AFTER the.lomas had answered
the cross signal Of the Scioto the collision oc.
curred.s !. ny (. q, =, ~. Va y d.
ltiaalso, in evidence that Immediately AZ.
ter crossing the Signal Of tie Tomas the bio.
OF the Scioto stopped his engines land bega n
testified that mot until lie had answered III q
cross signal Of. the Scioto did he stop bis en-.
gines and begin backing; that he backed his
engines, and continued to back until thecoi.
lision occurred. rHe also testified that The
backing Of his engine caused the stern OF his
boat TO incline toward tue Ohio shore on 40.
count Of the rrudder having been put to Tie
starboard. He admitted that the rudJer had
been put to- The starboard, but that be lid
not know what put the rudder.in that shane.
Notwithstanding be was ut The wheel at the
timer. siss evldentthat the rudder did moi
get in thai position ri its own ACCORD, hut it
proves conclusvely that one Of twn
things is true. The pilot OF the Lomas. after
he answered the cross signal of the Scioto, il
10 made IN effort TO pays 10 the left or sin r.
board side of the s0iolo, did not stop his en-.
gines but from the angle at which the Lomay
struck the Scioto bis engines must have been
working ahead. II he backed his boat, ~ be-
says he did, the angle at which the Tomas
s,fi!ck the Seioto proves conclusvely that he
did rot put hia ralder to the larboard, as be-
should have done In accordance with his n.
swer to the cross signal OF the Scioto.
l do not believe that there was any in,en.
ton on the part OF the Tomas to cause a col.
lis'on. but must say, from my knowledge
ot thu particulars IN this case, that bis mar
agement OF the Tomas Ut tho tipe Ysa, with,
out exception, the most buneling attempt At
the navigation OF a steamboat ever called Ia
my attention. From the manner In which
he navlgatea hls boat, 1t was, In my opinion
bsye pavigaled tue Scioto 50 rs to prevent Ina
I.omas from col!idlng with her. From the
testimony given In this case, be proved him.
sell utterly inrompetenta as pilot, aad he
should not have. been intrusted with the
steering Of u steamboat in that part Of the
river, as the evidence shows that he never
l l;l! naAs trip IS pilot in that part Of the
The proper place fora descending steamer
In that part OF the river Is In the channel or
in the bend near, the West Virginia shore.
and the proper place for an ascending steam.
erls the point side Of tho river, toward the
Ohio sh.re. That being the case, the ec;oto
was in her proper place, AMI from her uo,i.
ton in the river, her pilot had NO reasJp 10
suppose that any pilot on descendin ny
steamer Tonld undertake 10 do so foolish q
thing as to pttempt Ia paps between him and
the Ohio shore, When the chnnnel and band
were on Ills ytarboard, with depth Of not
less than fourteen feet OF water auywhere
between him and the West Virginia shore,aud
u width OF about 1000 feet OF river for de-
scending steamer to take instead of attempting
,io. psss between him and the Ohio shore
T T,, soo r9f ss, bo'Hk aRa In space Of
There is another point to be considered.
Notwithstanding the scioto was in her prop
eerpiaoe, aud the l.opas was entirely oft pi
her proper place, IL by any means il wa pos.
sib!e for the pilot Of the Scioto TO prevent or
avoid the collision. and he failed 10 do his
duty, should hold him responsible 10 the
extent Of his failure to avoid or prevent the
eepiAeHt. There is nothlpg in the evidence,
howeVer, 10 shnv THAT ltg did nat navigate
bis boat properly, NOR that lie is anything
but 0 tiTstelasy pilot. Ont contrary, tie
ey!denes shows inst he did ps;igsts BIZ bOet
properly, and that he IL competent u MI
well acquainted With the rules Of ia yIgati Oh.
On the other hand, the evidence shows TINT
the pilot Of the Tomas was only an "occa.
sionalpi,ot" and that he did not follow he
business for ;liyslihoo5, and Furthermore
that he was not a competent pilot.
10 your decision the oply point YOU moka
as4inst Pilot Keller Is, ".rhat he violated The
rules and Tegul4tlan1 governing nilois on
rivers whose waters Row Into tbs Gulf 81
Mexico, In that Jus you say he crossed the
signal Of the Lomus" must confess that
on, not aware Of the existence Of any such
law, rule or regulation hence, II there is no
such Iqw, rnleIAr regulation, and | concl rie
there ~ not, you preGeht nothing uhon which
hls lIeonue con beIeYoked. Your decision il
therefore. ret aside, pnd David G. Keller Il
hereby restored to bis former position az a a
first class pilot on Western rivers. ,lfs
IN Very respectfully,
I 8gGis r,s JOHN FEHaESIA1cu,
r. ~.