Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-12-30
THE LAW OF THE RIVER.
NAvIGATIoN or Tue JAMES.

navigating the James river above City
| Point:
Diedrich Koch, Master Of the German
Brig Bonito. rs. The Schooner Anne Il.
y0ltniine. In Admiralty; in Cause OF
Collision.
Ascending vessels about 10 meet descending ves-
eels in that part Of James river above City Point
must steer close to one or the other edge OF the
| cba' nei. aud leave much oon 10 the descend
Ing vessels meeting them as practicable.
When IL Is not clearly proved that an ascending
vessel has thus given room 20 vessel meeting her
and a collision occurs, damages viii not he award
ed 10 the ascending vessel.
Meredith & Cooke. proctors for libelant.
W. W. b. T. Crump, proctors for re-
| spondents.
Opinion by Judge Hughes.
The collision under investigation hap
pened IN James river Just below the mouth
| OF Almond creek, which Is little below
the wbaryes Of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company. Although the river
| there Is wide, the channel is not more than
two hundred feet between the buoys. Nor
| Is II certain that the chlnnel is uniformly
deep: for II it, condition there is as in
| other paris OF the river above City Point,
| although the chart may show a plenty OF
| water, yet vessels drawing over ten feet
Often find themselves touching the bottom
\ at unexpected times in unexpected places.
! This happens more frequently after the
| spring ireshets than at other seasons.
The collision under consideration oc.
! cured asou; Q O'Clock on the night Of the
30th April, 1884 It was IA clear night. A
new moon was shining. The tide was in
| ebb. There was tow coming up the river.
drawn by the tug Frank Sommers, with a
small tug, the Petersburg, in front OF her
helping. They had three vessels in tow
namely, the brig Bonito, OF 223 regis
tered tons. with % feet breadth OF beam,
drawing nine feet three inches of water /;
the schooner GaskilI, about as large. but
broader in beam; and small schooner in
| the rear Of the Gaskill.
The tug Ajax was going down the river,
| having the schooner Ann +. Valentine IN
! tow. The Valentine drew ten feet eight
inches Of water, and was loaded. Her
breadth Of beam was thrty-two feet.
The two tugs duly signalled each other
| in approaching to pass to the right. A the
Valentine was passing down, and
when between the Sommers and the
Bonito, she took "A sheer to port and
soon came in collision with the
/ Bonito. The hulls OF the two vessels do
not seem TO have come in contact. Just
| before coming abreast the Valentine seems
/ to have righted herself from tue sheer she
/ bad taken sufficiently 10 have cleared the
BoDito. She would have cleared, but for
| the fact that her port anchor which pro-
! jcCted considerably beyond the bow, caught
in the forward rigging Of the BonIto, just
| above her port buwarks. The result was
that the buwarks OF the Bonito were torn
away from the tOpmast blchstays down u
aud fhaf fr,o1 ,looI Of "a
was done, Chiefly on deck and above decks.
| (see Captain koch's answer to the
twentieth question in chief; The
damage claimed is about Sl.3OO. | am to
say, from the evidence. whether the Bonlto
or the Valentine was in fault on the occl-
sion.
II the Sommers was steering close 10 the
northern edge Of the channel, and Il each
Of the vessels which she had in tow was IN
line with her. and close on the same side OF
the channel. there was no fault on their
part. The question i'm this case i whether
or not the Bonito was reasonably close TO
the northern side Of the channel at the
time OF the collision.
The lar OF navigation. prescribed under
the sanction OF congressional statute, for
the western rivers, Is. that when two boats
meet in the narrow channel Of a river it
shall be the duty of the pilot of the ascend
ing boat to make the proper signals. and,
when answered by the descending boat, to
he az close as possible 10 the side Of the
channel: and that the descending pilot
shall cause his boat TO be worked slowly
until be has passed the ascending boat.
We have no positive ldlo OF similar
purport prescribed for the naviga-
tiOn OF our eastern rivers, but rca-
son and prudence, equally on these
as on western rivers. require the ascending
boat TO give the way i'm a narrow channel
to the one descending. and courts OF ad-
miralty are obliged in their rulings 10 in
sist that this shall be done.
In the case at bar the tide was going out,
and the natural down-fiOw Of the james
river very materially increased the cur
rent. \ vessel going down stream on a
strong current i very little under the in
fluence Of her helm, and Is liable to
take " >hCerS," not only in shallow
places, but under the action Of cross
or "switch" currents, winch can
not be known or foreseen by the pilot.
The ascending boat, on the other hand, IS
obcdient to her helm. especially when I'M
der the tow OF "A tug, and she can choose
her course with toIerable precision and
certainty. Ii Is consequently her duty TO
leave as much Of the channel a. practicable
10 the descending vessel.
In the present case the Valentine was en-
titled TO as wide a breadth Of channel as
could conveniently be allowed her by the
up-coming vessels which she was 10 pass.
The real question to be passed upon Is,
therefore, whether or not the BOnlto gave
TO the descending vessels all the room which
was not needed for her own safe ard cOnye-
nient navigation.
The tug Sommers i proved 70 have been
a. near TO the buOys on the north Of the
channel as she could or ought to have been.
The GaSkell Is also proved to have been
we'll up 20 the northern edge Of the channel,
and steering after the SOmmers. But the
evidence in regard 10 the position OF the
Bonito, which came between the SOmmerS
and the Gaskil in the tow, il conflicting.
II there was none but the testimony OF the
respective crews Of the two colliding yes-
sells in this case il would be impossible TO
arrive at the truth Of the matter with any
judicial certainty. The two sets OF wiz
nesSes contradict each other at every point.
We can get at the truth. if al all, only
from other testimony, and from such cir
cumstances as appear 10 bear upon the
point at issue.
OF all tfe witnesses, not OF either
colidng vessel, who testified. the
one most competent TO testify As
to the position Of the Bonito just before and
at the time Of the accident. was Captain
GaSkill, OF the schooner Gaskill. which was
next IN rear Of the Bonito in the same tow.
He testfies, with iteration and emphasis,
that in steering his own vessel by the lights
OF the tug Sommers he could see these
lights to the starboard (or the shore side
OF the Bonito. This brig was but partially
loaded and stood high out OF the water,
and would have obscured the lights OF the
tug IL she had been in line with helm
aport, as close as the tug and the Gaskill
were to the edge OF the channel. captain
GaskilI expressly says that fearing his
helmsman was steering by the brig and not
by the tug, he took the wheel himself and
put his vessel after the Sommers. He
would not say how far of TO port in the
channel tue BOnito was; but be was per-
sistent in saying that she was of far enough
10 allow Of his steering by the lights OF the
tug, seen to the starboard OF the Borito.
IL is also proved that. after the coll-
sion. the Ajax Immediately slipped her
hawser. and that the Sommers did not do
%; but continued to pull on hers. She
thus prevented the BOnito from moving
farther towards the southern edge OF the
channel than when the accident occurred.