Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-03-06

OuC uCCukcu Vi 10 pAcouAC4 W W
nocent until his guilt Is established by
proof.
have heretofore called your attention
70 Ibe rules of criminal law applicable in
this case, and il now becomes my duty to
Copstrae the rules and regulations for the
government of pilots Of steamers navigst-
ing the rivers flowing into the Gulf Of
Mexico and their tributaries These rules
are authorized by an act of Congress, and
Inspectors, June /, 1871; and as amended
in 1880, were in force on the 4th day of
July, 1852, when the collision occurred.
Since their adoption they furnish the par.
amount rules for pilots in guiding and
steering steamers on the rivers flowing into
the Gulf Of Mexico.
Under rule first, it is the
DUTY OF TEX DESCENDING BoAr,
when the steamers are approaching each
other, to give the signal for PASSING indl-
eating on which side she will pass the IS
cendiDg boat and when such signal is
given il is the duty of the ascending boat
10 promptly answer and accept such signal
so given, which, being done, becomes an
understanding between the pilots OF the
TWO steamers as to the course each steamer
will take 10 avoid collision in passing
This rule was binding on the pilots Of both
boats at the time the Tomas blew her first
aid it ives their duty to obey it. Neither
VI them shoald have disregsrded it. unless
t ere was at the time such imminent danger
Of collision that to accept it, would tend TO
increase that danger.
Ii is conceded fact in this case that the
signal was given by tie Tomas blowing one
O.sst of her stesm whistle, indicating that
she desired TO pass TO the right OF the
Scioto, and that the pilot of the Scioto re-
piled with two whistles. Under this rule
IL was clearly lhe duty of the pilot of the
Scioto 10 accep: promptly the signal siven
by the Lomas, il in his power to do so.
Ibis was his plain duty, and he had no
right 10 disrey gard ii so as to change aud
cross the whistle" If he could not accept
the signal of the Tomas without imminent
Danger 10 bis boat from collision or other
wise, he should have stopped, and il neces.
sary backed her, and waited until he had
sIriyed at an understanding with the Lo-
mas. Ordinary prudence demanded this
much from 8p officer in his position, and
II lie FAILED TO DO THIS,
he neglected to pursue the course that
ordinary care and prudence would require
him to do. o. II you should reach the con-
CusiOn that this action of the pilot OF the
Sciolo in replying with two whistles in
stead Of enc produced confusion between
tie pilots, which contributed to or pro
Guced the collision, there can be
no escape from the conclusion that
not to have done, but he omitted to do
vi at be should have doae. But if You
i ould find that the SCio.o was in suc1 q
p, sition without fault of her pilot, when
tie Lomss blew her whistle, that it was
i her too dangerous or too late to accept
with safety the signal so given by the Lo-
mas, and that collision was so imminent as
10 be unavoidable then you would be jns-
,iiied in excusing the defendant. Uader
ibis rule this is the only excuse the de-
f. ndsnt can offer to justify his conduct. IT
therefore you iird from the evidence that
Il re wss no contingency such as | have
lust referred to, it was his duty to accept
the signal az given to pass to the right OF
the Tomas If he could thereby avoid cJl
liSion. Otherwise he should have resortsd
10 all the mean. in his power to prevent
IL.
Under rule second, he first clause pro-
viz es v here two steamers are likely %
pp,s near each other and the proper signals
have not been made end answered by tie
lme they hsve arrived at a distance OF
IL BIT hundred yards of each other, the en-
gIes Of both boats should be stopped.
Applying this rule it was the duty OF the
Scioto
IF THE Tomas HAD GIVEN No SIGNAL
y lie lime they arrived a. tagt distance
10 stup her engines aid Geek her Roadway.
It becomes then & pertinent Inquiry TO as
CO. tain whether this was done, and was
the rule complied with. IL it was, and
still TIE collision coali net have been
avoided, then 30 far as this defendant was
Puilby of neglect of duty under the first
clause of this rule he wo1'd be excused
But if an observance OF the rule on his
part would have prevented the collision,
then il wss his duty to comp y with it and
stop the engines of his boat until a proper
understanding was had with the Lomas as
to the course each boat would pursue in
passing and failure to do so was
culpabe neglect OF duty GU his part which
would be inexcusable. Under the second
clause of this rule, il ths two boats had ar
rived at a distance less thau eight hundred
yards from each sther, aud no proper sig-
nails had been given AID answered, or if
gwen, not properly understood, il was the
DUTY OF the pilot of the SciU'C TO stop the
erpines of his boat and ba'k her NATL her
h-;dwsy was fully checked, ard not to
start his boat aheadssgsin until the proper
sit nails had been male, answered. and un-
d'rstOOd You will perceive shat this
Il; use of the rule requires the pill 1t to stop
his boat as DON as he arrives inside the |
eight hundred yards, the distance fixed by
the rule. If the evidence should satisfy you
that this was not done, then clearly this is
Il violation of the rule which was obligatory
OF him end which it was his duty TO OBJ.
serve. 1t is for you TO decide whether
such are the facts and whether il the rule
had tLen been observed in all its parts,
this COLLISION would have been avoided by
stopping the engines OF his boats and
Oh ecking her headway. 1t was his plain
duty to do so, and a failure to do it was q
GU psble neglect of duty.
Under rule four,
+ THE sCIoTo WAS RUNNING CLOSE on THE
SHORE
at that time the Tomas had come so near
that il was possible Tor collision to en-.
ste then the Sciote would not have been
Justified in crossing the river in front of
q Tomas, This rule, Of course, must be
20, strued with rule one; and it is intend
- to prevent the descending boat from re-
OF hing the ascending boat unnecessarily
70 cross the river; and at the same time to
blibit her from crossing in front of the
s,Cending boat. But il the jury should
rtGch the conclusion that when the Tomas
BE " one VIII site she was either on line
shh or to the left of the Scioto, and that
when she replied with two whistles they
continued the same course towards each
other until the collision occurred then
rule four has no application to the facts OF
this case. You will, however, apply this
rule TO the facts and determine whether
these boats bore such a relation to each
OF er as this rule Contemplates.
In this case the defendant
IS RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE
and inattention to duty and not to that OF
auy other. You are to pass upon the
charges as stated in the indictment against
him and it is a matter of no importance so
fer as this trial is concerned whether the
pilot Of the Tomas was guilty or not guilty
of contributing to the collision. Both
may be guilty, or one may be guilty and
the other innocent. And in this connec-
ton it is to be remembered that any
wrongful act of the pilot Of the Lomas
does not justify this defendant for ne
elect of duty; and the fact that the pilot OF
the Tomas accepted the cross signal given
by the pilot of the Scieto in replying with
tw blasts is no justification for the action
of the defendant in this case and doss not
relieve him from the consequences of or
Justify bis act in refusing 10 accept the
firt signal given by the pilot of the Tomas.
4 4 L. al Al AL. 4