Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-09-03

BLINDNESS, But BAD MANAGEMENT THE ScHooN-
ER-SUGGESTIONS AS TO DEFECTIVE VISION OF
NAVAL OFFICERS, ETC.
"1s there any probability that the loss of the Tai
lapoosa will be traced color blindness on the part
OF her oficers?" asked STAR reporter OF q we'll
known naval officer to-day.
81 don't think there Is the slightest" was the
reply.
"Why was the court Of inquiry instructed to in
clude that subject In their investigation of the &C
cident?" Quered the reporter,
"Well, on general principles, I suppose. You see
a great deal OF attention is being given to color
blindness nowadays, and as suspicious were
been an important factor in the late accident, 1t
was thought advisable naturally to look into the
matter to allow nothing TO pass which might after
wards appear to have been Important"
"But you think when the matter is investigated
do with the collision
"IeS am pretty sure OF It.
THE COLLISION WAS CAUSED BY BAD MANAGEMENT,
as near as can judge from the statements of the
oHicers OF both vessels, and must say it was on
the part Of the schooner. All the men on the
schooner agree that the red light of the Taapoosa
was first seen and then the green light. Now, that
shows that the Tallapoosa was changing her course
and going to the StarboaTd OF the schooner. The
latter had the right OF way and She had kept her
course there would have been no collision, as the
TalapooSa would have passed to her Starboard.
Instead OF that, however, the schooner must have
then She struck the Tallapoosa. Everybody, on
Doth vessels agrees to all OF the above except
the luffing The captain OF the schooner says that
the helm wasn't touched. But he must be mis-
taken, for If the helm hadn't been put hard down
she wouldn't have luffed, and IL She hadn't luffed
there would have been no collision. But whatever
Is the verdict OF the court am pretty sure there
will be no color blindness in it,
"During your long and continued active service
causing an accfdent?" asked The STAR man.
NO didn't IT, was the reply. 'There are men in
the service though who are color blind and an ac-
clQenI Is liable TO happen OF it. but there
are not nearly so many casualties which can be at
trlouted to that cause as is generally supposed.
man, although color blind, may sometimes be able
to distinguish red from green light. cannot
explain 1t, but there is
SOME MECHANICAL FACULTIES,
which enables him to do iU. l know OF one such
instance. passenger conductor ON one OF the
railroads. after twenty-five years. SERVICE was re-
moved from that position for color blindness and
placed at clerical work. He felt very sore over it.
and maintained that it was unjust as he was not
color blind. As a favor he was examined at the
Navy department., and showed one OF the worst
cases OF color blindness ever saw, and yet do you
know that that man could distinguish red from
is no doubt about it, however. No man ought to
be allowed in the navy officer who is affiicted
with color blindness. and further than that.
A NEAR-SIGHTED OFFICER
who he's to wear glasses ought not to be allowed.
watch officer with glasses On rainy night is at
great disadvantage The water is bound to get in
on his glasses and obstruct his sight, and too If he
should drop them in the dark where would he be?
1t is mistake to suppose though, as many do that
precautions are not taken 10 prevent the admission
into the service OF color blind cadets" continued
the officer. ''YOu know that several youngsters
had TO send in their designations last year because
OF color blindness. They are great deal stricJer
In that respect now than they used to be-"
THE LOSS OF THE ONEIDA.
81 see It stated" said the reporte- s'that the
Onsida was lost in the Chinese seas some twenty
years ago account OF the color blindness of the
commanding officer, who is still in the service"
"ThatS mistake, the officer referred to has
been gut OF the navy for year, and the loss of
the Oneida was not due to color blindness, but to
mismanagement at the helm"