The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-11-16

sets duty to keep out Of the way.
When steamer approaches 5
sailing vessel, the steamer Is required
10 exercise the necessary precautions
20 avoid collision: and If this be not
be done, prin5 .fseS<. the steamer Is
chargeable with fault
The steamer Oregon vs. Roccs Is
Howard. so.
. But counsel for the Dowseti
claim thst Ii was the maneuver Of
the schooner II putting her helm ID
al the critical moment that caused
the collision. An array Of seafaring
men gave testimony as nautical e1-
+ perts- Most OF them sgree IN say
ing that IN the position stated they
would hsve put the schooneris helm
do1rE which would throw her bow I'D
into the wind towards the "DoHsett
and her stern away from her, and ii
Is strongly urged upon me that the
schooner should not have changed
her course at all and as she did. this
occaSoned the collision. OF such de-
fences the Supreme Court Of the
United States IN Haney vs.. Baltimore
Steam Packet Co. 3 How. 291 use
this language. This Is the stereo-
typed excuse usually resorted to for
the purpose Of justifying a careless
collision Ii Is usually improbable
and generally false"
Il Is due 70 some Of the experts 10
say that they modified their testimony
by stating that the bearing OF the
steamer coming down on to schoon
er would make difference and would
determine the propriety Of the ms
neuYeT. II the steamer was hesding
towards the schooner's bow and their
distance apart was slight and their
speed great, putting the schooners
head mp into the wind might cause
the impact Of the vessels 10 be bows
on. or bow and midships. when the
damage would be greater and per
haps sink both vessels. Captain Sta
pies says his opinion was that If he
had brought his bow Up. the Dow
sen would have struck his vessel
about midships As il was be es-
capped collision by about SIX feet AL
experts agree that the schooner's ma
neuver changed the position OF her
stern N respect to the ~Dowsett
but slightly.
Such being the fact 1 adopt the
reasoning and conclusions Of the Su-
preme Court OF the United States in
the following cases:
y. \. Il Liverpool [. s. Mail 5. 5.
Co vs Runban; n Howard 3T2.
In collision between G sailing
vessel and a steamer. which took
place al sea, near the shore OF Long
Island, where the course of the sail
ing vessel was conyerging to the
track Of the steamer. the sailing yes
SCI being then close hauled upon the
wind. the evidence shows that the
steamer was IN fault. The Court say:
Rules Of navigation are obligatory
upon vessels approaching each other,
rom the time the necessity for pre-
caution begins, and continue to be
applicable 50 long as the means and
opportunity 70 avoid the danger re-
main They do not apply to vessel
required TO keep her course. after the
Is so near that the collision
Is inevitable, and are equally inappE-
cable 10 vessels OF every description.
while they are yet so distant from
each other that measures OF precau-
ton have not become necessary to
avoid 3 collision Sailing vessels ap-
preaching q steamer are required to
keep their course on account Of the
eOuelative duty which Is devolyed
upon the steamer TO keep out Of the
way. u order that the steamer may
know the position Of the object to be
avoided, and may not be ledinto error
N her endeayOT 70 comply with The /
Under the rule that /
the steamer must keep out Of the /
way. she must Of necessity determine I.
for karself and upon her own respon-
slhihty Independently Of the sailing
vessel whether It Is safer TO go to the |
right Or left, or to stop
In The Falcon. 10 Wallace. IS: 4 /
steamer running at the rate Of from /
eight TO ten knots an hour. on bright 4
night. in an open bay with F.
to mislead her, condemned /
for the loss Of q schooner. sailing 4
with a SIX knot breeze. whose only /
fault was alleged to be false man /
auyre II the moment OF impending 4
collision The answer Of the steamer
alleged that the collision was caused 4
by the fault Of the vessel in porting
her helm and coming suddenly under
the bow Of the steamer when it was
too late for the latter TO avoid her. (!
The Court say:
The steamer was grossly IN fault
IN approaching so near the schooner 4
and at 50 high a rate of speed. I
This was the cause of the disaster
that followed The fault imputed TO /
the schooner IS that almost at the 4
Of collision, she ported her
helm Ii the fact were as
claimed Ii would not mitigate the
fault OF the steamer. The peril was
immediately impending. The safety
Of the vessel and the lives Of the crew 4