The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-03-21
QUESTION OF SPEED
Capt. Parker Will Appeal to
Supervising Inspector.
Ne HAS DONE SOME FIGURING.
Calculates His Best was 0olDg Sixty
Milss N Houf According -
the Evldeaco.

Can't. q. II. Parker. of the steamer State
Of Washington. whose license as pilot and
master Of steam vessels was suspended for
fifty-four days by an order of the United
States local inspectors, - . result OF the
sinking Of the tug Mystic. will appeal the
case to the supervising inspector at San
Francisco. He thinks he is done an in
Justice by the decision of the inspectors,
and when seen yesterday made the follow
ing statement regarding the matter:
The findings Of the board Of local Inspection
are not in accordance with the evidences, even
putting the worst construction upon this state
ments made By those on board Of the State Of
Washington ana considering the statements
from those on the Mystic in the most favorable
light The inspectors nnd:
First-.That the Mystic was feeling her way
along under slow bell and heard the signal
from the State OF Warrington when her lines
were cast Oh from the City dock" The mate Of
the Mystic admits in his evidence that they
heard the State signal to cast Cd her lines at the
dock At the same time that the tug dropped her
TOW ct foot OF Depot street: aud the captain
and engineer Of the tug admit that after drop
ping the TOW they came up the bay under .
Jingle bell Gull speed for . space OF seven
mfnutea
sscond-"That the state OF Washington was
running at full speed" at the time Of the col.
lision.
Tbsrs was no evidence introduced that showed
the State TO b forging ahead At full speed. All
the evidence 10 to the contrary. excepting that
Of the master and mate of the tug, who simply
guessed ut the speed, having no possible way OF
ascertsining ct what speed the State was rum
ming, the weather being unusually thick and
they not even seeing the state until she was
within 80 feet of the tug. Then, they say. she
piled up on thsm In two seconds II you will
stop to compute you will eco that l50 feet in two
seconds to $500 feet in . minute, almost sixty
miles an hour.
We were running about eight miles an hour:
the distance we ran from tho time OF getting
under way abreast OF the city dock until the
time Of the collision abreast of the Schwabacher
wharf shows our speed to have been less than
eight miles an hour. As the usual time the
State makes Is fifteen miles an hour, certainly
at less speed than eight miles an hour we were
keeping within the limit OF rule q. We were
going at . moderate speed" and ''slackened"
our speed when we ascertained a vessel was ap.
preaching US, - required by law.
The tug dropped her tow and squared away
for her run up the bag just before they heard
che State signal TO cast Of lines 1t the city dock
80 their mate testified. And by the time tho
two vessels had come together Of Schwabach.
cr's wharf the State had travelled q distance Of
half mile along the water front, going north
erly, snd the Mystic had travelled one mile and
IN eighth. going southsriy-oyer twice ~ far in
the same length OF time.
This proves conciusively, beyond any cues.
ton. that the State had never gained full speed
before the collision. and that the Mystic,
through with her days work and her crew
anxious to get ashore, was racing up the bay at
IN unusual rate OF speed.
Third-"Thss there was not proper lookout
on the State
As to lookouts there was no evidence what
ever introduced at the hearing touching upon
that question 90 far a. the State was con-
cerncd: while the socalled lookout on the tug
testified that he was the cook. was on the look
out and had been engaged In coiling the haw-
ser dropped by the tow, on the after end OF the
tug: had Just walked forward and had not been
forward minute when he saw the lights Of the
state aud that the collision came two seconds
which TO base finding that the State was with
out . proper pilot
The ruling Of the local board IL that my Ii.
censs a. master and pilot b suspended "for vio-
lation Of rule q OF section l,2ss Revised stat.
utes OF the United States, and for negligence
and unskiilfuluess."
The statement given above certainly shows
she injustice OF the arst conclusion--'for VIOLA
ton OF rule Il
As TO the second conclusion, negligence and
unskfllfulness." only 20 far they find that tho
State was running in fog under full head OF
steam do they find mo guilty OF unskiilfulnsss
aud negligence There il not . word or q sylla.
BILE In the entire proceedings which in the re-
hottest degree touches upon any other alleged
negligence or unskillfuiness on my part
The reason remained on the hurricane deck
after We struck the tug was because, seeing two
masthead lights On the Mystic, / had to believe
she had ship IN tow, and, fearing q second col
ltsion with the tow would Immediately follow,
remained above and sent my mate below to look
after the crew OF the tug, who had been preci pi-
tsted into thu water. The Mystic, not having
Sow. violated tie law In carrying two masthead
lights and was liable TO fine of s2n
Under section AS. Revised Statutes of the
United states. shall appeal from the findings.
conclusions aud order OF the local board TO the
supervising inspector ~ San Francisco AID ex-
psct 70 DO fully exonerated In the matter.
The report that Capt. W. J. Bryant. local
inspector of hulis, owned portion of the
tug Mystic is fatty denied by that gentle
man. The report was started, he said. to
weaken the decision of the inspectors, " no
found the State of Washington's officers to
blame for the accident. Capt Bryant saws
he is not allowed to have any interest W hat
ever in shipping of any kind. The Mystic.
he says. was owned two-thirds by Morri-
con 4 Mckenzie and one-third by J. c.
Lockwood, OF the San Francisco Bridge
Company.