Year: 1859




Steamship Norlhe,ner. Judicial ] Dist,


Cross Libels. W. 7.


COLLISION.


The principal conclusions of law and
facts arrived at by the Court, from an ex-
animation Of the pleadings and testimony
In these causes


FIRsr. The NOrtherReT was in fault
that she had not sufficient lookout, or if
she had, he was negligent and inattentiVe
10 his duties.


The lookout on the Northerner saw the
light Of the ReSoLute some considerable
time before the collision, and from the time
be first saw aRd reported the light, to the
time Of the collision, no further attention
would seem to have been given to the sub
ject, until it was too late to prevent the
vessels from coming together.


SECOND. The Northerner was in fault /;
that on the approach of the vessels, when
they say they we're in doubt as to the char
acter Of the light, they did not exercise
proper vigilance to ascertain the character
and course Of the approaching vessel, which
subsequently proved to be the steam-tug
ReSOluts.


THIRD. The Norlherner was in fault in
not having a competent officer in charge Of
the deck at and Immediately before the
time Of the collision, instead of one whose
want Of qualification and skillfulnesS con-
tributed to the collision. 1t does not ap-
pear from the testimony that the party in
charge of the deck was ever an officer Of
the ship.


FOURTH. The NOrtherHer was in fault,
on discovering that the lights were ap-
preaching her, that her officer in charge Of
the deck did not seasonably and efectually
change the course Of the vessel, blow her
whistle, or slow or stop her engines, so as
to prevent collision.


These are tie usual and ordinary precau-
tions in cases of doubt or emergency to
prevent diasaster.


FIRST The ResOlute was in fault =
that she was not equipped with the lights
prescribed by the board Of Government In
spectors under the act Of Congress Of Aug.
both, 1852. The ResOLHts is not within the
exceptions provided for in said act,-she
was not only engaged in carrying freight,
but also passengers at the time Of the col
lisien. Considering the strong inclination
90 frequently manifested by the jurists who
preside over the several Admiralty courts,
as to the necessity Of proper observance
Of a system Of lights to prevent the sad dis
asters which have SO frequently occurred on
our waters; and this, too, in the absence Of
any law of Congress upon the subject, it is
too late now to ignere system established
by laws-sanctioned by experience, and so
necessary to the protection Of the lives and
property of our citizens.


The necessity for the observance of these
rules is quite as imperative upon vessels
navigating the waters of Puget Sound as
upon the high seas.


The lives and property Of our citizens
and the commerce Of Puget Sound, require
quite as imperatively the protection and
security Of salutary regulations as life and
property in other sections of the country,
aud we can see no reason why the naviga-
ton of these waters should constitute an
exception.


But the failure to show the lights re-
quired by law does not of itself throw the
entire responsibility upon the offending
party, when luS ObhCG NOootl was Ill IdulJ.


SECOND. The system Of lights establish
ed by the board Of Inspectors, in conform
ity with the act Of Congress, when read
and understood as they must and should be
by mariners, speaks language which, on
the exercise Of ordinary diligence, must
ever prevent collision. We think it
is therefore Incumbent on steam vessels
navigating the waters Of the Sound, in de-
faalt Of lights themselves as prescribed, to
be governed in their movements by the
movements Of the approaching vessel prop
erly equipped with lights, when the ap-
preaching vessel is controlled by reasona-
BILE skill and good seamanship.


We therefore think that the Resolute,
although not carrying the lights prescribed
by the Inspectors, should at least have
been governed by those lights,-while it is
evident that those in command Of the ResO-
tHtc did not even understand the signi6ca-
ton Of the lights The language Of lights
to them was an unknown language, al
though common to the seas for years. We
therefore think in this that the Resolute
was in fault, and saying this we do not
desire to be considered as rejecting upon
the character Of the parties in charge Of the