Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

blame? The questions put by the learned judge of the Admiralty Court are these: Was she to blame for want of a good look-out? Was she to blame in not having heard the Europa sooner; not sounding a horn, or any other neglect, or anything unseamanlike in any part of her conduct? "Now, the only part of the case in which there was any semblance of blame to be imputed to the Charles Bartlett was, the question of the alleged want of a sufficient look-out. On that point, all the evidence that there is, tends to show most strongly that there was a sufficient look-out; but undoubtedly there was considerable force in the observations pressed by Dr. Addams, that the party who probably best knows about what sort of a lookout there was has not been examined at all. That is a very fair and legitimate observation. We, however, have come very strongly to the opinion, on the evidence, that there was a good look-out, and what we might have done as to examining the man, if we had thought this was a material question, it is not necessary for us to decide; because we have all come to the conclusion, that whether there was a good look-out is quite immaterial to the case when we are of opinion that everything, whether there was a look-out or not, that could be done was done. We are clearly of opinion that the Charles Bartlett did everything which, under the circumstances, she was called upon to do; and that no look-out could have afforded the opportunity of doing

more.

"Now, the Charles Bartlett, it is to be observed, was under circumstances in which, according to the laws of navigation, she was entitled to keep her course. Of course, it will not be understood that their lordships mean to lay down any rule, varying as it would from rules laid down before, and which are analogous to rules about keeping the road, such as are frequent at common law. Their lordships do not mean to lay down the rule that a ship, though entitled to keep her course, is to do so when under special circumstances it is obvious it will lead to instead of avoiding accident. All these general rules must be held to be rules bending to circumstances, but, prima facie, a party entitled to keep his course has nothing else to do than keep his course. That was the position in which the Charles Bartlett was placed; she keeps her course, and, according to the evidence, she states that when the ship was at the distance of 300 or 400 yards she endeavors not to insist on her right, but endeavors to prevent the collision by getting out of the way, and doing everything that could be done, beyond what a party entitled to keep her course, perhaps, was bound to do. That being so, we can impute no blame to her; and we are of opinion, that if all the passengers and the crew had been engaged in looking-out, it could have made no difference at all.

"The same principle disposes of the point of whether she was not to blame in not having heard the Europa sooner. Now, on that subject we think, with reference to that, the circumstance that she was keeping her course is very important, because a ship keeping her course is only bound to go on and keep her course, not anticipating and watching that other persons are coming. If she had heard something was coming, she would have been entitled to consider that it would come so as not to do her damage. Therefore, it appears to their lordships that it is beyond the question, and is not worthy of attention.

"With regard to the noise on board their own ship, it is suggested there was dancing and a violin on deck, I do not think that is made out. It was below, and whether it was going on at that time is not made out, but the noise that is made out is the noise of coppering a rail. A ship that is lying her course in the middle of the day, if a rail requires coppering, is entitled to have it coppered. It is not pretended there was more noise than was necessary to copper the rail; therefore that could not be a matter of complaint on the part of the Europa. It is said, indeed, that the coppering of the rail took off the attention of one of the parties that ought to have been on the look-out, namely, the mate; and that he was not so engaged. But their lordships can pay no attention to that argument. The party looking out might in a certain sense do the coppering. His business in looking out was to walk with his eyes to the horizon; but that does not mean he is not to turn his eyes off and see what a man is doing. All these expressions, 'look-out,' are to be taken in the common sense. He might do that and look coppering the rail.

after the man

"On these grounds their lordships have come to the opinion that the accident was without default on the part of the Charles Bartlett, and was through the neglect of the Europa. The consequence will be that the appeal will be dismissed with costs. The other cases will follow that decision."

The foregoing decision has no doubt occasioned much surprise among our nautical readers, who would one and all agree that to stop any ship's way in her own length, let her be going at whatever rate she may be, is purely chimerical. But we recommend to their attention, not the obvious impossibility of the quality required in a steamer, but the spirit from which it is laid down as law, and one which is much complained of by steamboat proprietors. Under all circumstances, a steamer meeting or passing a sailing vessel is to be considered not only as a vessel running free, and therefore capable of altering her course to either side of that on which she is steering, but also as having the means of avoiding collision with a sailing vessel by some means or other, even to stopping

herself suddenly within her own length! A warning this may be to the commanders of steamers in general, to give sailing vessels as much as they possibly can, and on all occasions of meeting or passing them to give them a wide berth. If they do not, and by any mishap a collision ensues, they will suffer the consequences under the peculiar power with which they are here invested in being able to stop within their own length.

DISCUSSIONS AND CRITICISMS.

"In the British Parliament on Monday, the 28th of May, 1867, Mr. Holland asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's government to adopt any measures for the purpose of preventing 'the loss of life at sea,' and whether the communication of the Admiralty with the Board of Trade and Trinity House, on the subject of the 'Steering and Sailing Rules' and 'the exhibition of light,' would lead to any alteration and improvement of these rules?

"Mr. Corry said, 'the Admiralty had been in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject, but no decision had as yet been arrived at with respect to it. The question was an international one, which added to the difficulty of dealing with it.'

"On Friday, December the 6th, 1867, Mr. Holland asked the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether any alterations were contemplated in the Rules of the Road at Sea, with a view of avoiding the constant collisions under the present system?'

"Mr. Cave said: 'No sir, no alterations are contemplated in the Rules of the Road at Sea.' Collisions are not caused by observance, but by neglect or misconception of those rules. The Board of Trade has just completed a set of simple diagrams, explaining in the clearest manner the way in which vessels should comply with 'the Rules of the Road' under every circumstance. These diagrams are in accordance with the views of the Trinity House, and are under the consideration of the Admiralty. We are only waiting for their official confirmation to submit. the papers to the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, by whom questions relating thereto are eventually decided. When an authoritative interpretation of these rules is thus obtained, I believe that accidents resulting from misconception will be very rare. I laid on the table, a few days ago, papers which fully elucidate these points."

*

NOTE.-See Order in Council respecting the application of Articles 11 and 13 of the Regulations as to two ships meeting each other "end on, or nearly end on." Published in the London Gazette of the 4th August, 1868.

It may be observed that the criticisms in England upon the Admiralty "Steering and Sailing Rules" are chiefly upon the 13th and 14th articles, the two which affect steamers meeting or crossing, viz:

ARTICLE 13. "If two steamships under steam are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other.” And

ARTICLE 14. "If two steamships under steam are crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other."

It is contended by many seamen and others that while the meaning of "end on" is in a line with the keel, that of "nearly end on," is too indefinite, and to many incomprehensible in the absence of any authoritative definition.*

In a case cited the learned judge said: "But when it is recollected that the order to hard-a-starboard was given by the steamer when the tug was but two points on her starboard bow, it seems clear that the proper article to apply to the position is the 13th;" and again, "we attribute the collision to the" "for not having ported and slowed and reversed in time, when she had the tug two points on her starboard bow."

*

*

*

In another case the court said: "In order to excuse her from porting it must be quite clear that there are three points of difference and not less, for surely it would never do to contend, where they were so nearly meeting end on, that if the evidence should be that it was only one or two points only in the direction they were meeting, that that would be sufficient to dispense with the observance of this rule."

And in another case reported the court said: "Part of the evidence says, that they were within two points of meeting 'end on.' I should consider that if they were within two points of meeting end on, they would fall in with the latter part of the statement, 'nearly end on."" It has been said that if the foregoing decisions are in conformity to a true construction of the law, it would seem "that, if two steamers are meeting, instead of keeping out of the way they shall adopt the only course which will endanger a collision."

Such, it may be inferred, was the impression of Mr. Holland, who after having, from his place in Parliament, on February the 23d, 1867, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty "whether the attention of the government had been called to the existing 'Steering and Sailing Rules,' and whether it was intended to cause any inquiry to be made as to their

* See explanatory order of August, 1868.

efficiency, with a view to prevent disasters arising from collisions at sea,” addressed the following letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty on February the 24th:

"You concluded your satisfactory reply to my question last night by stating your intention of conferring with the Board of Trade and Trinity House on the subject of rendering the existing 'Steering and Sailing Rules' more simple and effectual; but from what fell from you, I am afraid that you mean to confine yourself to the consideration of 'exhibition of lights.' Is it not also desirable to put an end to the impression that 'rule of road' is identical with 'port helm? Suppose a vessel, A, has another, B, on her starboard bow, does not the obligation to 'port her helm' put A across the path of B? At times, too, when in darkness or fog it is impossible to judge of distance, or to know the precise direction of an approaching ship's head, or which way she is steering? At present it is impossible for two approaching vessels to know when to act under the same rule. A may think that B is 'end on,' or 'nearly end on ;' B, on the other hand, may have A two or three points on the starboard side, so the one acts in accordance with Article 13, and the other follows the instructions of Article 14, and a collision ensues, (as occurred in the case of the Nada' and the Bhima' in the Red Sea :) the latter tried to 'keep out of the way,' and was condemned by the court for doing so. She was run into on a fine night, and sunk, with a loss of 79 lives. Let me also draw attention to a correspondence between Messrs. McTear & Co., of Belfast, and the Admiralty, in December, 1854.

6

"(Signed)

ED. HOLLAND. "To the Right Hon. Sir John Pakington, Bart., M. P., Admiralty."

Mr. Thomas Gray of the Board of Trade and author of the "Rule of the Road for Steamers in Four Verses," is reported to have said in an address he delivered: "To the navigator who suddenly ports his helm, without observing caution, and without judgment, the colored light of a ship, like the light of a candle to a moth, is certain destruction; and again, the shipmaster who, the moment that danger is imminent, ports rashly, and as it were, from an evil instinct, is not the master of any one of the ships in my diagrams; and I think my time will not be lost if I arouse any one of you to study the new 'Steering and Sailing Rules,' and to think, and speculate, upon the fatal evils that result from the unauthorized, indefensible, yet almost universal use of the port helm, when ships approach each other."

It is contended by the critics and objectors to the "rules" that the interpretation of the law does not now rest with any one connected with the Board of Trade or the Admiralty, and that, therefore, the question

« AnteriorContinuar »