THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio.
It was a case of collision between the propeller Ogdensburgh and the steamer Atlantic, under the circumstances which are particularly set forth in the opinion of the court.
The reader will bear in mind the difference between the white lights, which are carried by all vessels, and the signal lights required by the act of Congress of 1849 to be carried by steamboats and propellers navigating the lakes. These are directed to be a triangular light, shaded green on the starboard side and red on the larboard side, with reflectors, and to be of a size to insure a good and sufficient light.
It was argued by Mr. Stanbery and Mr. Spalding for the appellants, and by Mr. Newberry and Mr. Swayne for the appellees.
All that the reporter can do in the present case is merely to state the general propositions upon each side, without stating the numerous arguments, illustrations, and authorities, by which they were supported.
The following points are taken from the brief of Mr. Spalding for the appellants:
1. The propeller Ogdensburgh was on her true course, northeast by east, when she first made the steamer's light.
2. She did not change her course.
3. It was the duty of the propeller, under existing circumstances, to keep her course. To have thrown her helm 'a-port,' with the steamer from two to three points of the compass on her starboard bow, would have been a gross violation of the rules of navigation. (London Packet, 2 Robinson, jun., 213; Steamer Ocean, Nautical Magazine, vol. 1, No. 5, p. 355; Steam Tug Sampson, 3 Wallace, jun., _; American Law Register, vol. 3, p. 337; The Santa Claus, Olcott's Rep., 428.)
4. The light of the Atlantic, as first made from the propeller, was by no means a red signal light; it was an ordinary white light. The Atlantic was only three or four times her length off, and was consequently swinging under a port helm, when she showed her red light to the propeller.
5. At the instant of collision, and when it was inevitable, the helm of the propeller was ordered a-starboard. But the testimony shows that the object was solely to lessen the amount of damage by receiving a glancing stroke upon the bows, rather than a direct blow upon the broadside of the propeller.
The headway of this vessel was then so much deadened, that the effect of starboarding the helm was scarcely perceptible.
Be this as it may, however, the steamboat had no right to place the propeller in such jeopardy that the error of a moment might cause her destruction. If an error was committed in giving the order to starboard, it could not, under the circumstances, be deemed a fault. (The Prop. Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard U.S. Rep., 461; Shute v. Goslee, Am. Law Reg., vol. 3, p. 476.)
6. The propeller displayed proper lights.
7. The propeller kept a vigilant 'look-out,' was managed in a prudent and seamanlike manner, and adopted all proper precautions to avoid the collision.
The steamer Atlantic was wholly in fault:
1. She had no sufficient 'look-out' on the night in question. The inside of the pilot-house was not the proper place from whence to keep watch for approaching vessels. 'A competent and vigilant 'look-out' should have been stationed at the forward part of the steamer, in the position best adapted to descry vessels at the earliest moment.' (St. John v. Paine et al., 10 Howard, 585; The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard, 462; The Schooner Catharine v. Dickenson et al., 17 Howard, 177; The Europa, 2 Eng. L. and Eq. Rep., 563 and 564; The Diana, 1 Rob., jun., 131; Pritchard's Admiralty Digest, p. 163, sec. 50, and note; Steamboat New York v. Rea, 18 Howard, 225; The William K. Perrin v. The Louisiana, Am. Law Reg., vol. 6, p. 427.)
2. The master and chief mate were in bed while the steamboat was running at a rapid rate in a locality much frequented by vessels, through an atmosphere so smoky that the character and course of the propeller could not be determined at the distance of half a mile.