Taylor v. Carryl.

on their part, and produce discord instead of harmony and mutual good feeling in the tribunals of justice. These jealousies and suspicions of Lord Coke undoubtedly grew out of the vehement conflicts, personal as well as political, in which he was so prominently engaged during all his lifetime. They have been discarded and disowned in the courts of the country from which we derived them, and also emphatically repudiated by the stat. of 3 and 4 of Victoria.

And believing, as I do, upon the best consideration I am able to give to the subject, that the decision and the principle upon which the opinion of the court founds itself is inapplicable to the case before us, and that if it is carried out to its legitimate results it will deprive the admiralty of power, useful, and indeed necessary, for the purposes of justice, and conferred on it by the constitution and laws of the United States, I must respectfully record my dissent.

OWNERS OF THE STEAMER LOUISIANA, Appellants, v. ISAAC FISHER and others. 21 H. 1.

COLLISION-STEAMER IN FAULT.

1. Where a steamboat discovers that she is approaching any object, which may probably be another vessel, and is uncertain about its position or course, it is the duty of those in charge of her to slacken her speed, or stop altogether, until she can proceed with safety.

2. There is, by the maritime law, no general rule requiring sailing vessels to carry lights at night. Such a vessel is therefore not in fault for want of one on a moonlight night, however it might be under different circumstances.

THIS is an appeal from the circuit court for the district of Maryland. It was a suit in admiralty originally in the district court,

The Steamer Louisiana.

which decreed against the steamboat.

court that decree was affirmed.

On appeal to the circuit.

The facts of the case are stated very fully in the opinion.

Mr. Schley, for appellants.

Mr. Wallis and Mr. Price, for appellees.

[ *3 ] *Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees instituted their suit in the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland, sitting in admiralty, against the steamer Louisiana, in a cause of collision arising between the steamer and the schooner George D. Fisher, in the Chesapeake bay, in December, 1855, in which the latter was run into and sunk, and became a total loss.

*

The libellants charge, that before and at the time of the collision the schooner was bound on a voyage from Philadelphia to Norfolk, through the Chesapeake bay, and was properly manned and [ 4] equipped for that voyage, and carefully navigated. *That the steamer was seen from the schooner, shortly after ten o'clock p. m., about eight or ten miles distant, steering up the bay, the schooner making about four knots an hour, in a south west course, against the wind, which was blowing about south by east. That when the steamer was within a half mile or a mile distant, she appeared to be hauling to the westward, with the apparent intention of crossing the schooner's bows, but shortly afterwards seemed to be again hauling to the eastward, as if to drop under the schooner's stern. That this last movement was made too late, the distance between the two vessels being too inconsiderable to allow it to be of any avail. That the moon was shining, and the schooner might have been seen at a considerable distance. That the course of the steamer was between north-northeast and northeast.

The claimants in their answer admit the fact of the collision, and the consequent loss of the schooner, and that it was a moonlight night, but say that it was cloudy in the western part of the horizon, and, in consequence of heavy banks of snow clouds in that quarter, it was impossible to see vessels coming in that direction, without lights, at any considerable distance, and a steamer, therefore, coming up the bay, could not make such regulations as to speed and course as to avoid collisions, that would have been practicable and proper under other and more favorable circumstances. They allege that the schooner did not carry a light, and was the only vessel seen without one, and in consequence of this deficiency, and the character of the night, the schooner was not visible, and

Steamer Louisiana v. Fisher.

could not be seen until the two vessels were within the short distance of three or four hundred yards.

In reference to the fact of the collision, they answer, that when the schooner was first seen from the steamer, the schooner was to the eastward, and proper action was had on board the steamer to direct her course to the westward; but when the course of the schooner in that direction was ascertained, the course of the steamer was changed, and the boat was stopped and backed; but from the proximity of the vessels at this time, it was impossible by any effort to avoid the collision. The steamer was running at the rate of fifteen miles an hour before* this time. The dis- [ 5 ] trict court pronounced a decree of condemnation, which was affirmed in the circuit court on appeal.

*

The evidence convinces the court that the schooner might have been distinctly seen from the steamer at a greater distance than half a mile.

It is shown that another vessel was sailing in the wake of the schooner, and was guided in her course by her, and that the schooner was distinctly visible to those who were on board that vessel at a greater distance.

It also satisfactorily appears that the schooner was in fact discovered by the lookout on board the steamer when the vessels were several hundred yards apart, and that, by careful management of the steamer, the collision might then have been avoided.

The captain of the Louisiana says: "That after passing the Rappahannock light-boat I saw a black object; it appeared to be heading about south-southwest down the bay; it was about two points or two points and a half to the east of us. I could not tell at that moment whether it was a vessel at anchor or under way, but directly discovered it was a vessel under way, and she kept right hard off to the westward. This vessel had no lights. I think the distance was from two hundred yards to two hundred and fifty. As soon as I saw her jib, I called to Mr. Marshall (pilot) to stop and back." Cross-examined, he says: "From the time I first saw the vessel until the time of the collision, was, I should suppose, two minutes, more or less. The vessel changed her course, and kept off hard to the westward. I saw her jib, which enabled me to judge that it was a vessel under way. The change took place immediately after I first saw the object. When I first saw it, it looked like a cloud. I could not tell if it was a vessel at anchor or under way. When I saw the jib, I first knew it was a vessel under way."

Notwithstanding the uncertainty in the mind of this officer, the