|
a.
|
Note: NES PRINTING CO..1889.
Captain Isaac L. Fisher.
Born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 1843, received a common school education, was taught the science of navigation by his lather, who was a shipmaster. His father afterwards becoming interested in inland navigation, Captain Fisher, served an apprenticeship in the drawing department, machine shop, boiler works, and shipyard, serving also as engineer, pilot, and master of boats about the New York harbor, and is now the manager of one of the largest towing and transportation lines in the United States. Capt. Fisher plans himself and personally superintends the construction of all of the boats of his line, even to the boilers and machinery, and has probably done more work of this kind any than man of his age in this country. Captain Fisher is a popular man with all classes and conditions of people. He has held political offices, and although a republican with a democratic constituency, was never defeated. He served as alderman 6 years, chief of the fire department 3 years, and three successive terms in the New Jersey legislature, and was made speaker of the house, though strongly opposed by combined railroad influences.
He was at that time the youngest man in any State to serve as speaker. Captain Fisher was chairman of the Steam and Sail Vessel Association, of New York City, for two years, and represented that body in the National Board of Steam Navigation. For several years he held the office of president of the National Board of Steam Navigation, is an active member of the executive committee, and honorary president of the board. In all matters of reform, and for the general good of the steam vessel interests, local and national, Captain Fisher has been an indefatigable and successful worker, and to his efforts for the protection and promotion of those interests much is due. He led in the movement before congress for the abol-
BIOGRAPHICAL.
687
ishment of the steam recording gauge monopoly, the doing away of inspections and license fees, the repeal of the statute imposing a tax upon mariners for the support of the Marine Hospital, the modifications of the statutes relating to the liability of steam vessel owners, and other matters of a like nature.
Captain Isaac L. FisHeR.
Having an extensive acquaintanceship, and a thoroughly practical knowledge, he has been a spirited leader in every movement for the better safety of life and property upon the waters, and to secure to vesael owners and employes, just and adequate protection, and a proper reward. He served a term as private in the late civil war in New Jersey regiments.
THE DECISION'S
OF THE
Supreme Court of the United States,
DECEMBER TERM, 1858.
1»] »THE CLAIMANTS AND OWNERS Ol THE STEAMER LOUISIANA, Appts.,
v. ISAAC FISHER et al.
(See 8. C. 21 Bow. 1-7.)
Oeifoion &0ftoern steamer an<J schooner-th* former held in fault.
A schooner In Chesapeake bay was making i southwest course, and was close-hauled upon th< wind. She was run Into by a steamer and sunk. Shi did not vary her course after the steamer came In tight. The steamer was flrst directed to the west ward, and afterwards to the eastward, and then stopped and backed: and these contrary movement vrrf the result of the douhts of her officers as to the position or course of the schooner. If the or der to ease the engines, or to stop had been given Id the tirst Instance, the probability Is that the catastrophe would have been avoided. Steamer held In fault.
The schooner was not responsible for falling to carry a light The night was moonlight; though the light was occasionally obscured, but not to a degree that rendered the navigation of the bay dangerous. If care, skill and vigilance bad been employed upon the different vessels.
'Mr. Justice Wayne did not sit In this cue.) Argued Deo. IS, 1858. Decided Deo. £8, 1858
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
The libel in thin case was filed in the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland, by the appellees, to recover damages resulting from the loss of the schooner George D. Fisher, and certain goods and money, by a collision.
The district court entered a decree in favor of the libelants for $3,100.
The circuit court having affirmed this decree, on appeal, the defendants took an appeal to this court.
A further statement of the ease appears in the opinion of the court.
Jfr. William Schley, for appellants:
The following propositions are urged on the part of the appellants:
1. The omission of the schooner to display a light, under all the circumstances, was actual neglect and a culpable fault.
Nora.-Rights of steam and sailing vessels toith reference lo ench other, and in aasmng and meet- inp-see notes, 13 L. ed. U. 8. 537; 41 L. ed. U. 8. 1053.
Act of 1838, ch. 191, § 10 (5 Stat at L. 306) ; act of 1849, ch. 106, § 5 (9 Stat. at L. 382) ; also 14 and 16 Victoria, cap. 79, § 26; The Londonderry, 4 No. Cos. Supp. 46; 5 Eng. Adm.; 7'/ic Iron Duke, Z Win. Rob. 383; 9 Eng. Adm. 382; The Delaware v. The Osprey, Z Wall. Jr. 268; Rogers v. The St. Charles, 19 How. 109; Vre v. Coffinan, 19 How. 63; Ward v. Armstrong, 14 I! i. 285; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart. 324; Cars- ley v. White, 21 Pick. 254; The Aliwal, 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 604; Williams v. Chapman, 4 No. Caa. 590-592; tfev> York <t Pa. Steamship Co. v. Calderioood, 19 How. 246.
i. Even if the schooner was not bound to display a light, as an act of legal duty, and even if the omission to do so was not, in fact, any want of care; yet it was no fault of the steamer, if the persons who were on the lookout on board of the steamer were physically unable, from the absence of a light, to discern the schooner, in due time to have made the necessary dispositions to avoid a collision. The rule should then apply, that in a case of misfortune, without fault on either side, the suffering party is without redress.
Peck v. Sanderson, 17 How. 178; Stainback v. Roe, 14 How. 532.
3. At all events, even if the steamer is blain- able for having maintained too high a rate of ipeed, still the schooner was in fault in having improperly changed her course, as shown by the proof: and in this view the loss should have ieen divided.
The Catharine v. Dickinson, 17 How. 177; Rogers v. The St. Charles, 19 How. 108.
Messrs. William Price and S. T. Wallis, 'or appellees:
1. Herbert N. Fenton, though a part owner md libelant, was a competent witness for the ibelantg as to the facts of the collision itself,
uehing which only he was examined.
The Catharine of Dover, Z Hagg. 145; Thn Pitt, Z Hagg. 149, n.; The Sarah Barnardina, Z naffg. 151, n.; 3 Greenl. Ev. I 412; The Boston,
Sumn. 343.
2. The steamer had no sufficient lookout, whooe whole business was to act as such accord- to the established law of this court. Pear-
0:1 was in the actual discharge of his duty as laster, and Marshall was employed at the time s pilot.
ft. John v. Payne, 10 How. 585; The Geneser 'hief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 462; The New York . Kea, 18 How. 225; Ward v. The Ogdensburgh,
McLean, 622.
3. Ab matter of law, there woe no obligation on the part of the schooner to carry a light, or to display one on such a night; and as matter of fact, the question of her having been without a light is not a practical one in this case.
The testimony of the master and mate of The Koanoke, it will be argued, are of conclusive weight for the appellees, they not only being indifferent witnesses, but having been at the time and previously, engaged in following the course of The Fisher as a guide of their own, so that they, of necessity, were forced to know the course she was pursuing, and did, in fact, know, from actually seeing her, the distance at which she was visible.
8t. John v. Payne, 10 How. 586; The Panther, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 585-587; Walsh v. Rogers, 13 How. 283 ; Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How. 60« ; Ure v. Co/fman, 19 How. 62, 63 ; Morrison v. Nov. Co. 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 457, 458.
4. It is clear from Captain Pearson's testimony in regard to the noise of the rudder chains, that Marshall starboarded his helm, before he knew, on his own showing, whether the schooner was at anchor or in motion. This overt act, in addition to his failure to slacken the steamer's speed, seems to place the responsibility of the appellants beyond question.
The Ijondonderry, 4 No. Cas. Supp. 37, 38; Ward v. The Ogdensburgh, 5 McLean, 622; Newton v. Siebbin«, 10 How. 606; The Perth, 3 Hagg. 417; The Oregon v. Rocca, 18 How. 572; Rogers v. The St. Charles, 19 How. 108; Peck v. 'Sanderson, 17 How. 180, 2.
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 libelante 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 equipped for that voyage, and care- *4] fully navigated. *That the steamer was seen from the schooner, shortly after ten o'clock p. M., about 8 or 10 miles distant, steering up the bay, the schooner making about four knots an hour, in a southwest 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 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 tho 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 15 miles an hour before this time. The district court pronounced [*5 n 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 a half 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 beading about south-southwest down the bay; it was about two pointe 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 200 yards to 250. As soon a« I Raw 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 minrl
of this officer the vessel under his command continued on in her voyage with unabated ври-d. No order was given to arrest her progress till a collision with the schooner had become inevitable. This was a grave error, ami в*] was followed by disastrous consequences,*for which the owners must render indemnity. In the case of The Birkenhcad, 3 W. Rob. 75, the steamer was directed upon the supposition that a sailing vessel under way was at anchor, and proper precautions were taken under that hypothesis. The circumstances were such as might have occasioned a mistake. But the judge of the admiralty, with the advice of th;j Trinity Masters, condemned the steamer to compensate for the collision, saying "that she should not hnve prosecuted her voyage in any uncertainty, but should have eased or reversed her engines until the fact was ascertained."
The case of The James Watt, 2 W. Rob. 271 is similar in its circumstances to the one under consideration. The master testified that, when he discovered the sailing vessel, he ported his helm without stopping to ascertain her course. "In my apprehension," said the judge, "thu master of The James Watt would have acted, under the circumstances, with greater prudence and caution, if, upon first discovering the sailing vessel, instead of porting his helm, he had continued his course at slacked speed, by easing his engines till he was able to discover the course the sailing vessel was stearing, and then acting according to circumstances. If he had pursued this course, it is apparent from the evi- ùence. that, in the short space of about a minute after the sail was reported, he would havt discovered her course, and could have adopted the measures that might altogether have prevented the collision."
The evidence shows that The George D. Fisher was making a southwest course, and Wub close-hauled upon the wind. That she did not vary her course after the steamer came in sight. That the steamer waa first directed to the westward, and afterwards to the easward, and then stopped and backed, and that these contrary movements were the result of the doubts of her officers as to the position or course of the schooner. If the order to ease the engines, or to stop, had been given in the first instance, the probability is that the catastrophe would have been avoided.
The decisions of this court have settled that this was the duty of the steamer under such oirc-umstances. Peck v. Sanderson, 17 How. 178. 7*1 It is contended on the part of the 'appellees that the schooner is responsible for failing to carry a light. In the case of The Os- manli, 7 Notes of Cases, 507, the learned judge of the admiralty says: "That no question ha« been more mooted and left more unsettled than thin-whether it is the duty of a sailing vessel at night to show a light. Beyond all doubt, it has been determined there is no such general obligation : at the same time, there have been occasions on which, for the sake of avoiding a misfortune, which was in all human probability likely to occur, it became the duty of a ves- ге! to show a light." In the present case, we hare not been able to discover any fact that imposed the obligation upon the schooner to do M>. The night was moonlight; and though
the light was occasionally obscured, the evidence does not show thai it was so, to a degree that rendered the navigation of the bay at all dangerous, if care, skill, and vigilance had been employed upon the different vessels.
The court is of opinion* that the schooner л\аз discerned from the steamer in sufficient time, and that the latter might have avoided the collision by the exercise of proper care,
Decree affirmed.
Mr. Justice Daniel dissented for want of constitutional power, in courts of the United States, in admiralty.
EDMUND RICE, Plff. in Err,
Note: Fifty Years on the Mississippi; Or, Gould's History of River Navigation,SAINT LOUIS; NIXON-JO
|
