m 
 
 r^'m^f^H 
 
 i^.f.^(^..b^- 
 
 ^c^r'"-r:>^ wi^u ■m^-' ./%^^v 
 
 
 ^iv^i:^yv^^rmm' 
 
 ^^mSB^P'' 
 
Cornell University Law Library 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY 
 
 RECEIVED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 UNDER THE WILL OF 
 
 MR. BENNO LOEWY 
 
 
 LAW 
 
 LIBRAFTY 
 
 
 .6' ■ 
 
 OF 
 
 
 c;e AKum 
 
 K 
 
 wweiljl; 
 
 
 No. 37 Pine Street, 
 
 No 
 
 . '::*- 
 
 \ 
 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KF 2566.A83 
 
 The rule of the road at sea and in inlan 
 
 3 1924 019 382 625 
 
VF^ 
 
|| Cornell University 
 J Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019382625 
 
THE RULE 
 
 j[m& at mm m& m : nlmA ^jjHte ; 
 
 OR, 
 
 STEERING AND SAILING RULES. 
 
 COLLISIONS 
 
 AND 
 
 L^TS^ OF THE I'OIIT HELM!. 
 
 COLLATED AND AH RAN GED, WITH REMARKS, 
 
 By Commodore, THORNTON A. JENKINS, U. S. Navy, 
 
 Chief of Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department. 
 
 1868. 
 
 ; WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PEINTING- OFFICE. 
 1869. 
 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS,^- u^c 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduotoky Eemakks. . - , 3 
 
 Trinity House, (Loudon,) — Rules of the Eoad, 1840 5 
 
 U. S. Navy Department Instructions 7 
 
 British Admiralty Instructions, 1852 7 
 
 British Merchant Shipping Acts, 1851 and 1854 7, 36 
 
 British Merchant Shipping Act, Amendment Act, 1862, Schedule Table C 7, 37 
 
 IT. S. Navy Department. — General Order No. 34, promulgating Act approved April 
 
 29, 1364, Fixing Rules and Regulations for Preventing Collisions on the Water. 8 
 
 U. S. Rules and Regulations for the Government of Pilots, &c 16 
 
 U. S. Act of July 7, 1838, Chapter 191, Sec. 10 19 
 
 U. S. Act of March 3, 1849, Chapter 105, Sec. 5 20 
 
 IJ. S. Steamboat Act of August 30, 1852, Chapter 106, Sees. 18, 28, 29, 38, 41, 42, 
 
 43,44 20 
 
 U. S. Act of July 25, 1866, Sees. 9, 11 23 
 
 Judge Sprague's Decisions in Admiralty and Maritime Cases , 24 
 
 Order in Council Respecting the Application of Articles 11 and 13, of July 30, 1868 . . 42 
 Collisions. — Illustrations of the British Rule of the Road by Admiralty Court Deci- 
 sions 46 
 
 The Europa and Charles Bartlett 51 
 
 Discussions and Criticisms 57 
 
 Present and Proposed Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, &c 67 
 
 Discussions in Boyal United Service Institution : 
 Collisions at Sea and their Remedy, by Means of an Improved System of Lights, 
 
 by Commander J. A. Heathcote 74 
 
 Ship's Lights at Sea, by Commander P. H. Colomb, R. N 104 
 
 Remarks on the Rule of the Road, and Suggestions for its Amendment, by Captain 
 
 Charles Curme, R. N ,. 121 
 
 On the Loss of Life at Sea, by Wm. Stirling Lacon, Esq 134 
 
 Law of the Port Helm, and Appendices 139 
 
 Abstract of the Principal Collision Cases which have been Tried in the British 
 
 Admiralty Court from 1854 to 1864 187 
 
 Summary of the Abstract of Collision Cases 201 
 
to the Vice President of the Board of Trade; also Collisions at Sea, 
 Ships' Lights, and the Eule of the Eoad, with Discussions; and the 
 Kegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, the Rules concerning Lights, 
 and the Steering and Sailing Kules, with Diagrams." 
 
 At about the same period Commanders P. H. Colomb and H. W. 
 Brent, H. B. M. Navj, published "The Law of the Port Helm;" "An 
 Examination into its History and Dangerous Action, with Suggestions 
 for its Abolition," &c. 
 
 These two publications, as well as others, including papers of Wilham 
 .Sterling Lacon, Esq., on this important and interesting subject, have 
 been largely drawn upon in the preparation of this work. The purpose 
 being to provide, in as compact a form as possible, for the use of seamen 
 in general in this country, and especially of the Navy, all attainable 
 rehable facts and supposed sound arguments bearing upon the subject to 
 guide them in arriving at correct conclusions, and to serve them in the 
 hour of danger or need; no other apology need, therefore, be offered 
 for any want of originality of language or thought that may appear. 
 
 It will be observed that the "Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 
 Sea," issued in pursuance of the British Merchant Shipping Act, Amend- 
 ment Act of 1862, and which were adopted by act of Congress, approved 
 29th of April, 1864, have been slightly altered in phraseology by order 
 in Council, dated January 9, 1863, (see Notes to Articles 2, 6, and 7,) 
 and by order in Council, dated August 4, 1868, (London G-azette,) 
 Articles 11 and 13 are explained. This latter order in Council being, 
 as will be remarked, of a date subsequent to the papers and discussions 
 above referred to, with the exception of the last paper, by T. Gray, Esq., 
 (Secretary to the Marine Department of the British Board of Trade, 
 issued by authority September, 1868.) 
 
RULES OF THE ROAD; 
 
 OE, 
 
 LAWS OE PASSIIG YESSELS. 
 
 On the 30th of October, 1840, the Trinity House (London) issued, by- 
 authority, Rules having reference to Sailing as well as Steam Vessels, 
 which had become necessary in consequence of the great increase in the 
 number of steamers and sailing vessels on the ocean and in the rivers 
 and inland waters of Europe and America. 
 
 On the 30th of June, 1848, the Lords of the British Admiralty issued 
 their orders in regard to lights for steamers to prevent colhsion, wliich 
 were accompanied by the following diagrams designed to illustrate the 
 working of the system. The letter R signifies a red light and the letter 
 G a green one: 
 
 Fbest Situation. 
 
 In this situation the Steamer A will only see the red light of the 
 Vessel B, in whichsoever of the three positions the latter may happen to 
 be, because the green light will be hidden from view. A will be assured 
 that the port side of B is towards him, and that the latter is, therefore, 
 crossing the bows of A in some direction to Port. A wiU, therefore, 
 (if so close as to fear collision) port his helm with confidence, and pass 
 clear. On the other hand, the Vessel B, in either of the three positions, 
 will observe the red, green, and mast-head lights of A in a triangular 
 form, by which the Vessel B wiU know that a Steamer is approaching 
 directly towards him — B will act accordingly. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to remark that the mast-head light will always 
 be visible in all directions except abaft the beam of the vessel carrying it. 
 
Second Situation. 
 
 Here A will see B's green light only, 
 which will clearly indicate to A that B is 
 crossing to starboard. Again, A's three 
 lights being visible to B, will apprise B 
 that a Steamer is steering directly towards 
 him. 
 
 Thied Situation. 
 
 A and B will see each other's red light 
 only, the screens preventing the green lights 
 from being seen. Both vessels are evidently 
 passing to Port. 
 
 Fourth Situation. 
 
 Here a green hght only will be visible 
 to each vessel, the screens preventing the 
 red lights from being seen. The vessels 
 are, therefore, passing to Starboard. 
 
 Fifth Situation. 
 
 Here the two colored lights visible to 
 .n each vessel vnll indicate their direct ap- 
 proach towards each other. In this situ- 
 ation BOTH SHOULD PUT THEIR HELMS TO 
 
 POET. This rule is already pretty generally adopted, but it is made 
 imperative, and is in all cases to be strictly observed. 
 
 The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are further pleased to 
 direct that the recognized Trinity-House Eules, that -all vessels should 
 keep their course, are to be acted on, except where there is danger of 
 collision, and in that case each vessel should invariably put her helm 
 a-port. 
 
 The manner of fixing the colored lights should be particularly attended 
 to. They would require to be fitted each with a screen of wood on the 
 irihoard side, in order to prevent hoth being seen at the same moment 
 from any direction but that of right-ahead. 
 
 This is important, for without the screens (a principle first introduced 
 with this system) any plan of bow lights would be ineffective as a means 
 of indicating the direction in which a steamer may be steering. 
 
 This will be readily understood by a reference to the foregoing illus- 
 trations, where it will appear evident that in any situation in which two 
 
vessels may approach eacli other in the dark, the colored Hghts will 
 instantly indicate to both the relative course of each — that is, each will 
 know whether the other is approaching directly or crossing her bows, 
 either to starboard or to port. This information is all that is required 
 to enable vessels to pass each other freely in the darkest night, with 
 almost equal safety as in broad day, and for the want of which so many 
 lamentable accidents have occurred. 
 
 If at anchor, all vessels, without distinction, are bound to display a 
 common light. 
 
 The governments of the principal foreign maritime nations have hke- 
 wise adopted the above system of night hghts; amongst which the 
 Government of the United States has issued the following: 
 
 "NOTICE TO MAEINEES. 
 
 "The subjoined instructions are forwarded from the Navy Department. 
 That all United States steamers will carry the following hghts when at 
 sea during the night, viz: 
 
 " A white hght at the foremast head, a green light on the starboard 
 paddle box, and a red light on the port paddle box." [The diagrams 
 and explanations of the Bi-itish Admiralty were appended to this 
 notice.] 
 
 On the lith of February, 1852, the Lords Commissioners of the British 
 Admiralty issued instructions under the authority of an act of Parlia- 
 ment, dated August 7, 1851, to a committee composed of officers of the 
 Koyal Navy and an Elder Brother of the Trinity House to inquire into 
 the expediency of compelling sailing vessels to exhibit lights at night 
 with the view to prevent collision. 
 
 On the, 12th of June, 1852, the Admiralty issued a notice respecting 
 lights to be carried by seagoing vessels to prevent collisions. 
 
 By the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, it was ordered that 
 the rules therein provided for in regard to Hghts, fog-signals, &c., shall 
 be issued on the 1st day of June, 1863, or later, but the articles (sec. 
 296 — 299) were repealed and the rules embraced in "Schedule Table C, 
 Merchant Shipping Act, Amendment Act of 1862," adopted in their 
 stead. 
 
 Congress passed an act, approved April 29, 1864, legalizing in the 
 United States the British Kule of the Koad ; or, the Steering and Sailing 
 Kules, embraced in Schedule C of that act. This law embracing these 
 rules is now the recognized Kule of the Koad throughout the commercial 
 world. That these rules should not satisfy everybody, was naturally to 
 be supposed, but in such a grave matter as the great loss of life and 
 
8 
 
 property at sea by collision, or otherwise, every fact, argument, and 
 opinion, should be well considered before enacting obhgatory rules or 
 laws on the subject, or repealing or modifying those with which seamen 
 are most familiar. 
 
 The British Order in Council, explanatory of Articles 11 and 13, will, 
 doubtless, remove some of the difficulties which it is alleged have hitherto 
 stood in the way of a fair and reasonable construction of the rule where 
 two vessels are meeting "end on or nearly end on." 
 
 That ignorant persons should act upon the assumption that " liule of 
 the Road" means simply "Port Helm," and nothing else; or, in other 
 words, that in every situation of doubt or uncertainty at night the helm 
 is to be put to port, may be conceived ; but that intelligent seamen should 
 do so is difficult to believe, even in the face of testimony which has been 
 given before the Admiralty courts in cases of collision. 
 
 The decisions (in the Admii-alty cases cited) of Judge Sprague will 
 serve to illustrate the subject treated of as it has been generally treated 
 in the United States, while those referred to of the British Admiralty 
 court will both serve as illustration and comparison of the practice in 
 the two countries. 
 
 The criticisms of the rules and laws_, and the many proposed changes 
 of them, will serve to show the state of feeling in England among many 
 seamen and others in regard to the laws to prevent colHsions at sea as 
 they were often construed prior to the Order in Council of August, 1868. 
 
 Among the many proposed changes, amendments, &c., of existing 
 rules and laws with the view to promote safety at sea, the suggestion to 
 use warning lights under a systematic plan in cases of emergency, pre- 
 serving the same colors on the side of the vessel as shown from the 
 running hghts, commends itself very highly to the consideration of 
 commanders of vessels at sea. 
 
 RULES OF THE ROAD; OR, STEERING AND SAILING 
 RULES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 GENEEAL OEDEE No. 34. 
 
 Navy Department, May 4, 1864. 
 The provisions of the following act "fixing certain rules and regula- 
 tions for preventing colHsions on the water," to take effect on the first 
 day of September, 1864, are adopted for the naval service of the United 
 
9 
 
 States from this date. As most of the collisions occur from the non- 
 observance of Article 16, it is particularly enjoined upon commanding 
 oflBcers, in approaching another vessel, to slacken and stop in time to 
 prevent the possibility of colhsion: 
 
 AN ACT fixing certain rules and regulations for preventing collisions on the water. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after 
 September one, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, the following rules and 
 regulations for preventing collisions on the water be adopted in the navy 
 and the mercantile marine of the United States: Provided, That the 
 exhibition of any light on board of a vessel of war of the United States 
 may be suspended whenever, ia the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, 
 the commander-in-chief of a squadron, or the commander of a vessel 
 acting singly, the special character of the service may require it. 
 
 REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS ON THE WATER. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Article 1. Preliminary. 
 
 Rules concerning Lights. 
 
 2. Lights to be carried as follows: 
 
 3. Lights for steamships. 
 
 4. Lights for steam-tugs. 
 
 5. Lights for sailing ships. 
 
 6. Exceptional lights for small sailing vessels. 
 
 7. Lights for ships at anchor. 
 
 8. Lights for pilot vessels. 
 
 9. Lights for fishing vessels and boats. 
 
 Rules concerning Fog-signals. 
 
 10. Fog-signals. . 
 
 Steering and Sailing Rules. 
 
 11. Two sailing ships meeting. 
 
 12. Two saihng ships crossing. 
 
 13. Two ships under steam meeting. 
 
 14. Two ships under steam crossing. 
 
 15. Sailing ship and ship under steam. 
 
 16. Ships under steam to slacken speed. 
 
10 
 
 Article 17. Vessels overtaking other vessels. 
 
 18. Construction of Articles 12, 14, 15, and 17. 
 
 19. Proviso to save special cases. 
 
 20. No ship tinder any circumstances to neglect proper precautions. 
 
 PEELIMINAEY. 
 
 Article 1. In the following rules, every steamship which is under sail, 
 and not under steam, is to be considered a saiUng ship ; and every steam- 
 ship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered 
 a ship under steam. 
 
 EULES CONCEENING LIGHTS. 
 LIGHTS. 
 
 Article 2. The lights mentioned in the following articles, and no others, 
 shall be carried in all weathers between sunset and sunrise. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE STEAMSHIPS. 
 
 Article 3. All steam vessels when under way shall carry — 
 
 (a) At the foremast head a bright white light, so fixed as to show a 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of twenty points 
 of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light ten points on each side of 
 the ship, viz: from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on either 
 side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a 
 clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles. 
 
 {b) On the starboard side a green light, so constructed as to throw a 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points 
 abaft the beam on the starboard side, and of such a character as to be 
 visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least 
 two miles. 
 
 (c) On the port side a red light, so constructed as to show a uniform 
 unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of the compass, 
 so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam on the port side, and of such a character as to be -sdsible on a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 (d) The said green and red side lights shall be fitted with inboard 
 screens, projecting at least three feet forward from the hght, so as to 
 ,prevent these lights from being seen across the bow. 
 
11 
 
 LIGHTS FOR STEAM-TUGS. 
 
 Article 4. Steamships, when towing other ships, shall carry two bright 
 white masthead lights vertically, in addition to their side lights, so as to 
 distingnish them from other steamships. Each of these masthead lights 
 shall be of the same construction and character as the masthead lights 
 which other steamships are required to carry. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE SAILING SHIPS. 
 
 Article 5. Sailing ships under way, or being towed, shall carry the 
 same lights as steamships under way, with the exception of the white 
 masthead hghts, which they shall never carry. 
 
 EXCEPTIONAL LIGHTS FOK SMALL SAILING VESSELS. 
 
 Article 6. Whenever, as in the case of small vessels during bad 
 weather, the green and red Hghts cannot be fixed, these lights shall be 
 kept on deck, on their respective sides of the vessel, ready for instant 
 exhibition, and shall, on the approach of or to other vessels, be exhibited 
 on their respective sides in sufficient time to prevent collision, in such 
 manner as to make them most visible, and so that the green light shall 
 not be seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. 
 
 To make the use of these portable lights more certain and easy, they 
 shall each be painted outside with the color of the light they respectively 
 contain, and shall be provided with suitable screens. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE SHIPS AT ANOHOE. 
 
 Article 7. Ships, whether steamships or sailing ships, when at anchor 
 in roadsteads or fairways, shall, between sunset and sunrise, exhibit where 
 it can best be sfeen, but at a height not exceeding twenty feet above the 
 hull, a white light in a globular lantern of eight inches in diameter, and 
 so constructed as to show a clear uniform and unbroken light visible all 
 around the horizon, and at a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE PILOT VESSELS. 
 
 Article 8. Sailing pilot vessels shall not carry the lights required for 
 other sailing vessels, but shall carry a whife light at the masthead, visible 
 all around the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare-up light every fifteen 
 minutes. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE FISHING VESSELS AND BOATS. 
 
 Article 9. Open fishing boats and other open boats shall not be 
 required to carry side lights required for other vessels; but shall, if they 
 
12 
 
 do not carry such lights, carry a lantern having a green slide on the one 
 side and a red shde on the other side, and on the approach of or to other 
 vessels, such lantern shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent col- 
 lision, so that the green light shall not be seen on the port side, nor the 
 red hght on the starboard side. Fishing vessels and open boats when at 
 anchor, or attached to their nets and stationary, shall exhibit a bright 
 white light. Fishing vessels and open boats shall, however, not be pre- 
 vented from using a flare-up in addition, if considered expedient. 
 
 EULES GOVERNING FOG-SIGNAX,S. 
 
 FOG-SIGNAIS. 
 
 Article 10. Whenever there is a fog, whether by day or night, the 
 fog-signals described below shall be carried and used, and shall be sounded 
 at least every five minutes, viz: 
 
 (a) Steamships under way shall use a steam-whistle, placed before the 
 funnel, not less than eight feet from the deck. 
 
 (b) Sailing ships under way shall use a fog-horn. 
 
 (c) Steamships and sailing ships, when not under way, shall use a bell. 
 
 STEEEING AND SAILING EULES. 
 TWO SAILING- SHIPS MEETING. 
 
 Article 11. If two saihng ships are meeting, end on, or nearly end on, 
 so as to involve risk of colUsion, the helms of both shall be put to port, 
 so that each may pass on the port side of the other. 
 
 TWO SAILING SHIPS CEOSSING. 
 
 Article 12. When two sailing ships are crossing, so aS to involve risk 
 of collision, then, if they have the wind on different sides, the sliip with 
 the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the ship with the 
 wind oh the starboard side, except in the case in whicli the ship with the 
 wind on the port side is close-hauled, and the other ship free, in which 
 case the latter ship shall keep out of the way. But if they have the 
 wind on the same side, or if one of them has the wind aft, the ship 
 which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to 
 leeward. 
 
 TWO SHIPS UNDER STEAM MEETING. 
 
 Article 13. If two ships imder 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. 
 
13 
 
 TWO SHIPS mroEK STEAM CEOSSHifG. 
 
 Article 14. If two ships 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. 
 
 SAn-ING SHIP AJJD SHIP UinDEE -STEAM. 
 
 Article 15. If two ships, one of which is a saihng ship and the other 
 a steamship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of col- 
 lision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship. 
 
 SHIPS UNDER STEAM TO SLACKEN SPEED. 
 
 Article 16. Every steamship when approaching another ship so as to 
 involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop 
 and reverse; and every steamship shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate 
 speed. 
 
 VESSELS OVEETAKING OTHEE VESSELS. 
 
 Article 17. Every vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of 
 the way of the said last-mentioned vessel. 
 
 CONSTEIJOTION OF AETXCLES 12, 14, 15, AND 17. 
 
 Article 18. Where, by the above rules, one of two ships is to keep 
 out of the way, the other shall keep her course, subject to the qualifications 
 contained in the following article : 
 
 PEOVISO TO SAVE SPECIAL CASES. 
 
 Article 19. In obeying, and construing these rules, due regard must be 
 had to all dangers of navigation, and due regard must also be had to any 
 special circumstances which may exist in any particular case rendering a 
 departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate 
 danger. 
 
 NO SHIP UNDEE ANT CIRCUMSTANCES TO NEGLECT PEOPEE PRECAUTIONS. 
 
 Article 20. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the 
 owner or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect 
 to caiTy lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, or 
 of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary 
 practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. 
 
 Approved April 29, 1864. 
 
14 
 
 Should a collision unfortunately take place, each commanding officer 
 is required to furnish the department with the following information: 
 
 1st. His own report, that of the pilot, the officer of the deck, and 
 other officers who witnessed the occurrence. These reports and state- 
 ments are to be exemplified by a diagram, and must contain the courses 
 steered, the point at which the vessel was first seen, the bearing, the time 
 when the engine was slowed, when the vessel was stopped, whether in 
 motion, and if so, at what speed at the moinent of collision, the direction 
 of the wind, the condition of the weather and atmosphere, what lookouts 
 ■were placed, what lights were exhibited by both vessels, whether either 
 vessel deviated from the above rules and regulations, whether" any blame 
 can attach to any one, and if so, to whom, and any and all other facts 
 bearing upon the subject. 
 
 2d. Written statements and estimate of damage from officers of the 
 vessel with which the vessel of the United States Navy colKded, if they 
 can be obtained. 
 
 3d. Survey of the injury to both vessels by United States officers. 
 
 4th. If the vessel is in charge of a pilot, and the collision has occurred 
 from his acting in violation of the above rules and regxilations, the fact 
 must be established in the report, and no pilotage paid to him. 
 
 GIDEON WELLES, 
 
 Secretary of the Navy. 
 
 The following diagrams are designed to illustrate the use of the lights 
 carried by vessels at sea as prescribed in the above order, and the manner 
 in which they indicate to each vessel the position and course of the other. 
 
 1. First. When the Red and Green lights are both seen. — A sees a 
 red and green light ahead ; A knows that a vessel is approaching him on 
 a course du-ectly opposite to the one he is steering, as B : 
 
 2. If A sees a white mast-head light above the Red and Green lights, 
 he knows that the vessel B is a steamer. A should put his helm to port, 
 and B seeing the same lights on board of A, should by the same rule 
 put his helm 'to port also. 
 
 3. Second. When the Red light only is seen. — A sees a Red light 
 ahead, or on the port bow; A knows that either, first, a vessel is 
 approaching him on his port bow, as B, 
 
 B 
 
15 
 
 or second, a vessel is crossing his bows to port in some direction, as D D' D" 
 
 4. K A sees a white mast-head light above the Jied light, he knows 
 that the vessel is a steamer, and is either approaching in the same direc- 
 tion as B, or is crossing to port in the same direction as D D' D". 
 
 5. In the first position A sees B a little on the port bow. B's red 
 light exposed, and, by the diagrams, B should see A's red light as well, 
 in which case both vessels should put their helms to port. 
 
 6. In the second positions A sees D on his starboard bow, and from 
 the fact that he only sees D's red light, he knows that D must be steering 
 in some direction, as at D D' D"; at the same time D D' D" will see A's 
 green light on his port bow. In this case A having D clearly on his 
 starboard bow, should put his helm to starboard to turn from D, and D 
 having A clearly on liis port bow, should put his helm to port to turn to 
 starboard from A. 
 
 7. Thied. When the Green light is seen, and the Sed light is ijot 
 seen. — A sees a green light ahead or on his bow; A knows that either, 
 first, a vessel is approaching liim on his starboard bow, as B, 
 
 or second, a vessel is crossing his bow in some direction to starboard, as 
 D D' D". 
 
16 
 
 8. If A sees a White mast-head light above the Green light, A knows 
 that the vessel is a steamer, and is either approaching him in the same 
 direction as B, or is crossing to starboard in some direction as D D' D". 
 
 9. In the first position A sees B on his starboard bow; B's green light 
 exposed, and, by the diagram, B should see A's green light as well, in 
 which case both vessels should put their helms to starboard. 
 
 10. In the second position A sees D on his port bow, and from the 
 fact that he only sees D's green light, he knows that D must be steering 
 in some direction, as D D' D"; at the same time D will see A's red hght 
 on his starboard bow. In this case, A having D clearly on his port bow, 
 shoiild put his helm to port to turn from D, and D having A clearly on 
 his starboard bow, should put his helm to starboard to turn to port 
 from A. 
 
 11. Steam vessels discovering other vessels near them at night, should 
 slow down, and, if need be, stop the engines until the exact position of 
 both vessels is ascertained. 
 
 KULES AND EEGULATIONS 
 
 FOE THE 
 
 Government ■ of Pilots on hoard of Steamers in the United States, 
 revised and adopted iy the Hoard of Supervising Inspectors, 
 October 17, 1865, in compliance with the provisions of the 'i^th 
 section of the act of Congress entitled "An act to amend an act 
 entitled 'An act to provide for the better security of the lives of 
 passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by 
 steam, and for other purposes.'' " Approved August 30, 1852. 
 
 KuLE I. — When steamers are approaching each other, the signal for 
 passing shall be one sound of the steam-whistle to keep to the right, and 
 two sounds of the steam-whistle to keep to the left. These signals to be 
 made first by the ascending steamer. If the dangers of navigation, dark- 
 ness of the night, narrowness of the channel, or any other cause, render 
 it necessary for the descending boat to take the other side, she can do so 
 by making the necessary signals, and the ascending steamer must govern 
 herself accordingly. These signals to be observed by all steamers, either 
 day or night. 
 
17 
 
 RoL-E 11. — Should steamers be likely to pass near each other, and 
 these signals should not be made and answered by the time such boats 
 shall have arrived at the distance of eight hundred yards from each 
 other, the engines of both boats shall be stopped ; or should the signal 
 be given and not properly imderstood from any cause whatever, both 
 boats shall be backed until their headway shall be fully checked, and 
 the engines shall not be again started ahead until the proper signals are 
 made, answered, and understood. 
 
 KiTLE III. — When two boats are about to enter a narrow channel at 
 the same time, the ascending boat shall be stopped below such channel 
 until the descending boat shall have passed through it; but should two 
 boats unavoidably meet in such a channel, then it shall be the duty of 
 the pilot of the ascending boat to make the proper signals, and when 
 answered by the descending boat to lie as close as possible to the side 
 of the channel the exchange of signals may have determined, as allowed 
 by Rule First, and either stop the engines or move them so as only to 
 give the boat steerage way, and the pilot of the descending boat shall 
 cause his boat to be worked slowly until he has passed the ascending 
 boat. 
 
 Rule IV. — When a steamer is ascending and running close on a bar 
 or shore, the pilot shall in no case attempt to cross the river when a 
 descending boat shall be so near that it would be possible for a collision 
 to ensue therefrom. 
 
 Rule Y. — No pilot of a descending steamer shall run down any 
 island chute which is not the usual channel of the river — except such 
 chutes as are designated by these rules, or may hereafter be designated 
 by the Board of Supervising Inspectors. 
 
 Rule VI. — ^When any steamer, whether ascending or descending, is 
 nearing a short bend or point, where, from any cause, a steamer ap- 
 proaching in an opposite direction cannot be seen at a distance of six 
 hundred yards, the pilot of such steamer, when he shall have arrived 
 within six hundred yards of that bend or point, shall give a signal by 
 one long sound of his steam-whistle as a notice to any steamer that may 
 be approaching; and should there be any approaching steamer within 
 hearing of such signal, it shall be the duty of the pilot thereof to answer 
 such signal by one long sound of his steam-whistle, when both boats 
 shall be navigated with the proper precautions, as required by preceding 
 rules. 
 
 Rule VII. — ^When a steamer is running in a fog or thick weather, it 
 shall be the duty of the pilot to sound his steam-whistle at intervals not 
 exceeding two minutes. 
 2 
 
18 
 
 EtiLE VIII. — "When steamers are running in the same direction, and 
 the pilot of the boat which is astern shall desire to pass either side of 
 the boat ahead, he shall give the signal as in Kule I, and the pilot of the 
 boat ahead shall answer by the same signal, and allow the other to pass 
 on the side selected, and shall in no case attempt to cross her bow or 
 crowd upon her course. 
 
 KuiE IX. — When boats are moving from their dock or berth, and 
 other boats are Hable to pass from any direction towards them, they 
 shall give the same signal as in case of boats meeting at a bend; but 
 immediately after clearing the berth so as to be fully in sight, they shall 
 be governed by Kule II. 
 
 Rule X. — Doubts or fears of misunderstanding signals may be ex- 
 pressed by several short sounds of the whistle in quick succession. 
 
 Rule XI. — Steamers descending the Ohio and Mississippi Kivers be- 
 tween LouisviUe, Ky., and 'New Orleans, La., shall not run down any 
 island chute, either by day or night, except those herein or hereafter 
 designated, unless such chutes are the usual channel of the river. 
 
 EtTLE XII. — The following island chutes may be navigated by descend- 
 ing steamers on the Ohio Eiver between Louisville, Ky., and Cairo, lU., 
 when the river shall be sufficiently high for them to do so with safety, viz: 
 Blue Eiver Island, Diamond Island, Golconda Island, Sister Islands, 
 Stewart's Island, and Cumberland Island, either by day or night, and 
 "Wabash Island chute by daylight only. 
 
 EuLE XIII. — The following island chutes on the Mississippi Eiver, 
 between Cairo and New Orleans, may be navigated by descending 
 steamers during daylight, when the river shall be sufficiently high for them 
 to do so with safety, viz: Islands JSTos. 8, 34, 35, 40, 41, called Paddy's 
 Hen; 46, or President's Island; 65, 75, or Ozark Island; 76, 93, 97, 
 109, or Palmyra Island; 110, or Big Black Island; 116, or Glasscock's 
 Island; or 123, or Profit's Island. 
 
 EuLE XIV.— The following island chutes may be navigated by 
 descending steamers during the night, when the river may be sufficiently 
 high for them to do so with safety, viz: Islands Nos. 8, 34, 41, or Paddy's 
 Hen; 65, 76, 93,' 97, 109, or Palmyra Island; 110, or Big Black Island; 
 116, or Glasscock's Island. 
 
 EuLE XV.— Ascending steamers are not prohibited from running any 
 island chutes. 
 
 EuLE XVI.— Signal lights for steamers under way are provided by 
 law as follows, the same to be carried between sunset and sunrise: 
 
 For ocean steamers and steamers carrying sail, a bright white light at 
 the foremast head, to throw the hght through ten points of the compass 
 
19 
 
 on eacli side of the ship, viz : from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam, and to be visible at least five miles. On the starboard side a 
 green light, and on the port side a red light, each to throw the hght 
 through ten points of the compass on their respective sides, viz : from 
 right ahead to two points abaft the- beam, and to be visible at least two 
 miles. These colored lights are to be fitted with inboard screens, pro- 
 jecting at least three feet forward from the Hght, to prevent them from 
 being seen across the bow. 
 
 For steamers navigating waters flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, a red 
 light on the outboard side of the port smoke-pipe, and a green light on 
 the outboard side of the starboard smoke-pipe; these lights to show 
 both forward and aft, and also abeam on their respective sides. 
 
 For coasting steamers and those navigating bays, . lakes, or other 
 inland waters, other than ferry-boats and those above provided for, the 
 red and green side-lights as prescribed for ocean steamers, and a central 
 range of two white lights, the after hght being carried at an elevation of 
 at least fifteen feet above the light at the head of the vessel; the head- 
 light to show through twenty points of the compass, namely: from right 
 ahead to two points abaft the beam on either side of the vessel; and the 
 after-light to show all around the horizon. 
 
 For steamers towing other vessels, the colored lights will be the same 
 as prescribed for ocean steamers ; and two white mast-lights shall also 
 be carried vertically, to distinguish them from other steamers; the white 
 lights to show through twenty points of the compass, viz: from right 
 ahead to two points abaft the beam on either side of the vessel; white 
 lights shall also be placed on the extreme outside of the tow on either 
 hand, and also on the extreme after part of the same. 
 
 Kui.E XYII. — A bright white light, not exceeding twenty feet above 
 the hull, shall be exhibited by all steamers when at anchor, between 
 sunset and sunrise, in a globular lantern of eight inches diameter, so 
 placed as to show a good light all around the horizon. 
 
 [Signed by the Supervising Inspectors of Steamboats. ^ 
 
 ACT OF JULY 7, 1838. 
 
 Chaptee 191. 
 
 AN ACT to provide for the better security of the lives of passengers on board 
 of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam. 
 
 Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the signauights 
 dutv of the master and owner of every steamboat running be- ty vessels mn- 
 
 " _ .7 ning at night 
 
 tween sunset and sunrise to carry one or more signal lights 
 that may be seen by other boats navigating the same waters, 
 under the penalty of two hundred dollars. Penalty. 
 
20 
 
 ACT OF MAECH 3, 1849. 
 
 Chaptee 105. 
 
 AN ACT making appropriations for light-houses, -light-boats, buoys, &c., and 
 providing for the erection and establishment of the same, and for other 
 purposes. 
 
 \The first four sections of this act relate to other Tnatters.l^ 
 
 to belbst^ed ^^^- ^- -^^^^ ^^ *'^ further enacted, That vessels, steam- 
 ?Mittngthenor- ^°^^®5 ^^'l propellcrs navigating the northern and western 
 we'stern takes lakes, shall, from and after the thirtieth day of April next, 
 in the night, qqt/^t^j ^ff\^^ the foUowiug regulations, for the security of life 
 and property, to wit: During the night vessels on the star- 
 board tack shall show a red light, vessels on the larboard tack 
 a green light, and vessels going off large or before the wind, 
 or at anchor, a white light; steamboats and propellers shall 
 carry on the stem, or as far forward as possible, a triangular 
 light, at an angle of about sixty degrees with the horizon, and 
 on the starboard side a light shaded green, and on the larboard 
 side red; said lights shall be furnished with reflectors, &c., 
 complete, and of a size to insure a good and sufficient hght; 
 and if loss or damage shall occur, the owner or owners of the 
 vessel, steamboat, or propeller neglecting to comply with these 
 regulations, shall be liable to the injured party for all loss or 
 damages resulting from such neglect, and the owner or owners 
 of any vessel failing to comply with said regulations shall for- 
 Penaity. fgj^ a penalty of one hundred dollars, which may be recovered 
 in an action of debt, to be brought by the district attorney of 
 the United States, in the name of the United States, in any 
 court of competent jurisdiction. 
 Approved March 3, 1849. 
 
 STEAMBOAT ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1852. 
 
 Chapter 106. 
 
 AN ACT to amend an act entitled "An act to provide for the better security of 
 the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by 
 steam," and for other purposes. 
 
 visT/irprcr. ^^- ^^- ^'^^ ^« it further enacted, That, in order to carry 
 
 pointed.^' "^^ *^^^ ^^* ^"^^^y i^*o execution, the President of the United States 
 
 shall, with the advice of the Senate, appoint nine supervising 
 
21 
 
 inspectors, who shall be selected- for .their knowledge, skill, and ^ Jj?'°^^ i"^"" 
 experience in the uses of steam for navigation, and who are 
 competent judges not only of the character of vessels, but of 
 all parts of the machinery employed in steaming, who shall 
 assemble together at such peaces as they may agree upon, once toard^at" *ira8t 
 in each year at least, for joint consultation and the establish- J^fe's an*dTOgu^ 
 ment of rules and regulations for their own conduct and that^^"?^?^*'^' 
 of the several boards of inspectors within the districts, and 
 also to assign to each of the said nine inspectors the limits of 
 territory within which he shall perform his duties. 
 
 Sec. 38. And be it further enacted, That on any such ^el'er* "Ihen 
 steamers, navigating rivers only, when from darkness, fog, or aangerou" on 
 other cause, the pilot on watch shall be of opinion that the "™"' 
 navigation is unsafe, or from accident to or derangement of the 
 machinery of the boat, the engineer on watch shall be of the 
 opinion that the further navigation of the vessel is unsafe, the 
 vessel shall be brought to anchor or moored as soon as it pru- 
 dently can be done : Provided, That if the person in command 
 shall, after being so admonished by either of such officers, 
 elect to pursue such voyage, he may do the same; but in such^^^'*^^^'*^'°J 
 case both he and the owners of such steamer shall be answer- ^'°'' ** ™°^®' 
 able for all damages which shall arise to the person of any 
 passenger and his baggage from said causes in so pursuing the 
 voyage, and no degree of care or diligence shall in such case 
 be held to justify or excuse the person in command or said 
 owners. 
 
 Sec. 29. And he it further enacted. That it shall be the.i'">«?''"'P»ss- 
 
 ■^ ' ingto beadopt- 
 
 duty of the supervising inspectors to establish such rules and yf^^J^^^j^ 
 regulations, to be observed by all such vessels in passing each ported in eyefy 
 other, as they shall from time to time deem necessary for *''=''"^''°'*- 
 safety, two printed copies of which rules and regulations, 
 signed by said inspectors, shall be furnished to each of such 
 vessels, and shall at all times be kept up in conspicuous places ■ 
 on such vessels, which rules shall be observed both night and 
 
 for 
 neglecting to 
 observe such 
 rules. 
 
 day. Should any pilot, engineer, or master of any such vessel n^gSing 
 neglect or -wilfully refuse to observe the foregoing regulations, 
 any delinquent so neglecting or refusing shall be liable to a 
 penalty of thirty dollars, and to all damage done to any pas- 
 senger, in his person or baggage, by such neglect or refusal; 
 
22 
 
 and no such vessel shall be justified in coming into collision 
 with another if it can be avoided. 
 
 taeeS^to be ^^°- ^^- -^^^ ^^ it further encDCted, That all engineers and 
 
 Srin ''^'"on pilots of ^°7 ^^^^ vessels shall, before entering upon their 
 
 their duties, (j^tjgg^ make solemn oath before one of the inspectors herein 
 
 provided for, to be recorded with the certificate, that he will 
 
 faithfully and honestly, according to his best skill and judgment, 
 
 perform all the duties required of him by this act, without 
 
 concealment or reservation; and if any such engineer, pilot, or 
 
 any witness summoned under this act as a witness, shall, when 
 
 the^Tnd wit° ii'i^isr examination on oath, knowingly and intentionally falsify 
 
 iwearing^^^'^^ the truth, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and 
 
 if convicted, be punished accordingly. 
 
 Penaities,how gjjc. 41. And le it further enacted. That all penalties im- 
 
 sued for and ■' ^ ■*■ 
 
 recovered. posed by this act may be recovered in an action of debt by 
 any person who will sue therefor in any court of the United 
 States. 
 This act not %Ea. 42. And be it further enacted. That this act shall not 
 
 to apply to cer- «' ^ ■' 
 
 tain vessels, apply to pubhc vesscls of the United States or vessels of other 
 countries; nor to steamers used as ferry-boats, tug-boats, towing- 
 boats, nor to steamers not exceeding one hundred and fifty 
 tons burden, and used in whole or in part for navigating canals. 
 th^"o''e*an mau '^^^ iuspcction aud Certificate required by this act shall in all 
 steamers. cases of oceau steamers constructed under contract with the 
 United States, for the purpose; if desired, of being converted 
 into war steamers, be made by a chief engineer of the navy, 
 to be detailed for that service by the Secretary of the Navy, 
 and he shall report both to said Secretary and to the super- 
 vising inspector of the district where he shall make any 
 inspection. 
 
 aot^shau t^*^ ^^°' *^" ^^'^ ^^ ^^ further enacted, That aU such parts of 
 effect. tJiig act as authorize the appointment and qualification of in- 
 
 spectors, and the licensing of engineers and pilots, shall take 
 effect upon the passage thereof, and that all other parts of this 
 act shall go into effect at the times and places as follows: in 
 the districts of New Orleans, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, 
 "Wheeling, Pittsburg, Nashville, Mobile, and Galveston, on the 
 
23 
 
 first day of January next; and in all other districts on the first 
 day of March next. 
 
 Sec. 44. And be it further enacted, That all parts of laws i^^g re" elieS' 
 heretofore made, which are suspended by or are inconsistent 
 with this act, are hereby repealed. 
 
 Approved August 30, 1852. 
 
 ACT OP JXJLY 25, 1866. 
 
 AN ACT further to provide for the safety of the lives of passengers on board of 
 vessels propelled in vrhole or in part by steam, to regulate the salaries of 
 steamboat inspectors, and for other purposes. 
 
 Sec. 9. And he it further enacted. That all vessels navi- ^^^, vessels 
 
 *^ ' except, &c., to 
 
 gating the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and other waters of the Jj^^ ^avStidn 
 United States, except -vessels subject to the jurisdiction of a ^^J^^^'g^g^ ** 
 foreign power and engaged in foreign trade and not owned in 
 whole or in part by a citizen of the United States, shall be 
 subject to the navigation laws of the United States; and all^^^team jes^ 
 vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, and navigating ^^^ig^^^Lct. 
 as aforesaid, shall also be subject to all rules and regulations ^°^^ |g^' ™'- 
 consistent therevdth, estabhshed for the government of steam 
 vessels in passing, as provided in the twenty-ninth section of 
 an act relating to steam vessels, approved the thirtieth day of 
 August, eighteen hundred and fifty-two. And every sea-going steam^vfsse°s^ 
 steam vessel now subject or hereby made subject to the navi- cept^'OT^^ifgii 
 gation laws of the United States, and to the rules and regula- aer''controi''of 
 tions aforesaid, shall, when under way, except upon the high except, &c.° *' 
 seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by 
 the inspectors of steam vessels; vessels of other countries and 
 public vessels of the United States only excepted. 
 
 Sec. 11. And he it further enacted, That the provision for ^'oremast- 
 a foremast-head light for steamships, in an acl entitled "An "■""'°™^ "f 
 
 o ■»- ^ steam rs, and 
 
 act fixing certain rules and regulations for preventing collisions *?i^® carrying 
 on the water," approved the twenty-ninth day of April, ^o^^^^'ii^p 5^; 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-four, shall not be construed to 
 apply to other than ocean-going steamers tod steamers carrying 
 
24 
 
 riTOr^stelmers ®*^^- Kiver steamei's navigating waters flowing into the 
 navipttorwT Gulf of Mexico shaU carry the foUowing lights, viz: One red 
 to'^Gui"/ofhght on the outboard side of the port smoke-pipe, and one 
 Mexico. green light on the outboard side of the starboard smoke-pipe; 
 July 25, 1866. these lights to show both forward and aft, and' also abeam on 
 ste^mera^&o^ ^^^^^ respective sides. All coasting steamers, and those navi- 
 ferry"oa4^&o° g^*™g ^^7^) lakcs, or othcr inland waters, other than ferry- 
 boats and those above provided for, shall carry the red and 
 green lights as prescribed for ocean-going steamers; and, in 
 addition thereto, a central range of two white lights; the after 
 Kght being carried at an elevation of at least fifteen feet above 
 the light at the head of the vessel; the head light to be so con- 
 structed as to show a good light thi-ough twenty points of the 
 compass, namely, from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam on either side of the vessel; and the after hght to show 
 aU around the horizon. 
 
 DECISIOISrS OF HOl^. PELEG SPEAGUE EST ADMIRALTY 
 
 AND MARITIME CAUSES EST THE DISTRICT COURT 
 
 OF THE UMTED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 EULES OF THE EOAD.— COMMON LAW OF THE SEA.— COLLISIONS.— LAW 
 OF THE PORT HELM, &c. 
 
 " When a steamer meets a sailing vessel going free, it is the duty of 
 the sailing vessel to keep her course, and the duty of the steamer to 
 keep out of her way by all reasonable and practicable means in her 
 power, without being restricted to going to the right or to the left, or to 
 any other particular measure. Law of collision generally. General 
 rules as to the course to be pursued by vessels approaching each other 
 to avoid collision." — (Sprague's Decisions, 245, Vol. I, Case of the 
 Osprey, 1854.)— "R. H. Dana, jr., and D. W. Gooch for the Osprey." 
 
 " The rules in the law of colhsion, which seem technical and arbitrary 
 will be found, on careful analysis, to be simple and founded in equity. 
 All will be found to turn upon the consideration whether the two vessels 
 meet on terms of equality or of inequality. If the former, the loss and 
 labor of deviation is borne equally. If the latter, the vessel having the 
 advantage takes the whole duty upon herself, and the other vessel keeps 
 her course. If the favored vessel may keep her coiu-se, she must do so, 
 
25 
 
 that the other vessel may know what to depend upon. Where both 
 vessels are steamers, or both are close-hauled, or both are free, they are 
 equal, and each keeps to the right. The rule, where both are close-hauled, 
 has usually been stated as though the vessel on the starboard tack was 
 favored, but it 'is really only an instance of the rule that each keeps to 
 the right. Where one is going free and the other is close-hauled they 
 are on an inequahty, and the favored vessel takes the whole duty of 
 avoiding the other, and the latter keeps her course." The Gazelle, (2, W. 
 Eob., 517;) The George, (5, Notes of Cases, 368;) The Woodrqp Sims, 
 (2, Dod., 83;) The Speed, (2, W. Eob., 225.) 
 
 Where a steamer meets a sailing vessel close-hauled, it is well settled 
 that the latter is to keep her course, and the steamer to get out of her 
 way. The Shannon, (2, Hagg., 173 ;) The Columbine, (2, W. Rob., 27;) 
 The Gazelle, (Id., 517;) The Berkenhead, (3 Id., 75;) The Vivid, (7, 
 Notes of Cases, 127.) 
 
 Whenever one vessel is to keep her course, and the other is to take 
 the whole duty of avoiding her, the latter, whether steamer or saiHng 
 vessel, is not restricted to going to the right, but may take any course, 
 and resort to any measures, which are most judicious and convenient. 
 The Berkenhead, (3, W. Rob., 75;) The James Watt, (2, Id., 270;) 
 The Northern Indiana, (16, Law Rep., 434; The Leopard, (Davies, 
 193;) St. John vs. Paine, (10, How., 557;) Newton vs. Stebhings, 
 (Id. 590.) 
 
 A steamer meeting a sailing vessel free is a case of inequality, and 
 should be governed by the latter rule. The proof in this case of a usage 
 to that effect on the American coast is incontrovertible. It is founded 
 in better policy, because it gives one uniform rule in all cases of steamers 
 meeting saiUng vessels, and does away with all inquiries at the time or 
 afterwards into the question whether the sailing vessel was close-hauled 
 or free. It is also more equal. The judicial decisions in America favor 
 this rule. The Leopard, (Davies, 193;) The Northern Indiana, (16, 
 Law Rep., 434;) St. John vs. Paine, (10,- How., 557;) Newton vs. 
 Stebhings, (Id., 590.) 
 
 In the English cases heretofore cited, although the sailing vessels hap- 
 pened to be close-hauled, the rule was not restricted to those cases, and 
 the case of The Shannon (2, Hagg., 173,) favors the uniform rule. The 
 only case to the contrary is that of The City of London, (4, Notes of 
 Cases, 40.) In that case the court follows a phrase instead of a principle, 
 and feels bound to treat a steamer as a sailing vessel having the wind 
 always free. That phrase was used in cases of steamers meeting vessels 
 close-hauled, and was not intended to apply to and Kmit cases of steamers 
 meeting vessels sailing free. 
 
26 
 
 The rule we contend for is founded in usage, in policy, in eqiiity, and 
 is supported by the weight of judicial authority. 
 
 J. C. Park, for the Fanny, contended — 
 
 1st. That upon the facts in the case it appeared that the brig was 
 coming up the harbor about mid-channel, was holding her course nearly 
 before the wind, and did not port her helm until the steamer had put her 
 helm to starboard and veered to leeward ; that then it was done to give 
 the steamer more space and more time to " slow," " stop," and " reverse " 
 her engine ; and that she (the steamer) should have done this and thus 
 have avoided the collision. 
 
 2d. That if the brig did port her helm on discerning the steamer, she 
 was right in so doing; and reliance was placed on the judgment of Dr. 
 Lushington in the case of The City of London, (A. D. 1845, 4, Notes 
 of Cases, 40.) In that case, which, in most of its facts, was similar to 
 the one at bar, after stating the rule as well understood that a steamer 
 is to be regarded as a vessel sailing with the wind free, the court went 
 on to say: "I have had occasion, over and over again, to say in this 
 court, and I will endeavor to put it in the clearest language I can com- 
 mand, that whenever two vessels meet at sea and there is any probable 
 chance whatever of collision, it is their duty to abide by the principles 
 of navigation, and each of them to take the precaution of putting the 
 helm to port, where both are free, so as to avoid the chance of accident; 
 and for this obvious and plain reason: that in a dark night Hke this, how 
 often must it happen that some doubt wiU arise whether the vessel be 
 direct ahead or one point to the starboard or to the larboard? And are 
 you to leave to mere chance the discovering this with perfect accuracy 
 or are you not immediately to adopt that which is the only safe pre- 
 caution^ — that is, following out the principle of the order, putting the 
 helm to port at once, and so avoiding the collision ? " 
 
 3d. That adherence to the rule laid down above by this higheat English 
 authority would insure against the accident itself by giving an arbitrary 
 rule, safe and sure, whether there really were danger or not; while the 
 other rule that the sailing vessel should hold her course, and the steamer 
 choose her course at her own peril, although it might enable the court 
 to determine with certainty where the fault lay after the collision had 
 occurred, furnished by no means so sure a mode of avoiding it. 
 
 4th. That the rule of keeping to the right having been adopted and 
 sanctioned by judicial decision and nine years' uniform practice in England 
 and the British territories, (with whom was much of our commercial 
 intercourse,) it was the best policy to adopt the same arbitrary rule for 
 the sake of uniformity of practice. Eeverse Dr. Lushington's opinion 
 and the steamers and sailing vessels now multiplying between the two 
 
27 
 
 countries must be governed by different rules depending upon the waters 
 tbey are navigating. 
 
 5th. To give an American deeisi'on adverse to that adopted in England 
 for nine years would place the vessels of the two countries in an awkward 
 position. "When two vessels should meet in a narrow channel iu an 
 obscure Hght, in waters not under the jurisdiction of either government, 
 one would adhere to the American, the other to the English rule, and a 
 collision would be the sure consequence. In obscurity and doubt, an 
 arbitrary uniform rule of action is always the safest. 
 
 6th. It was contended that, on the evidence, the crew of the steamer 
 descried the brig ten minutes before the collision ; that the steamer was 
 then going at the rate of six miles an hour, and she must, therefore, have 
 steamed one mile before the collision; that it had been shown that she 
 could be stopped in two hundred yards, and the engineer testifying that 
 the signal to "reverse" only preceded the collision fifteen seconds; that 
 it was culpable negligence in the steamer's crew not to "stop" and 
 "reverse" sooner; even though the saihng vessel had been wrong in 
 " porting^' her helm. For each vessel was bound to use all its powers 
 in order to avoid injury to itself and others. Two wrongs could never 
 make a right. 
 
 SpEAGtTE, J. — In these cases I have received great aid from the learned 
 and able counsel. 
 
 They are cross-libels for damage by collision. 
 
 The collision took place about eight o'clock in the evening, of the 12th 
 of August last, in that part of Boston harbor called the Narrows, where 
 the channel is about a fourth of a mile in width. When the vessels dis- 
 covered each other, the Osprey, a steamer, was going down the harbor, 
 in about mid-channel, at the rate of seven or eight knots — the northern 
 shore being on her larboard hand and the southern on her starboard. 
 The Fanny, a sailing vessel, was coming up the harbor nearer to the 
 southern shore, and between the southern shore and the middle of the 
 channel, and her direction was either straight up the channel or inclined 
 to the south. There was a five-knot breeze from the S.S.W., which was 
 a free wind for the Fanny, being a little abaft her beam and on her lar- 
 board side. Upon discovering each other the steamer put her hehn to 
 starboard, and the Fanny put hers to port, which carried both vessels 
 toward the northern shore where the collision took place. The steamer 
 went so far as to take the ground on the northern shore, which was very 
 bold just at the time or a few seconds before the vessels came in contact. 
 The Fanny ran head on to the steamer, striking her starboard bow at an 
 angle of about forty-five degrees. , 
 
 The collision would have been avoided, by the steamer taking the 
 
28 
 
 measure she did, if the Fanny had either kept her course or put her 
 helm to starboard ; and it also would have been avoided, by. the Faimy 
 taking the measure she did, if the steamer had put her helm to port. 
 According to the weight of judicial opinion and nautical practice in 
 England, the brig was right and the steamer was wrong; but according 
 to the weight of judicial opinion and nautical practice in this country, the 
 steamer was right and the brig was wrong. 
 
 This renders it necessary to examine the question on principle as well 
 as on authority. The great increase of navigation within a few years 
 past, and the multiphcation of clipper ships and steamers moving with 
 great speed, and the vast amount of property, and the number of human 
 lives constantly exposed to the dangers of collision, render it of great and 
 increasing importance that the rules for its prevention should be uniform 
 throughout the commercial world, and that they should be plain and 
 simple and founded on principle. 
 
 All the niles upon this subject are founded upon the supposition that 
 there is some reason to apprehend collision; for, if the position and 
 course of the. vessels are such that there is no danger of their coming in 
 contact, the rules are not called into action, and each vessel keeps on her 
 course. It is to be premised, in the first place, that the object to be 
 attained is safety, and, in the next place, that it is desirable that this 
 should be attained at the least cost, whether that cost consist in labor, 
 delay, or risk. All the cases may be comprised in two classes: first, 
 when vessels meet on terms of equality; second, when they meet on 
 terms of inequahty. The first comprises three cases, namely: 
 
 1st. Two sailing vessels, both going free. 
 
 2d. Two steamers. 
 
 3d. Two sailing vessels, both close-hauled. To all the cases one simple 
 rule may be applied, namely: Both go to the right. This rule is partly 
 arbitrary and partly founded on substantial reasons. It is arbitrary so 
 far as it directs to the right rather than to the left; but in requiring both 
 parties to take measures, as far as practicable, to get out of the way, it is 
 founded on principle. 
 
 Take the first case, that of two sailing vessels approaching each other, 
 both having the wind free. By the rule both must diverge from their 
 course. The reason is, that thus safety is more certain than if one only 
 diverged, and the inconvenience is justly divided between them, as both 
 can, by a free wind, regain the line on which they were sailing before 
 they met. 
 
 The same reason appHes to the second case, that of two steamers 
 meeting. 
 
 In the third case, that of two sailing vessels, both close-hauled upon 
 
29 
 
 the wind, the rule, as generally expressed, is that the one on the starboard 
 tack shall keep on her course, and the one on the larboard tack shall 
 give way by porting her helm. But the rule thus expressed is, in effect, 
 a direction to both to go or keep to the right. The one on the starboard 
 tack being close-hauled is already going as far to the right as possible. 
 When, therefore, the rule says she shall keep on her course, it, in fact, 
 says she shall keep to the right. The one on the larboard tack also goes 
 to the right, and she must deviate far enough to avoid the collision. She 
 is thus, indeed, subjected to the whole inconvenience necessary to secm-e 
 the safety of both — that is, to all the labor, delay, and risk, of diverging 
 to the leeward; but this is because the other vessel cannot diverge from 
 her course by going farther to windward. 
 
 The second class above mentioned, viz: where vessels meet on terms 
 of inequality, embraces two cases at least, viz: 
 
 1st. Two sailing vessels, one free and the other close-hauled. 
 
 2d. A steamer and a sailing vessel, the latter being closed-hauled. 
 
 Here the rule is that the vessel having the advantage must keep out 
 of the way, and the other must keep her course. Thus, in the first case, 
 that of two sailing vessels, one going free and the other close-hauled, the 
 one having the advantage of a fair wind can diverge from the line of her 
 course, so as to avoid collision, and then return to that line or take 
 another verging toward it and carrying her to the same point. But the 
 vessel which is close-hauled, whether on the larboard or starboard tack, 
 can give way only by going to leeward, and cannot regain the line of 
 her previous course ; but when she again hauls to the wind, must proceed 
 on a line parallel to her former course. She thus loses the whole distance 
 she has diverged to the leeward, which may sometimes occasion great 
 delay and hazard. The same reasons apply with increased force to the 
 second case, that of a steamer meeting a sailing vessel close-hauled; the 
 motive power of the former giving her a greater advantage than even a 
 fair wind does to a sailing vessel. 
 
 We come now to the case before the court, that of a saihng vessel 
 going free meeting a steamer. Shall we apply to it the rule of the first 
 class, which requires both to go to the right, or the rule of the. second 
 class, which requires the one having the advantage to keep out of the 
 way and the other to keep her course? 
 
 1st. A steamer has an advantage over a sailing vessel even with a free 
 wind. She can oftentimes turn in a shorter time and space, and check, 
 stop, and reverse her motion, in a manner which a sailing vessel cannot. 
 The motive power of the one is u^der human control, and at all times 
 available, that of the other is not. The vsand bloweth not only where 
 it listeth, but when it listeth; and it is of importance to the saihng vessel 
 
30 
 
 to improve it to the utmost while fair. It may suddenly come ahead or 
 wholly cease, and in the latter case she would be helpless. 
 
 2d. Safety and convenience are promoted by having the rules simple, 
 uniform, and governed by a plain principle. If we require a steamer, 
 meeting a sailing vessel, to keep out of her way, and the sailing vessel 
 to keep her course, whether she be going free or close-hauled, we have 
 one plain rule for all cases between steamers and sailing vessels, which 
 may be instantly applied. The moment they see each other both wiU 
 know their duty — the one that she must keep her course, the other that 
 she must keep out of the way, by all means ia her power, without being 
 restricted to the right or to the left, or to any other particular measure. 
 If we have one rule when the sailing vessel is close-hauled, and another 
 when she is going free, then the steamer must iirst ascertain the direction 
 she is sailing, and afterwards whether the vdnd is fair for that course, 
 which may sometimes be a matter of doubt and difficulty, for the steamer 
 is not as watchful of the wind and cannot so readily determine its 
 direction, as if she depended on sails. As she moves rapidly the wind 
 will often appear to be more ahead, and consequently more fair for the 
 approaching vessel than it actually is, especially if it be light; besides 
 which the wind may sometimes be baffling. All these doubts and 
 uncertainties will be obviated by having one rule for all cases of sailing 
 vessels meeting steamers. 
 
 3d. The general principle is that the vessel having the advantage shall 
 take all the burden of keeping out of the way. This principle governs 
 all other cases of inequality, and should be applied to this also, unless 
 there be some necessity for making it an exception. On the other hand 
 it may be said that by requiring both to go to the right safety wiU be 
 promoted, as they will separate more rapidly, and also that the incon- 
 venience will be divided instead of being wholly borne by one. And 
 these considerations certainly have weight. But they apply also to the 
 case of a vessel close-hauled, with her larboard tacks aboard, meeting a 
 steamer; and yet in such case those considerations have never been 
 thought sufficient to outweigh the advantage of the other rule. The 
 force of this last remark, however, is weakened by the fact that the 
 inconvenience of giving way is greater to a vessel close-hauled than to 
 one going free. 
 
 On the whole, the balance of advantage seems to be in favor of one 
 uniform rule. Let us now see how the question stands upon authority. 
 In the case of The City of London^ in the High Court of Admiralty, in 
 1845, reported in 4, Notes of Gases, 40, it was decided by Dr. Lushi'ng- 
 ton, assisted by Trinity Masters, that in a case like the present both 
 vessels must port then- helm— that is, go to the right. This decision rests 
 
31 
 
 entirely on the proposition that " a steamer is always to be considered a 
 vessel with the wind large." Is this proposition true ? It is not laid 
 down in any statute, adiniralty regulation, rule of the Trinity House, 
 or other maritime association, nor required by any judicial decision or 
 previous nautical usage. 
 
 Cases had arisen of collision between a steamer and a sailing vessel 
 with the wind large — that is, must keep out of the way ; and the reason 
 is obvious. The steamer has at least as great power and abiUty as such 
 sailing vessels, and, therefore, should be under as great obligation. But 
 has she not greater power, and may she not be under greater obligation ? 
 This question was not involved in these previous cases, and was neither 
 decided nor considered by the court. In those cases the declaration that 
 a steamer was to be considered a sailing vessel going free was first made 
 use of. That expression was weU enough for the occasion on which it 
 was used, and taken pro hac vice. But it is not to be presumed that the 
 court intended to lay down the proposition that a steamer was at all times 
 and in all cases to be deemed merely a saihng vessel going free ; and if 
 they did, so far as it went beyond the case before the coiu-t it was no 
 decision, but a mere dictum. 
 
 That expression or proposition was taken up by the court in the case 
 of The City of London, and made the sole ground of decision ; but it 
 is neither an argument nor the statement of a principle. It is rather an 
 assertion founded on a comparison; and comparisons may illustrate, but 
 prove nothing. 
 
 I have said that the assertion that a steamer is always to be considered 
 a vessel with the wind large, taken as a general proposition embracing 
 the case now before us, is not sustained by any previous rule or nautical 
 usage. This is confirmed by the very authority which we are now 
 examining. The learned judge does not say or intimate that there had 
 been any such rule or practice in the precise case, viz: a steamer meeting 
 a sailing vessel going free, but states the practice in the case of two 
 sailing vessels, both going free, and the Trinity rule as to two steamers, 
 and then asserts that the principle of that practice and the spirit of that 
 rule are applicable to the new case then before the court. But are they 
 apphcable % The two former cases are, as we have seen, those of perfect 
 equaMty, and the latter, one of inequality. How, then, the principle or 
 spirit of the rule or practice which govern the former is applicable to 
 the latter is not apparent without explanation, and the explanation is not 
 given. It is to be regretted that that learned and able judge did not go 
 into the rationale of the rule which he was about to adopt and make a 
 comparison of its advantages and disadvantages, and show that it would 
 conduce to safety and convenience of navigation. This was not done. 
 
32 
 
 The reason assigned is not satisfactory. The decision, however,- as an 
 authority upOn this subject is the highest in England and entitled to very 
 great respect.* 
 
 There is a case reported, decided in 1828, The Shannon^ (2, Haggard, 
 173,) in v^hich the opinion of the Trinity Masters, and the judgment of 
 the court thereon, seem to be adverse to the decision in the case of The 
 City of London. The report, however, is imperfect. 
 
 In the courts of the United States there have been four cases bearing 
 upon this question. In St. John vs. Paine et al., (10, How., 557,) a 
 sailing vessel in Long Island Sound, while on her starboard tack, with 
 the wind two points free, came in collision with a steamer. It was 
 decided that the steamer was in fault, because on her rested the obhgar 
 tion to keep out of the way. Mr. Justice Nelson, in delivering the 
 opinion of the court, says that the sailing vessel was nearly close-hauled ; 
 and the decision may not, perhaps, be deemed a direct authority where 
 she has the wind large, but the remarks of the learned judge fully cover 
 such a case. He says that a steamer has a greater power of directing 
 her course and controlling her motion than a sailing vessel going free, 
 and is bound to keep out of her way ; and that a sailing vessel meeting 
 a steamer may keep on her course, whether she be close-hauled or going 
 free. 
 
 The same doctrine is countenanced by the case of Newton vs. Stebhins, 
 (10, How., 586,) in which a saiHng vessel coming down the North River, 
 and carried chiefly by the current, the wind being light, came in colKsion 
 with a steamboat going up. The court held that the steamboat was to 
 blame in not keeping out of the way ; and by the report, it seems that 
 they did not deem it necessary to inquire what was the direction of the 
 wind, or how far it could control the movements of the vessel. 
 
 In the case of The Leopard, in the district court of Maine, in 1842, 
 (Davies, 193,) a sailing vessel going up the Kennebec Kiver, with a fair 
 wind, came in collision with a steam ferry-boat. It was held that the 
 former had a right to keep on her course, and that the latter was bound 
 to keep out of her way, on the ground that the steamer has greater 
 ability than any sailing vessel. 
 
 In the case of The Northern Lndiana, in the northern district of New 
 York, in the year 1852, (16, Law Hep., 434,) a saihng vessel on Lake 
 Erie, on her larboard tack, with the wind one point, or one and-a-half. 
 
 *The law, as laid down in "The City of London^' case, was established in England by 
 legislation— 17 and 18, Vict., o. 104, sec. 296, {The Inga, Stuart's Adm., 335,)— but it has been 
 repealed, (see sec. 25 of 25 and 26, Vict., c. 63,) and the Table (C,) Schedule "Kegulations 
 for preventing Collisions at Sea," "issued in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 Amendment Act, 1862," are now in force.- 
 
33 
 
 free, came in collision with a steamer. It was held that the former had 
 a right to keep her course, and the latter was bound to take the necessary 
 measures to avoid a collision. 
 
 We now come to the evidence of nautical usage. One witness, the 
 pilot who had charge of the Fanny, and whose conduct is now in ques- 
 tion, testifies that by the British practice, when a steamer meets a sailing 
 vessel going free, both port their helms, and that the British steamers 
 which come to Boston always act upon and inculcate that rule. On the 
 other hand, several pilots and shipmasters testify that, in such case, on 
 the American coast, the saiHng vessel always keeps her course, and the 
 steamer must keep out of the way. Upon the whole, I am led to the 
 conclusion that when a sailing vessel, going free, meets a steamer, the 
 rule that requires the former to keep her course, and the latter to keep 
 out of the way, is best sustained by principle, by authority, and by the 
 evidence before me of nautical usage. It remains to be seen whether 
 this rule is applicable to the place where this colUsion occurred. 
 
 There are various exceptions to these general rules, which may here 
 be enumerated. In general, they will be found to rest upon the princi- 
 ple that when the observance of the rule would not promote, but defeat, 
 its great purpose, safety, the rule ceases to be obligatory. 
 
 Thus, if there be two sailing vessels, both close-hauled, and the one 
 on the larboard tack is so far to windward- of the other that, if she ports 
 her helm, it will produce collision, the rule ceases to be obhgatory. 
 Such distance to the windward has been sometimes defined by saying 
 that if fas. vessel on the larboard tack would, if both keep their course, 
 be struck by the other abaft the beam, on the starboard side, she is not 
 to port her helm. 
 
 So, also, when collision has become inevitable, the general rules are no 
 longer enforced, but each vessel may adopt such measures as will diminish 
 her danger. 
 
 Again, there may be obstructions to navigation which prevent the 
 application of the rule. 
 
 In this case, the vessels were in the Narrows, in Boston harbor, where 
 the channel is a fourth of a mile wide. The banks are bold, and there 
 was no current, rock, shoal, vessel, or other obstruction, to interfere 
 with the application of the rule, and it was therefore obligatory upon 
 both vessels. The Fanny, then, ought to have kept her course, and ia 
 deviating from it she did wrong. The Osprey had a right to go to the 
 left, and in putting her helm to starboard she was not to blame. 
 
 But there is another ground on which it is insisted that the Osprey 
 did wrong, and that is, in not stopping her engine as soon as she might 
 3 
 
34 
 
 and ought to have done after she had put her helm to starboard, and saw 
 the Fanny had put hers to port. Although the Fanny made a mistake, 
 yet the steamer was still bound to prevent -a collision by all practicable 
 and reasonable means, and when she saw that the Fanny had put her 
 helm to port, she ought promptly to have stopped her engine, if that 
 would have avoided the collision. How is the fact? [The judge here 
 went into a particular examination of the evidence.] TJpon the whole, 
 I do not think that it is shown that the Osprey was neghgent in this 
 respect, or in any manner to blame, and the decree must be against the 
 Fanny." 
 
 The following is a brief summary of the decisions by Judge Sprague 
 in other oases of collision: 
 
 "A steamer, used as a ferry-boat, and in the act of transporting passen- 
 gers in the harbor of Boston, in violation of law, came by accident in 
 collision with a vessel which was in the lawful use of the waters of the 
 fiarbor. Held, that the steamer was liable for the damage done by 
 such collision." — The Maverack, (23, 1 Sprague.) 
 
 " By the maritime law, a vessel at anchor in a thoroughfare, in a dark 
 night, is bound to exhibit a light." — Lenox vs. Winisimmet Co., (1, 
 Sprague, 160.) 
 
 "In a case of collision, both vessels being in fault, the aggregate 
 damage and costs were equally divided." — {lb.) 
 
 " Where a ship without sails was lashed to a steamer alongside, and so 
 towed, the steamer furnishing the whole motive power, and the ship 
 came in collision with a saihng vessel, the steamer was held responsible." — • 
 The B. B. Forbes, (328, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 "If the night was so dark that a sailing vessel coming up Boston 
 harbor could not be seen from a ship and a steamer towing such ship 
 out of the harbor in season to avoid a collision, it was not proper for the 
 latter to leave the wharf and go down the harbor." — {Ib^ 
 
 "Where a steamer and a saihng vessel are approaching each other, it 
 is the duty of the latter to keep her course, and of the former to keep 
 clear."— (/6.) 
 
 " It is an estabhshed rule in the district court that, in a case of col- 
 lision, if both parties are in fault, the loss must be divided." — Allen vs. 
 Mackay, (219, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 "Where sailing vessels are approaching each other, one close-hauled, 
 the other going free, it is the duty of the latter to clear the former. To 
 this general mle there may be exceptions." — {lb.) 
 
 "Where a steamer meets a sailing vessel going free, it is the duty of the 
 sailing vessel to keep her course, and tlie duty of the steamer to keep out 
 of her way by aU reasonable and practicable means in her power, without 
 
35 
 
 being restricted to going to the right or to the left, or to any other 
 particular measure." — The Osprey, 245. 
 
 "A vessel off the wind must give way to. one close-hauled." — The 
 Clement, (257, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 "Where a square-rigged vessel and a schooner, both close-hauled, are 
 sailing upon convergent courses, on the same tack, and the convergence 
 is caused by the ability of the schooner to lie nearest the wind, the latter 
 must give way." — {H-) 
 
 "In case of collision, where it appeared that one of the vessels had 
 neglected an ordinary and proper measure of precaution, the burden is 
 on her to show that the collision was not owing to that neglect." — The 
 Schooner Lion, (40, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 "In cases of collision, where both vessels are to blame, the whole 
 damages are to be equally divided between them; but the court may 
 order the vessel most to blame to pay all costs." — The Rivals, 128. 
 
 "In case of collision, the owners of the vessel in fault are not exoner- 
 ated from liability by having a pilot on board." — The Julia M. Hallock, 
 (539, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 " The schooner, in getting under way, ran foul of a vessel at anchor. 
 Held, that the schooner was prima facie liable." — (li^ 
 
 "In anchoring directly to leeward of another vessel, at a distance of 
 125 to 160 fathoms, is not of itself neghgence." — The Julia M. Hallock, 
 (539, 1, Sprague.) 
 
 "A windward vessel, short handed and further assistance expected, 
 hove short before making sail, the anchor having previously dragged. 
 Held, that this was an improper mode of getting under way." — (^TS.) 
 
 "A vessel lost by a collision is to be paid for at her value when lost. 
 By the statute of 1851, chap. 43, sec. 3, the owners of the vessel in fault 
 are liable to the extent of the 'freight then pending,' as well as the 
 value of their vessel." — Allen vs. Mackay, (219, 1, Sprague.) 
 
36 
 
 THE BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854. 
 17° and 18°, Victorice, cap. 104. 
 
 Asr Act to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Relating to Meeohant 
 Shipping. — [lOth August, 1854.J 
 
 The British Merchant Shipping Acts, &c., Amendment. 
 25° and 26°, Victorice, cap. 63. 
 
 An Act to Amend " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 ; " " The 
 Merchant Shipping Act, Amendment Act, 1855;" and "The Cus- 
 toms Consolidation Act, 1«53."— [29th July, 1862.] 
 
 "1. This act may be cited as 'The Merchant Shipping Act, Amend- 
 ment Act, 1862,' and shall be construed with and as a part of 'The 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, hereinafter termed the Principal Act.'" 
 
 ^ 9^ ^F TP V ^ V ^ ^ 
 
 "Safety. — (Part IV, of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) 
 
 "Enactment of regulations concerning lights, fog signals, and sailing 
 lules in schedule. Table C. 
 
 "25. On and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred 
 .•jsad sixty-three, or such later day as may be fixed for the purpose by 
 (jkder in Council, the regulations contained ia the table marked C, in 
 ;the schedule hereto, shall come into operation and be of the same force 
 :aBlif they were enacted in the body of this act; but Her Majesty may, 
 from time to time, on the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and 
 the .Board of Trade, by Order in Council, annul or modify any of the 
 said regulations, or make new regulations in addition thereto or in sub- 
 -.stititttion therefor ; and any alterations in or addition to such regulations 
 made in manner aforesaid shall be of the same force as the regulations 
 in the said schedule." 
 
 "jRulesfor Harbors under Local Acts to continue in force. 
 
 " 31- Any rules concerning the lights or signals to be carried by ves- 
 sels navigating the waters of any harbor, river, or other inland navigation, 
 or concerning the steps for avoiding coUisioq to be taken by such vessels 
 which have been or are hereafter made by or under the authority of any 
 local act, shall continue and be of fiiU force and effect notwithstanding 
 anything in this act or in the schedule thereto contained." 
 
37 
 
 RULES OF THE ROAD; OR, STEERING AND SAILING 
 RULES OF GREAT BRITAIN.— JUNE 1, 1863. 
 
 " The Merchant Shipping Act, Amendment Act, 1862." 
 
 "Table C," (Sect: 25.) 
 
 EEGULATIONS FOE PEEVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA. 
 
 Issued in pu7'suance of the MercKt Shipping Act, ATnendmH Act, 1862. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Article 1. Preliminary. 
 
 Rules concerning Lights. 
 
 2. Lights to be carried as follows : 
 
 3. Lights for steamships. 
 
 4. Lights for steam-tugs. 
 
 5. Lights for saihng ships. 
 
 6. Exceptional lights for small saihng vessels. 
 
 7. Lights for ships at anchor. 
 ■ 8. Lights for pilot vessels. 
 
 9. Lights for fishing vessels and boats. 
 
 Sules concerning Fog-signals. 
 
 10. Fog-signals. 
 
 Steering and Sailing Rules. 
 
 11. Two sailing ships meeting. 
 
 12. Two sailing ships crossing. 
 
 13. Two ships under steam meeting. 
 
 14. Two ships under steam erossuig. 
 
 15. Saihng ship and ship under steam. 
 
 16. Ships under steam to slacken speed. 
 
 17. Vessels overtaking other vessels. 
 
 18. Construction of Articles 12, 14, 15, and 17. 
 
 19. Proviso to save special cases. 
 
 20. No ship under any circumstances to neglect proper precautions. 
 
 PEELIMINAEY. 
 
 Article 1. In the following rules, every steamship which is under sail, 
 and not under steam, is to be considered a saihng ship ; and every steam- 
 ship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered 
 a ship under steam. 
 
38 
 
 RULES CONCEENma LIGHTS. 
 
 Article 2. The lights mentioned in the following articles, and no others, 
 shall be carried in all weathers between sunset and' snnrise. 
 Article 3. Sea-going steamships when under way shaU carry — 
 (a) At the foremast head a bright white light, so fixed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of twenty points 
 of the compass, so fixed as to throw the %ht ten points on each side of 
 the ship, viz: from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on either 
 side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a 
 clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles. 
 
 {b) On the starboard side a green light, so constructed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points 
 abaft the beam on the starboard side, and of such a character as to be 
 visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least 
 two miles. 
 
 (c) On the port side a red light, so constructed as to show an uniform 
 and imbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of the compass, 
 so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam on the port side, and of such a character as to be visible on .a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 {d) The said green and red side lights shall be fitted with .inboard 
 screens, projecting at least three feet forward from the light, so as to 
 prevent these lights from being seen across the bow. 
 
 Article 4. Steamships, when towing other ships, shall carry two bright 
 white masthead lights vertically, in addition to their side lights, so as to 
 distinguish them from other steamships. Each of these masthead lights 
 shall be of the same construction and character as the masthead lights 
 which other steamships are required to carry. 
 
 Article 5. Sailing ships under way, or being towed, shall carry the 
 same lights as steamships under way, with the exception of the white 
 masthead lights, which they shall never carry. 
 
 Article 6. "Whenever, as in the case of small vessels during bad 
 weather, the green and red lights cannot be fixed, these lights shall be 
 kept on deck, on their respective sides of the vessel, ready for instant 
 exhibition, and shall, on the approach of or to other vessels, be exhibited 
 on their respective sides in sufficient time to prevent coUision, in such 
 manner as to make them most visible, and so that the green light shall 
 not be seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. 
 
 Note. — In Article 2 the words numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, have been added after the 
 following Articles, and the words "hetween'' and "and" have been omitted, and "from" and 
 "to" substituted by Order in Council, dated January 9, 1863. 
 
39 
 
 To make the use of these portable lights more certain and easy, they 
 shall each be painted outside with the color of the light they respectively 
 contain, and shall be provided with suitable screens. 
 
 Article 7. Ships, whether steamships or sailing ships, when at anchor 
 in roadsteads or fairways, shall, between sunset and sum-ise, exhibit where 
 it can best be seen, but at a height not exceeding twenty feet above the 
 huU, a white light in a globular lantern of eight inches in diameter, and 
 so constructed as to show a clear uniform and unbroken light visible all 
 round the horizon, and at a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 Article 8. SaUing pilot vessels shall not carry the lights required for 
 other sailing vessels, but shall carry a white light at the masthead, visible 
 all round the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare-up light every fifteen 
 minutes. 
 
 Article 9. Open fishing boats and other open boats shall not be re- 
 quired to carry the side lights required for other vessels; but shall, if they 
 do not carry such lights, carry a lantern having a green slide on the one 
 side and a. red shde on the other side, and on the approach of or to other 
 vessels, such lantern shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent col- 
 lision, so that the green light shall not be seen on the port side, nor the 
 red light on the starboard side. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats when at anchor, or attached to their 
 nets and stationary, shall exliibit a bright white light. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats shall, however, not be prevented from 
 using a flare-up in addition, if considered expedient. 
 
 EULES CONCEKNINa FOG-SIGNALS. 
 
 Article 10. Whenever there is fog, whether by day or night, the 
 fog-signals described below shall be carried and used, and shall be sounded 
 at least every flve minutes, viz: 
 
 (a) Steamships under way shall use a steam-wliistle, placed before the 
 funnel, not less than eight feet from the deck. 
 
 (J) Sailing ships under way shall use a fog-horn. 
 
 (c) Steamships and sailing ships, when not under way, shall use a bell. 
 
 Article 11. If two sailing ships 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. 
 
 Note. — In Article 6 the words "the lanterns contaming them" have been substituted for 
 "they;" and in Article 7 the words ietween sunset cmd svmrise have been omitted by Order in 
 Council, dated January 9, 1863. 
 
40 
 
 Article 12. When two sailing ships are crossing, so as to involve risk 
 of eolhsion, then, if they have the wind on different . sides, the ship with 
 the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the ship with the 
 wind on the starboard side, except in the case in which the ship with the 
 vsdnd on the port side is close-hauled, and the other ship free, in which 
 case the latter ship shall keep out of the way. But if they have the 
 wind on the same side, or if one of them has the wind aft, the ship 
 which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to 
 leeward. 
 
 Article 13. if two fliips under steam are meeting end on, or nearly 
 end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the hehns of both shall be put 
 to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. 
 
 Article 14. If two ships 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. 
 
 Article 15. If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other 
 a steamship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of col- 
 lision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship. 
 
 Article 16. Every steamship when approaching another ship so as to 
 involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop 
 and reverse; and every steamship shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate 
 speed. 
 
 Article 17. Every vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of 
 the way of the said last-mentioned vessel. 
 
 Article 18. Where, by the above rules, one of two ships is to keep 
 out of the way, the other shall keep her course, subject to the qualifications 
 contained in the following article : 
 
 Article 19. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard must be 
 had to all dangers of navigation, and due regard must also be had to any 
 special circumstances which may exist iu any particular case rendering a 
 departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate 
 danger. 
 
 Article 20. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the 
 owner or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect 
 to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, or 
 of the neglect of any precaution which may be requii-ed by the ordinary 
 practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. 
 
 Diagrams to illustrate the use of the lights carried hy vessels at sea, 
 and the manner in which they indicate to the vessel which sees them, 
 the position and description of the vessel that carries them. 
 
 When both red and green lights are seen. — A sees a red and green 
 
41 
 
 light ahead; A knows that a vessel is approaching fier on a course 
 directly opposite to her own, as B : 
 
 If A sees a white mast-head light above the other two, she knows that 
 B is a steam vessel. 
 
 When the red and not the green light is seen. — A sees a red light 
 ahead, or on the bqw; A knows that either, fii-st, a vessel is approaching 
 her on her port bow, as B; 
 
 or second, a vessel is crossing in some direction to port, as D D D. 
 
 If A sees a white mast-head light above the red light, A knows that 
 the vessel is a steam vessel, and is either approaching her in the same 
 direction as B, or is crossing to port in some dii-ection, as D D D. 
 
 When the green and not the red light is seen. — A sees a green light 
 ahead or on the bow; A knows that either, first, a vessel is approaching 
 her on her starboard bow, as B ; 
 
 or, second, a vesselis crossing in some direction to starboard, as D D D. 
 
 If A sees a white mast-head light above the green light, A knows that 
 the vessel is a steam vessel, and is either approaching her in the same 
 direction as B, or is crossing to starboard in some direction, as D D D. 
 
42 
 
 THE EULE OF THE EOAD AT SEA; OR, THE STEERINa 
 AND SAILING EULES OF GEEAT BEITAIK 
 
 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 on. 
 
 [This order appears in the London Gazette of the 4th August, 1868.] 
 
 EEGULATIONS FOE PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA. 
 
 At the Court at Osborne House, Isle of Wight, the 30th day of 
 July, 1868. 
 
 PEESENT : 
 
 The Queen's most Excellent Majesty in Council. 
 
 Section 25. 
 
 Whereas, by "The Merchant Shipping Act, Amendment Act, 1862," 
 it was enacted that on and after the fii-st day of June, one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty-three, or such later day as might be fixed for the pur- 
 pose by Order in Council, the regulations contained in the table marked 
 C, in the schedule to the said act should come into operation and be of 
 the same force as if they were enacted in the body of the said act; but 
 that Her Majesty might, from time to time, on the joint recommendation 
 of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, by Order in Council, annul 
 or modify any of the said regulations, or make new regulations iu addition 
 thereto or in substitution therefor, and that any alterations in or additions 
 to such regulations made in manner aforesaid should be of the same 
 force as the regulations in the said schedule. 
 
 Sections 68 and 61. 
 
 And whereas, by the same act, it was further provided that whenever 
 it should be made to appear to Her Majesty that the government of any 
 foreign country is willing that the regulations for preventing colhsion 
 contained in Table C, in the schedule to the said act, or such other regu- 
 lations for preventing collision as are for the time being in force under 
 the said act, should apply to the ships of such country when beyond the 
 limits of British jurisdiction, Her Majesty might, by Order in CouncU, 
 direct that such regulations shall apply to the ships of the said foreign 
 country whether witliin British jmisdiction or not; and it was further 
 provided by the said act that whenever an Order in Council had been 
 
43 
 
 issued applying any regulation made by or in pursuance of the said act 
 to the ships of any foreign country, such ships should in all cases arising 
 in any British court be deemed to be subject to such regulation, and 
 should for the purpose of such regulation be treated as if they were 
 British ships; 
 
 And whereas, by an Order in Coimcil made in pursuance of the said 
 recited act, and dated the ninth day of January, one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty-three. Her Majesty was pleased to direct: 
 
 First. That the regulations contained in the schedule to the said act 
 should be modiiied by the substitution for such regulations of certain 
 regulations appended to the said order; 
 
 Second. That the said regulations appended to the said order should, 
 on and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty- 
 three, apply to French ships whether within British jurisdiction or not; 
 
 And whereas, by several Orders in Coimcil subsequently made. Her 
 Majesty has been pleased to direct that the regulations appended to the 
 said order of the ninth of January, one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-three, shall apply to ships of the following countries, whether within 
 British jurisdiction or not — that is to say : 
 
 Austria. Mecklenburg-Schwerin. 
 
 Argentine EepubHc. Morocco. 
 
 Belgium. Netherlands. 
 
 BrazU. Norway. 
 
 Bremen. Oldenbiu-g. 
 
 Chih. Peru. 
 
 Denmark Proper. Portugal. 
 
 Equator, Repubhc of the. Prussia. 
 
 France. Roman States. 
 
 Great Britain. Eussia. 
 
 Greece. Schleswig. 
 
 Hamburg. Spain. 
 
 Hanover. Sweden. 
 
 Hawaiian Islands. Turkey. 
 
 Hayti. United States, sea-going ships. 
 
 Italy. United States, Inland "Waters. 
 
 Lubeck. Uruguay. 
 
 And whereas Articles 11 and 13 of the said regulations appended to 
 the said recited order of the ninth of January, one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty-three, are as foUows — that is to say: 
 
 Article 11. — "If two sailing ships are meeting end on or nearly end 
 
44 
 
 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." 
 
 Article 13. — "If two ships 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 whereas there has been doubt or niisapprehension concerning the 
 effect of the said two articles: 
 
 And whereas the Admiralty and the Board of Trade have jointly recom- 
 mended to Her Majesty to make the following additions to the said 
 regulations for the purpose of explaining the said recited articles, and of 
 removing the said doubt and misapprehension: 
 
 Now, therefore. Her Majesty, by virtue of the powers vested in her 
 by the said recited act, and by and with the advice of Her Privy OouncU, 
 is pleased to make the following additions' to the said regulations by way 
 of explanation of the said two recited articles— that is to say: 
 
 The said two articles, numbered 11 and 13 respectively, only apply to 
 cases where ships are meeting end on or nearly end on in such a man- 
 ner as to involve risk of collision. They, consequently, do not apply to 
 two ships which must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass clear 
 of each other. 
 
 The only cases in which the said two articles apply are when each of 
 the two ships is end on or nearly end on to the other — in other words, 
 to eases in which by day each ship sees the masts of the other in a line 
 or nearly in a line with her own, and by night to cases in which each 
 ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other. 
 
 The said two articles do not apply by day to cases in which a ship 
 sees another ahead crossing her ovm course; or by night to cases where 
 the red light of one ship is opposed to the red light of the other; or 
 where the green hght of one ship is opposed to the green hght of the 
 other; or where a red light without a green light, or a green light without 
 a red hght, is seen ahead ; or where both green and red lights are seen 
 anywhere but ahead. 
 
 "AeEANGEMBNTS OONOEENING LiGHTS, SAILING EuLES, « * * » 
 IN THE CASE OE FoEEIGN ShiPS. 
 
 ^^ Foreign Ships in British Jurisdiction to be subject to Regulations m 
 Table ( (7) in Schedule. 
 
 "57. Whenever foreign ships are within British jurisdiction, the 
 regulations for preventing collision contained in Table (C) in the schedule 
 
45 
 
 to tMs act, or such other regulations for preventing collision as are for 
 the time being in force under this act, and all provisions of this act 
 relating to such regulations, or otherwise relating to collisions, shall 
 apply to such foreign ships; and in any case arising in any British 
 court of justice concerning matters happening witliin British jurisdiction, 
 foreign ships shall, so far as regards such regulations and provisions, be 
 treated as if they were British ships. 
 
 '■'■Regulations, when adopted by a foreign country, may he applied to 
 its ships on the high seas. 
 
 " 58. Whenever it is made to appear to Her Majesty that the govern- 
 ment of any foreign country is wilhng that the regulations for preventing 
 collision contained in Table (C) in the schedule to this act, or such othei* 
 regulations for preventing .collision as are for the time being in force 
 undei* this act, or any of the said regulations, or any provisions of this 
 act relating to collisions, should apply to the ships of this country when 
 beyond the limits of British jurisdiction. Her Majesty may, by Order 
 in Council, direct that such regulations, and all provisions of this act 
 which relate to such regulations, and all such other provisions as afore- 
 said, shall apply to the ships of the said foreign country, whether within 
 British jurisdiction or not," 
 ********* 
 
 "Effect of Order in Council. 
 
 "61. Whenever an Order in Council has been issued under this act, 
 applying any provision of this act, or any regulation made by or in pur- 
 suance of this act, to the ships of any foreign country, such ships shall, 
 in all cases arising in any British court, be deemed to be subject to such 
 provision or regulation, and shall, for the pm-pose of such provision or 
 regulation, be treated as if they were British ships." 
 ********* 
 
 " Orders in Council may be revoked and altered. 
 
 " 63. Her Majesty may by Order in Council from time to time revoke 
 or alter any order previously made under this act. 
 
 " Orders in Council to be published in London QazetteP 
 
COLLISIONS. 
 
 rLLUSTEATIONS OF THE BRITISH RULE OP THE ROAD BY ADMIRALTY 
 
 COURT DECISIONS. 
 
 " The collision of vessels at sea may arise from mere accident, or from 
 a misfortune which may occur by one vessel running down or being run 
 down by another, or by being driven against another, or by two coming 
 in contact; and the four possibilities under which such a disaster may 
 occur have been thus very clearly stated by the late Lord Stowell, then 
 the very learned Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Great 
 Britain. 
 
 "There are four possibilities under which an accident of this sort may 
 occur. 
 
 "In the first place, it may happen without blame being imputable to 
 either party, as when the loss is occasioned by a storm or any other vis 
 Tnajor ; and in that case, the misfortune must be borne by the party on 
 whom it happens to light, the other party not being responsible to him 
 in any degree. 
 
 "Secondly, a misfortune of this kind may arise where both parties are 
 to blame — ^where there has been a want of due dihgence or skill on both 
 sides. In such a ease, the rule of law is that the loss must be appor- 
 tioned among them, as having been occasioned by the fault of both. 
 
 "Thirdly, it may happen by the misconduct of the suffering party 
 only; and then the rule is, that the sufferer must bear his own burden. 
 
 " Lastly, it may have been the fault of the ship which run the other 
 down; and, in this case, the injured party would be entitled to an entire 
 compensation from the other.* 
 
 "In the case of The, Commerce, (3, Kob. Ad. K., 287,) where a close- 
 hauled vessel on the port tack and a starboard-tacked vessel with the 
 wind free met each other, and neither gave way in time so as to avoid 
 the probability of a collision, it was held that both vessels were equally 
 in fault; but that the former was not justified in keeping her luff, but, 
 where practicable, she was bound to take the necessary precautions for 
 avoiding the collision, though the other vessel was acting wrong in not 
 bearing away. 
 
 'TAc Woodrqp (2, Dod. Ad. E., 83.) 
 
47 
 
 "In the case of The Eclipse and The Saxonia, (8, Jur., n, s., 315,) it 
 was held that it is the law and the rule of the sea that a vessel having 
 the wind free, is to give way to a vessel close-hauled, and that a vessel 
 under steam is always to be considered as going free. 
 
 "In the case of The Maddox vs. Fisher — The Independence (9, W. 
 E., 582) — the rules that when a steam or sailing ship proceeding in one 
 direction 'meets another steam or sailing ship proceeding in another 
 direction, so that, if both vessels were to continue their respective courses, 
 they would pass so near as to run any risk of a collision, the helms of 
 both ships must be put to port, so as to pass on the port side of each 
 other, and that the ship by which this rule has been broken shall not 
 recover damage, it has been held, apply only to cases in which the 
 vessels meet end on, and when the observance of the rule would make 
 the vessels so to turn away from each other as to pass port side to port side. 
 
 "In the case of The Arthur Gordon and The Independence, (1, Lush- 
 ington, 2Y6,) when, in the open sea and in the day time, a sailing vessel, 
 close-hauled on the port-tack, and a steamer towing a large ship were 
 standing so as to cross each other's bows, the steamer being on the lee 
 beam of the sailing vessel, and a collision took place, it was held that 
 the saihng vessel was to blame for holding her reach, and the steamer 
 was also to blame for taking no measure to avoid collision. 
 
 "In the case of The Rob Roy, (3, W. Eob., 190,) as steam vessels 
 navigate according to prescribed x-ules as to the number and color of 
 hghts to be carried, it is essential that the commander of each vessel 
 have his hghts properly trimmed and burning; and where the green 
 hght of one steam vessel had gone out previous to the colhsion with 
 another steam vessel, the defence of the latter vessel that the master 
 (conunander,) upon the supposition that the approaching vessel was a 
 sailing vessel, acted in conformity with the general rules of navigaition 
 by porting his helm, was sustained. 
 
 " In the case of The Araxes and The JBlack Prince, (5, L. I., n. s., 
 39,) where two steamers were approaching each other in opposite and 
 parallel directions, and saw the lights of each other several miles oif, the 
 one, when coming near, put her helm hard aport, and the other put her 
 helm hard astarboard, and collision followed, it was held that a vessel 
 obeying the rule has a right to trust that the vessel she meets, if a British* 
 vessel, wiU obey it also; and therefore, when the one steamer, a mile and 
 a half oif, starboarded instead of porting her helm, she was, at first 
 sight, in the wrong, though, if both had starboarded at that time, the 
 risk of collision would have been equally avoided. 
 
 *0r of any other nation having such treaty stipnlation, and having adopted the British 
 Merchant Shipping Amendment Actjjf 1863, and the rules based upon it. — See Act of Congress 
 approved Apnl 29, 1864. 
 
48 
 
 "In the case of The Friends, (1, W. Eob., 478,) where a collision took 
 place on the Thames between the steamer M'enai and the schooner The 
 Friends, the Menai was coming up the river, on the Kentish shore, 
 distant about one-third of the whole breadth of the reach, the night being 
 dark, the tide ebbing, and the wind blowing strong from the west, when 
 a vessel was observed coming down the river just open over the starboard 
 bow, and, as soon as the vessel was reported, the helm of the Menai was 
 put to starboard, in the full behef that the schooner would keep down 
 the mid-channel, in order to go down with the strength of the tide; it 
 was held that the steamer was to blame for putting her helm to starboard 
 and the schooner had conducted herself properly. 
 
 "When one ship is injured or run down by the fault of another, the 
 injured ship obtains full reparation. When one ship was light and had 
 the wind free, and another was laden and close-hauled to the wind, and 
 the latter was run down by the former, (Per Eayley, B., in Vennal vs. 
 Garner, 3, Tyrwh., 86,) it was said from the bench: 'The plaintiff's ship 
 was not in fault in steering as she did, for she had a right to expect that 
 the defendant's ship, which had the wind and might go as large as she 
 pleased, would do that which ought to be done, and would make way.' 
 ' The fault was wholly that the defendant, having the wind, did not make 
 way for the plaintiff's ship, as he should have done.' 
 
 "In the case of The Margerton, (2, Jur., !N". S., 620,) it was held that 
 as it is incumbent on ships, under ordinary circumstances, to port their 
 helms when approaching should there be danger of colhsions ; and vessels 
 must so act towards each other upon the presumption that that rule will 
 be. acted on; and, therefore, a saihng vessel not having ported her helm 
 in sufficient time, and not having the proper regulation lights, having 
 been run into by a steamer, that the steamer was not to blame for the 
 collision. 
 
 "In the case of The Dumfries, (1, Swabay, 125,) one vessel was steer- 
 ing north with a fair whid, and another vessel was on the starboard tack 
 and close-hauled; the rule of the sea in such a case being that the former 
 should go astern of the latter — it was held that, notwithstanding the 
 rule in Section 296 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the latter vessel was 
 entitled to keep on her course, presuming that the former would give 
 way to her; and the former vessel not having seen the latter till it was 
 too late, and having then ported her hehn, which led to a collision, it 
 was held that the former vessel was not entitled to recover. 
 
 "It has also been held in the case of The James, (1, Swabay, 60,) that 
 Section 296 is not confined to cases where one vessel only is in fault, but 
 appHes also to the case of vessels lying to; and in the case of ^Morgan 
 vs. 8im,' (11, Moore's P. C. 0., 307,) it was held that it lies on the party 
 
49 
 
 seeking to recover damages for a collision to prove that the loss vras 
 occasioned by the fault or neglefet of the other party, otherwise he cannot 
 recover. [The rules as to ships' lights and meeting and passing in Sections 
 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, have 
 been repealed, and those based upon the Merchant Shipping Act, Amend- 
 ment Act of 1862 substituted, and are now in force, as set forth in 
 'Table C, Sec. 25.']— &e ante. 
 
 "It has been. held that a vessel close-hauled on the port (larboard) tack 
 ought never to put her helm alee; and, therefore, the James was con- 
 demned because she threw herself in stays when in danger of collision 
 with another vessel sailing free. 
 
 " It is held that whenever vessels on the starboard tack were justified 
 in putting down the helm, it has been with the hope of escaping contact, 
 and not tacking in pursuance of a prior intention. The Admiralty judge 
 has repeatedly declared it to be not merely the right, but the duty* of a 
 vessel close-hauled meeting another free, or of a vessel close-hauled on 
 the starboard tack meeting another on a wind, also ' to hold her course 
 without deviation ;' but the privilege is not to be insisted upon when the 
 existence of the right to use it admits of the slightest doubt. It was 
 decided, in the case of the ' Traveler,' | that, as at night a vessel close- 
 hauled on the larboard {port) tack can never be quite sure whether a 
 sail seen approaching her lee bow is -close up to the wind or a little from 
 it, it is the duty of the former to port her helm and bear away, even 
 though the other may have the wind quite free. 
 
 "The cases of convergent courses on opposite tacks may be classed 
 under the following general combinations : 
 
 "No. 1. — JBoth vessels close-hauled on opposite tacks. 
 
 " The ship on the port tack should port her helm and bear away. 
 "No. 2. — JBoth ships on opposite courses, wind free. 
 
 "The ship on the port tack ports her helm and bears away.. The one 
 on the starboard tack holds her course, or shghtly ports her helm. J 
 "No. 3. — A ship close-hauled on the starboard tack and one with a 
 free wind' on the port tack are crossing in an angular direction, arid 
 
 the latter having a free wind, is on the windward side of the form,er, 
 
 close-hauled. 
 
 "The helm of the ship sailing free should be starboarded, and she 
 pass to windward, going astern of the other. 
 
 » See the "Harriet," 1, Eob.Jr., 182; "Hope, 1, Bob., jr., 154," &o. 
 
 tCase of "Harriet," 7, Jurist, 1044. 
 
 X The old Trinity rules did not provide 'for the case of a vessel dead before the wind, and 
 crossing another having a fair wind on her side. The safest course would seem to be for the 
 vessel befor.e the vfind to pass astern of the one having the wind on her side. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 "Jfo. 4:.— The vessels are sailing as in No. 3, hut the one with the wind 
 free is on the leeward side of the track, of the other, close-hauled. 
 
 "The helm of the vessel sailing free should \)Q ported, and she should 
 pass to leeward of the other. 
 
 "No. 5. — Vessels sailing as in No 3, hut approaching ^end on.^ 
 "The free vessel should port her helm and go before the wind. 
 
 "No. 6. — A close-hauled ship on the port tack and one with a free 
 wind on the starboard side are crossing in an angular direction, and 
 the free vessel is on the windward side of the track of the former. 
 
 "The free vessel should port her helm and pass to windward and 
 astern of the close-hauled vessel. 
 
 "No. 7. — The vessels sailing as in case No. 6, but the one with the wind 
 free is on the lee side of the other. 
 
 " The helm of the vessel sailing free should be starboarded, and she 
 should pass to leeward of the one close-hauled. 
 
 "There are at present two distinct rules for the navigation of vessels 
 at sea, the old maritime rule and the rule of the port helm, as it is 
 called. 
 
 "The old maritime law of the sea provides generally, That a vessel 
 going free shall give way to a vessel on a wind; that a vessel close- 
 hauled on the port tack shall give way to a vessel close-hauled on the 
 starboard tack; and that a steam, vessel shall always give way to a 
 sailing vessel. Tliese are the i-ules which the Admiralty stiU prescribes 
 for the guidance of the Queen's ships, and it is by this law that collisions 
 between foreign merchant vessels, or between foreign and British mer- 
 chant vessels, are decided. 
 
 "The rule of the port helm, as at present applied, is a statutory regu- 
 lation of comparatively recent origin. In general terms, the rule, as 
 laid down in the 296th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, is, That 
 when two vessels are m,eeting one another, so as to involve a risk of 
 collision if they continue their respective courses, both shall port their 
 helms, so as to pass one another on the port hand." 
 
 Note. — The question as to the law by which a collision on the high seas between a British 
 and a foreign vessel should be determined was very fully considered by the learned judge of 
 theCourtof Admiralty in the case of the "Pet" v. the "ZoUverein," reported in the Shipping 
 Gazette of the 25th of April, 1856, where that learned judge held that the case must be 
 decided by the maritime law, and not by the statute law of Great Britain. In that case the 
 "ZoUverein," the foreign vessel, was clearly to blame, and the question was whether the 
 
51 
 
 The Eukopa and Charles Baetlett. 
 
 Decisioii of an Appeal from the Admiralty Court to the House qf 
 
 Lords. 
 
 The following case of the Charles Bartlett and Europa is quoted at 
 length here as it serves to show how steamers are held to blame from 
 being considered in the light of vessels with a free wind, and, therefore, 
 capable of avoiding collision. It is an appeal from the decision of the 
 Admiralty Court to the House of Lords : 
 
 "This case is one of extreme importance with reference to the magni- 
 tude of the subject at stake. But it is a case in which, having heard all 
 that can be said on the part of the appellants, and having had an oppor- 
 tunity, since the matter was last before this court, to consider the effect 
 of the evidence adduced, their lordships have come to the conclusion, 
 without any doubt whatever, that the judgment of the court below was 
 correct; therefore, we need not trouble the counsel for the respondent 
 to address us. 
 
 "It is to be observed that this is a siut instituted by the owners of the 
 barque Charles Bartlett against the steamer Europa, and there are 
 several other actions to abide the result. That a most fearful collision 
 did take place is a matter that admits of no doubt; there is no doubt 
 that the Eiiropa ran into and sank the Charles Bartlett, with all her 
 cargo and the greatest part of her passengers and crew; for that, the 
 owners of the Charles Bartlett seek reparation, and before they can 
 sustain this judgment in its integrity, they have to make out two pro- 
 positions: first of all, that this was occasioned by the misconduct of the 
 Europa, and next, that they were not to blame themselves. I wish to 
 guard myself in saying they are to make out that, because I understand 
 
 "Pet," the British vessel, was not also to blame. The "Pet" had kept her course up to the 
 time of the collision. By the statute law (the 296th section of the Merchant Shipping Act) 
 she was bound to have ported her lielm, but by the maritime law she was justified in keeping 
 her course. The court held that the collision having taken place with a foreign vessel, which 
 was clearly not subject to our statute law, the case must be decided by the general maritime 
 law, and that, consequently, the "Pet" was not to blame, although she had in fact violated 
 our statute law by not porting her helm. 
 
 The same principle was also laid down by the same learned judge so late as the 29th of 
 January last, in the case of the "Alert" v. the "Activ," reported in the Shipping Gazette of 
 that day; and where he observed that, "This being a collision between a foreign and an 
 English ship, we have nothing to do with the act of Parliament; we may leave it out of con- 
 sideration, and our judgment must be governed by the ordinary rules of navigation among 
 civilized nations." 
 
 And on the 17th of the same month, in the case of the "Camilla" v. "the Christiana," the 
 same learned judge, in addressing the Trinity Masters observed: "Gentlemen, this collision 
 having taken place between an English vessel and an American, the question has been raised 
 by what law we are to consider the merits of the respective parties. Upon that head there is 
 no doubt whatever that the judgment must be governed by the maritime law, which we con- 
 sider to be the maritime law of the world, which is in use among all nations, without reference 
 to any act of Parliament which may be passed for the guidance of British vessels." 
 
52 
 
 it to' be a matter, of diiference in the Court of Admiralty upon whom the 
 onus lies; but it is not necessary to enter into the abstract question here, 
 because their lordships have come to the clear conclusion that the 
 Euroija was to blame, and the Charles Bartlett was not. At all events, 
 the Charles Bartlett was not to blame in anythmg that contributed to 
 the accident. 
 
 "Now, with regard to the Europa, the way it was put by the learned 
 judge of the Admiralty Com-t is this; he says: 'Was the Europa to 
 blame for going twelve and a half knots an hour during a fog, which it 
 is admitted to have been in the locality described ? Secondly, whether 
 she was to blame for not having an adequate watch ? Thirdly, was there 
 any neglect in the engineering department? Fourthly, whether the 
 order given to starboard, which it is admitted was an erroneous order, 
 was or was not carried into execution, so as to produce any effect? The 
 fifth will be a general question, whether the collision was the consequence 
 of this state of things?' 
 
 "Now, the first question put is, 'Was the Europa to blame for going 
 twelve and a half knots an hour during a fog, which it is admitted to 
 have been, in the locality specified?' Now, the report on that subject, if 
 I may give that name to it, was, that no positive rule can be laid down 
 as to the rate at which a steamer may or may not travel on the ocean; 
 no positive rule can be laid down ; and I think it may also be said (I do 
 not know whether it does go to that length) that no .positive rule can be 
 laid down as to what rate a steamer may or may not go during a fog. 
 Fog is a word which admits of such infinite differences of degree, that 
 no rule can be laid down applicable to every case of every fog. But 
 their lordships are of this opinion — that this may be safely laid down as 
 a rule on all occasions, fog or clear, light or dark — that no steamer has 
 a right to navigate at such a rate that it is impossible for her to prevent 
 damage, taking all precaution at the moment she sees damage to be 
 possible or probable; and if she cannot do that without going at less 
 than five knots an hour, then she is bound to go at less than five knots 
 an hour, as will probably be the case in coming up the Thames. In the 
 middle of the Atlantic much greater latitude may be allowed; but neither 
 in the Atlantic nor anywhere else, can any ship be navigated at such a 
 rate that it is impossible for her to avoid doing damage, discovering only 
 the irapendency of damage at the moment when it is impossible to 
 avoid it. 
 
 "Taking that as the turning point on which our judment is to go, let 
 us see what the evidence is on that subject. It appears by the log of the 
 Europa, ' 3h. 30m., dense fog, could not see more than a ship's length 
 ahead:' that is their own statement of the state of the atmosphere; they 
 
53 
 
 were going twelve and a half knots an hour. "Was it or was it not 
 possible, in that state of things, to avoid running foul of the ship, if they 
 discovered, at the distance of seventy-five yards from her own head, a 
 sailing vessel? I say seventy-five yards distance, that is about the length 
 of the ship, or 100 yards ? What is the evidence on that subject ? There 
 is a conflict of testimony. There have been examined ten witnesses on 
 that point, six of them persons that were on board the ship, the Europa, 
 at the time of this unfortunate accident. One is Douglas Keid, the 
 Admiralty Lieutenant — he was in charge of the mails; Wardell, the 
 second officer of the Europa; Coates, an able seaman; White, an able 
 seaman; Fern, an able seaman; and Campbell, an able seaman. Lieut. 
 Keid says he is of opinion that she could stop herself, by which I under- 
 stand not literally stop but so as to get out of the way of doing damage, 
 if she discovers anything within her own length. So say White and 
 Fern, two of the able seamen. Coates, an able seaman, and Campbell, 
 an able seaman, say that, in their opinion, she cannot do it if she is going 
 twelve and a half knots an hour, and discovers something for the first 
 time 100 yards distant; it is impossible to stop. The expression of 
 another person is, ' Stop her, and get out of the way,' and that is the 
 meaning of all the witnesses. 
 
 "Then, in addition to the parties on board the ship, they have exam- 
 ined also three captains of other ships belonging to the same company. 
 Shannon, Lang, and Judkins; and all of them, without exception, say 
 they conceive it impossible, discovering anything merely at the distance 
 of a ship's length, to get out of the way. That is entitled to the more 
 weight because one of them. Shannon, begins by saying, 'I think she 
 could,' but he corrects himself by saying, on further consider a', ion, 
 'I think she could not.' Of the same opinion is a person named Bell- 
 house, a passenger on board; so far as his testimony goes, she could not. 
 
 "Take the evidence to be correct on that subject, that the Europa 
 was navigated at a rate wliieh made it impossible for her to avoid col- 
 lision with a ship, discovering it only at the distance at which alone it 
 could be discovered, it appears to us to follow, as an inevitable conse- 
 quence, that she was sailing at a rate of speed at which it was not law- 
 ful for her to navigate. 
 
 " But there is a little conflict of the evidence on that subject. Conflict 
 of evidence is often a matter difficult to deal with, but, fortunately for 
 the ends of justice here, it appears to their lordships that it will make no 
 difference, because if the evidence of three of the witnesses be the correct 
 view of the case, and if it were possible to avoid the collision, discovering 
 the ship her own length off only, no further than that, then we come to 
 the other point, why did not the Exiropa get out of the way? There- 
 
54 
 
 fore it appears reducible to the position quicunque via. The Europa 
 admits herself, or it must be admitted, the Europa was materially to 
 blame. 
 
 "That being so, it is not necessary to discuss the other grounds of 
 blame alluded to in the Court of Admiralty ; but their lordships are of 
 opinion that probably on the other points, certainly on most of them, the 
 judgment was quite correct. I say the evidence on these points satisfies 
 us she was to blame. Was she to blame for not having an adequate 
 watch ? It is proved, it was admitted by Dr. Addams, and it must be 
 taken to be the fact, that there was only one eye looking out on the 
 occasion in question. Without professing to know anything of nautical 
 affairs in a ship going at this enormous rate in a part of the Atlantic, 
 where, though there is a difference in the evidence, it was probable she 
 would encounter other ships, it was very imprudent and improper not to 
 have more than a single eye on that look-out. The naval gentlemen 
 whose assistance we have had, tell us that it is clearly their opinion that 
 a ship under these circumstances ought to have had more than one eye 
 looking out. If that had been so, I do not know that a difference of 
 result would have happened, but it might have been so, and it is clear 
 they were guilty of great negligence in not having a better look-out. 
 
 " Was there any neglect in the engineering department ? If anything 
 turned upon that, some of us might have wished further time to consider 
 the evidence, but if we are called upon to express our opinion off hand, 
 we should say the preponderance of the evidence is, that there was not 
 sufficient attention. There should have been a person at the crank hatch 
 to communicate the orders. That is the opinion we have formed; but 
 if that had been any of the blame we attribute, we should have wished 
 more time to consider it. It is idle, however, to stop to consider it in a 
 case where the result must be the same, let it be one way or the other. 
 
 " It is admitted that a wrong order was given to starboard the helm. 
 There, Lieut. Eeid says, he is of opinion that she could stop herself, by 
 which is a doubt whether that was to any extent carried into execution. 
 Certainly, it was only to a small extent, if to any extent. It was a 
 wrong order, and probably it a Uttle interfered with larboarding the 
 helm; probably to a minute extent, indeed. Whether it contributed to 
 the accident, it might be unsafe to speculate upon. Whether it was 
 executed, is a matter on which we do not feel called to give a positive 
 opinion, inasmuch as it would not have turned the case one way or the other. 
 
 " For all these reasons their lordships have come to the conclusion that 
 the Europa was to blame — very much to blame, on the grounds I have 
 stated. 
 
 "With regard to the Charles Bartlett, was the Charles Bartlett to 
 
55 
 
 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 jEuropa 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 Barilett 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 imdoubtedly there was considerable force in the observa- 
 tions 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-ovit 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 Barilett 
 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 Barilett, it is to be observed, was under circum- 
 stances in which, according to the laws of navigation, she was entitled to 
 keep her course. Of course, it will not be understood that their lord- 
 ships 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 vyill 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 liis course. That was the 
 position in which the Charles Barilett 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 passen- 
 gers and the crew had been engaged in looking-out, it could have made 
 no difference at all. 
 
56 
 
 "The same principle disposes of the point of whether she was not to 
 blame in not having heard the Europa sooner. ITow, 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 doin^. All these expressions, 'look-out,' are to be taken 
 in the common scise. He might do that and look after the man 
 coppering the rail. 
 
 "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 
 
57 
 
 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 colhsion 
 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 commu- 
 nication 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 Yice 
 President of the Board of Trade 'whether any alterations were 
 contemplated in the Rules of the Road at Sea, vt-ith a view of avoiding 
 the constant collisions under the present system V 
 
 " 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 Admii-alty 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 
 wiU 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 ship^ meeting each other " end on, or nearly end on." Published iu 
 the London Gazette of the 4th August, 1868. 
 
58 
 
 It may be observed that the criticisms in England upon the Admiralty 
 " Steering and Sailing Eules" are chiefly upon the 13th and 14th articles,, 
 the two which affect steamers meeting or crossing, viz : 
 
 Aeticle 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— 
 
 Aeticle 14. " If two steamships under steam are crossing, so as to 
 involve risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own star- 
 board side shall keep out of the way of the other." 
 
 It is contended by many seamen aiid 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 authori- 
 tative 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 joints 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 ivova. 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 witliin 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 Eules,' 
 and whether it was intended to cause any inquiry to be made as to their 
 
 * See explanatory order of August, 1868. 
 
59 
 
 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 24:th: 
 
 " You concluded your satisfactory reply to my question last night by 
 stating your intention of conferring with the Boai-d 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 V Suppose a vessel, A, has 
 another, B, on her starboard bow, does not the obhgation 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 tliree points on the starboard side, 
 so the one acts in accordance ^\dth Article 13, and the other follows the 
 instructions of Article 14, and a colhsion ensues, (as occurred in the case 
 of the ' Nada' and the ' Bhima' in the Bed 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. 
 
 " (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, hke the light of a candle to a moth, is certain destruction ; and 
 again, the shipmaster who, the moment that danger is imminent, j)orts 
 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 Saihng Rules,' and 
 to think, and speculate, upon the fatal evils that result from the unauthor- 
 ized, indefensible, yet almost universal use of the port helm, when ships 
 approach each other." 
 
 It is contended by the ci-itics 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 
 
60 
 
 is whether the impression has been made upon the minds of mariners 
 that "Kule of the Road" is identical with '■'■port helm,'' and that the 
 obhgatory use of the port helm is both authorized and defensible or not. 
 
 In a case reported of a collision between a steamer and a schooner, 
 the schooner was on the steamer's starboard bow, (a steamer is bound to 
 get out of the! way of a sailing ship, and had only to hold on her course, 
 or to starboard the helm,) but the helm was put to port, and hard-a-port, 
 and the schooner was sunk. 
 
 In the case of the "Amazon" and the "Osprey," tlie Judge of the 
 Admiralty Court remarked "that the Sailing Rules, though not having a 
 parliamentary obligation as against vessels of Her Majesty's Navy, were, 
 nevertheless, considered equally binding upon them, and rightly so, 
 otherwise the confusion would be incalculable ;" and in the case of the 
 "Bruckenholme" v. H.M.S. "Supply," the Queen's Advocate stated, 
 " perhaps it may be useful for me to state that, though those in charge of 
 Her Ma.iesty's vessels are not bound by the ordinary sailing regulations, 
 instructions are issued to them which are precisely in accordance with 
 those regulations;" but is the Queen's Advocate quite sure upon tliis 
 point ? for the captain, officers, petty officers, and men of the "Amazon," 
 while standing on the deck of the " Victory" awaiting their trial, one and 
 all declared that they had never heard of these regulations; and a flag 
 officer, in a letter to the Times of November 27, 1866, says: "I have 
 good reason for believing that the alteration which was made by an 
 Order in Council in the Sea Rule of the Road in 1863, is not so generally 
 understood by the young officers of the Royal Navy and the Merchant 
 Service as it should be. It is urgently necessary that the officers of the 
 watches who, in the smaller men-of-war may be midshipmen, and some- 
 times warrant officers, and in gunboats even quartermasters, should know 
 the existing Rules of the Road by heart, so as to be able to apply them 
 on the shortest notice. I beg to suggest to the officers who have, or are 
 likely to have, the cliarge of the watches at sea in any of Her Majesty's 
 ships, that, if they cannot obtain a copy of the Addenda to the Admiralty 
 Instructions, (which Addenda are out of print,) and if they cannot obtain 
 a copy of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, (which have 
 been issued by the Board of Trade, and are supplied to men-of-war on 
 demand — see notes, p. 43, of the Addenda to the Admiralty Instructions,) 
 they would do well to cut this letter out of a copy of the Tivies, and 
 keep that portion of it which contains the extract from the existing 
 regulations in their pocket books for frequent reference; otherwise, the 
 same fate may await the vessels under their charge which overtook Her 
 Majesty's ship 'Amazon' and steamer ' Osprey,' in the early part of tliis 
 year. I venture to suggest, also, to the consideration of the Board of 
 
61 
 
 Admiralty and the Board of Trade, that if the more important clauses 
 of the Regulations for preventing Colhsions at Sea were printed in large 
 type, on thick paper, and supplied to all men-of-war and merchant vessels, 
 vnith directions that they he hung up in a conspicuous position, colhsions 
 would become much less frequent." 
 
 In the court martial in the case of the "Amazon" and the "Osprey," 
 it appeared that on a fine night in the open sea the "Amazon" saw the 
 "Osprey" five miles off, and as the "Amazon's" sails were lifting, 
 the "Amazon" starboarded her helm and went to the southward, the 
 look-out man shortly afterwards reporting a light two points on the star- 
 board bow. For so doing, the court, consisting of an admiral and eight 
 captains, came to the following decision: 
 
 " That the collision was occasioned by a grave error in judgment on 
 the part of Sub-lieutenant ***** *j the ofiicer of the watch, in putting 
 the helm of the 'Amazon' to starboard instead of to port when first 
 sighting the light of the ' Osprey,' in contravention of the Regulations for 
 Preventing Colhsions at Sea." Sub-lieutenant ****** ^as cashiered, 
 but recommended to mercy. The finding and sentence were ordered 
 to be read on board all Her Majesty's ships in commission. Sub-Ueu- 
 tenant ****** was subsequently restored to the service. 
 
 In a case reported, the court said: "It will be for you and not me to 
 say whether there was really any risk of collision if both these vessels 
 had kept their courses, because it is risk of colhsion alone which renders 
 it peremptory for the tug to give way;" and in another cSfe the covirt 
 said, "that you are much better judges of what is meeting end on or 
 nearly end on than I am; there must be risk of collision at the same time." 
 
 "Against the decision of a naval court martial there is no appeal; but 
 'my loi'ds' could hardly beheve that there was 'risk of collision' in the 
 open sea when the two vessels were five miles apart ; and they knew 
 that there was another rule, namely. Article 14, which says: 'That if two 
 ships under steam are crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the ship 
 which has the other on her own starboai'd side shall keep out of the way 
 of the other;' and that their own decision upon this very point was on 
 record, as follows: 
 
 "In 1854 Messrs. McTear and Co., of Belfast, wrote to the Admiralty: 
 ' Supposing two steamers from nearly opposite points of the compass to 
 be meeting each other where A sees B's masthead and green Kghts only, 
 but B sees A's three lights, should each vessel starboard her helm, or B 
 continuing her course, should A starboard and pass astern of B V 
 
 "The following is the reply of the Admiralty: 
 
 'Admieaitt, Dec. 11, 1854. 
 'Gentlemen: Eeferring to your letter of the 17th ult., upon the sub- 
 
62 
 
 ject of the interpretation of the Circular Ho. 107, relative to lights to 
 prevent collision, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the 
 Admiralty to acquaint you that the opinion which you allege obtains 
 among masters of steam vessels that when two steamers meet one 
 another the helm of both is to be ported, without reference to which 
 hghts are visible from either vessel, is erroneous and founded upon a 
 misconception; indeed, their lordships are of opinion that such a course 
 would not only be a violation of the estabhshed regulations, but might 
 lead to very disastrous consequences. In conclusion, I am commanded 
 to acquaint you that the interpretation given in your letter of the several 
 diagrams illustrative of the established regulations, which is opposed to 
 the misconception, is perfectly correct. 
 ' I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
 
 'A. MILNE. 
 
 'Messrs. G. MoTeae & Co., Steam Packet Office, Belfast: " 
 
 In the case of the "Metis" and the " "Wentworth," four coroners' 
 inquests were held, and with the same evidence; the following are the 
 reported verdicts, viz: 
 
 1st jury. Blame to the " Metis." 
 
 2d jury. Blame to both. 
 
 3d jury. Blame to the "Wentworth." 
 
 4th jury. Blame to neither. 
 
 These differences of judgment in one case were attributed by the 
 opponents of the existing laws and rules of the road to the different con- 
 structions they are susceptible of, but with how much justice may be 
 fairly left to the decision of intelligent seamen. 
 
 It has been contended that as it has been the rule from time imme- 
 morial for sailing vessels, when on the jport tack, to give way, a steam 
 vessel (the one which corresponds to the vessel on the port tack) should by 
 law be obliged to give way also.* That the steam vessel which discovers 
 another on her starboard side (corresponding to the port tack of a saihng 
 
 *The 1st Rule of the old "Trinity Corporation Eules'' reads: 
 
 "Rule 1st. That those ships having the wind fair shall 'give way' to those on a wind." In 
 defining the meaning of the expression ''give way" in this first rule, it was held in the 
 Admiralty Court by the Trinity Master, in the case of the ship "Rose," that the ship sailing 
 free is to keep out of the way by avoiding the hows and going astern of the close-hauled 
 Vessel. If the free vessel takes any other course, she does it at her own risk, as the free 
 vessel cannot, of course, have the choice of two sides while the close-hauled is limited to one 
 side; and the Admiralty decisions are quite conclusive. The "Harriet" was free on the 
 larboard tack, and it was said to be her duty to port her helm and go before the wind. 
 
 The "Athol" was free on the starboard tack, and was adjudged in the wrong because she 
 did not port her helm and luff. In the case of the "Ann and Mary," it was held to be the 
 duty of a vessel with a free wind on the starboard tack to port her helm and pass to wind- 
 ward of the vessel close-hauled. "This doctrine is in harmony with the belief among seamen 
 that in all oases of doubt the helm is to be ported." 
 
63 
 
 vessel) should immediately stand by and he prepared to starboard the 
 helm and stop, and reverse (if necessary) until the other has crossed or 
 passed, or until she is sure which way the other is going. 
 
 It is also contended that in rivers, steamers should keep to that shore 
 which is on their starboard side, thus presenting their pert sides 
 (corresponding to the starboard tack) to everything they meet, and a 
 steamer wanting to cross their bows would have to give way, and stop 
 and reverse, if necessary. If they hug the shore on their port side, then, 
 as their starboard side (corresponding to the port tack) will be presented 
 to everything they meet, they must give way, and stop and reverse, if 
 necessary. Should a steamer, in consequence of a crowded state of a 
 river, be driven over to the port shore, she must then exercise due 
 caution, and it is her interest to get back to her own side as quickly as 
 possible. It shonld be imperative that eveiy steam vessel shall carry a 
 compass on the bridge, in order that the officer of the deck (or com- 
 mander, if present) may see in what direction she is going, and prevent 
 collisions which have been reported to have taken place by each vessel 
 steering by the hghts of the other. — (See case of the " Osprey " and the 
 "Nada." 
 
 It is claimed by those advocating it that the enactment of a law 
 requiring a steamer having another on her starboard side, to starboard, 
 and stop and reverse, if necessary, would not interfere with or direct 
 the navigation of ships, but simply declare what every vessel should at 
 all times be prepared to do to avoid collision. A vessel may go to 
 the right or to the left, so long as the officer in charge is sure that 
 safety Hes in that course, but if he is not sure, then, if a collision take 
 place, he must answer to law. The question then would be, in case of 
 collision, "Did you, having another on your starboard side, starboard 
 and stop?" 
 
 The officer in charge knows what his own vessel is doing, but lie may 
 not be able to form any correct judgment as to the movements of another ; 
 hence, it is urged that "a law for one vessel" would be better than 
 ^^ rules for two." 
 
 The following extracts from the London Army and Kavy Gazette 
 refer to the labors of William Sterling Lacon, Esq. The commanding 
 officer or officer of the deck knows what he is doing with his own vessel 
 at the moment of a threatened collision, but the difficulty may be in his 
 forming a correct judgment in regard to the movements of the other 
 under existing laws and rules; hence, it has been urged that "a law for 
 one vessel" would be safer than "rules for two." In this connection, 
 the following extracts from the London Army and Navy Gazette of 
 •December 5 and 12, 1868, exhibit the views of "William Sterhng Lacon, 
 
64 
 
 Esq., of London, who has taken a prominent part in the discussions of 
 the "Kule of the Koad" and the "Steering and Sailing Eules," nnder 
 existing law: 
 
 ( Extract— Deoemter 5, 1868.) 
 
 " The Eule of the Eoad at Sea." These are words which, for the last 
 two years, have been gradually forcing themselves upon public attention; 
 but is it possible that, in the middle of the nineteenth century, there is 
 anything to be learned— anything to be done — on such a subject? We 
 have carefully perused a pamphlet, by Mr. Lacon, and we candidly 
 confess that such is the ease. Mr. Lacon has most perseveringly 
 attempted to direct the attention of the authorities to the subject, and 
 has no less than six times brought it before Parliament — but equally as 
 perseveringly have the authorities withheld the information — which has 
 more than once been promised to the House of Commons; and while the 
 public are awaiting the information which has been thus promised to 
 them, an Order in Council has been issued altering and explaining the 
 law, (the Steering and Sailing Rules ;) but, as an Order in Council has 
 no effect as regards foreigners, an international law has been altered as 
 regards Englaud, while it remains unchanged as regards foreign countries. 
 Mr. Lacon was content to make his representations to our own Parliament, 
 and to our own authorities, but now that this Order in Council has been 
 issued, he has brought the following to the notice of thirteen of the 
 principal foreign governments, namely: France, the United States, 
 Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Prussia, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, 
 Italy, Austria, Turkey, and the Brazils. " For centuries the practice of 
 iseamen obtained not only in England but in foreign countries, and this 
 practice was upheld by the law. When steam came into vogue it became 
 necessary to make a law for steamers, and instead of making it in unison 
 with the custom of the sea, the custom was upset even as regards saihng 
 vessels, and for years past the practice of seamen and the law have been 
 at variance. By the Order in Council of August the 4th, 1868, the law 
 in England has been altered, but an Order in Council has no effect as 
 rega,rds foreigners, and now the law in England and in foreign countries 
 is different." Mr. Lacon proposes to come back to the custom of the 
 sea and the practice of seamen, and to establish the following as the only 
 law for sailing vessels : "A sailing ship on the port tack shall keep out 
 of the way of a sailing ship on the starboard tack ; and a saihng ship 
 which is to windward shall keep out of the way of a sailing ship which 
 is to leeward." He further proposes that a steamship, which has the 
 power, shall keep out of the way of a sailing ship. And, as regards 
 steamships, instead of the existing rules for tioo, he proposes the follow- 
 
65 
 
 ing law for one : A steamship having another end on shall port ; on her 
 port side, shall port ; on her starboard side, shall starboard, and stop and 
 reverse, (if necessary.) " The object of the law," he says, " is not to 
 interfere with, or to direct the navigation of ships, but to declare what 
 every ship shall at all times be prepared to do to avoid collision, so that 
 men shall not recklessly destroy each other. Men need not attend to 
 any law unless it concerns them ; and it does not concern them if the 
 ships be five miles apart, as in the case of the Amazon and the Osprey; 
 it does not concern them if they are s^ire that in where they are going 
 they can do so with safety ; they may go to the right, or they may go to 
 the left, and no law will interfere with them. But if they are not sure, 
 then, if a collision ensues, 'they must answer to the law;' and, in the 
 event of such another case occurring as that of the Metis and the Went- 
 worth, the coroner and the jury will put it to them — ' Did you, having 
 another on your starboard side, starboard and stoj) V " It will be thus 
 seen that Mr. Lacon proposes to extend the custom of the sea, and the 
 practice of seamen to steamships as well as to sailing ships by making it 
 obligatory on the steamship — which corresponds to the sailing vessel on 
 the port tack, (at night showing a green light to the other) — to stop, if 
 necessary. If such a law had been in force, Mr. Lacon says. Her Majesty's 
 ship Amazon, showing a green light, instead of porting her helm, would 
 have starboarded and stopped until the Osprey, showing a red hght, had 
 passed. The Bhima, (in the Red Sea,) showing a green light, having the 
 Nada, showing a red light, on her starboard side, would have done the 
 same until the Nada had passed ; and when Her Majesty's ship Euphrates, 
 homeward bound in the Red Sea, met the mail steamer Sm-at, (outward 
 bound,) she should have been by law obliged to stop, and not to have 
 obliged the Surat to do so. " The Surat, acting under Article 13 of the 
 Steering and Sailing Rules, having the other ' end on, or nearly end on,' 
 and having previously seen the three lights of the Euphrates, ported her 
 helm, thereby showing a red hght ; but afterwards seeing a green and 
 masthead light only, slowed and stopped, and the Euphrates, acting 
 under Article 14, having the other on her starboard side, and showing 
 only a green and masthead hght to the other, crossed the bows of the 
 Surat at full speed." " 1 contend," says the report of the captain of 
 the Surat, very properly sent home to his owners, " that the mail steamer 
 Surat was placed in great danger, and only escaped collision by the 
 engines of the Surat having been stopped," " It teaches us that we 
 should not wait imtil another catastrophe such as that of the Nada, acting 
 under one rule and the Bhima under another, when seventy-nine persons 
 lost their lives on a fine night in smooth water ; or that of her Majesty's 
 ship Amazon, acting under Rule 14, and the Osprey acting under Rule 
 5 * 
 
66 
 
 13, when both ships were sunk on a fine night in smooth water, within 
 sight of our coast, forces upon the country a rigorous examination of the 
 question." Mr. Laeon has written like a man of strong common sense, 
 and it is to be hoped that his suggestions may be taken into consideration. 
 At all events he has endeavored to arrest the attention of seamen to an 
 observance of an invaluable part of their duty, viz., a sharp look-out. 
 We hope it will be shown that H.M.S. Crocodile was not deficient in 
 that respect when the guard-ship was run down the other night. 
 
 (Extract— December 12, 1868.) 
 
 "With reference to our article of last week on " The Rule of the Eoad 
 at Sea," Mr. Lacon has requested us to re-write the following paragraphs 
 in order that the subject should be thoroughly understood by the nautical 
 world: "If such a law had been in force," Mr. Laeon says, "Her 
 Majesty's ship Amazon, showing a green light, instead of porting her 
 helm, would have starboarded and stopped until the Osprey, showing a 
 red light, had passed. The Bhima, (in the E,ed Sea,) showing a green 
 light, having the Nada, showing a red light, on her starboard side, would 
 have done the same untU. the Nad a had passed; and, when Her Majesty's 
 ship Euphrates, (homeward bound,) in the Red Sea, met the mail steamer 
 Surat (outward bound) she should have been by law obliged to stop, and 
 not have obliged the Surat to do so. The Surat, acting under Article 
 13 of the Steering and Sailing Rules, having the other 'end on, or nearly 
 end on,' and having previously seen the three lights of the Euphrates, 
 ported her helm, thereby showing a red light, but afterwards, seeing a 
 green and masthead light only, slowed and stopped, and the Euphrates, 
 acting under Article 14, having the other on her starboard side, and 
 showing only a green and masthead light to the other, crossed the bows of 
 the Surat at fall speed." " Having," says Mr. Laeon, " brought this subject 
 before the public, I wish it to be understood that I am strongly in favor of 
 the system of lights which has now become of universal adoption, but to 
 trust to them as little as possible, and that while a man is speculating upon 
 what he sees, he should go away from it, and not approach it and cross 
 its path, as he is by law now bound to do. The law cannot contemplate 
 the want of a proper look-out, from whatever cause arising, but the law 
 must contemplate what has been put before the authorities in May, 1867, 
 namely: A work on color blindness, by George "Wilson, M.D., published 
 in 1835, and who had experimented upon large masses of the population. 
 In that work it is stated that, of the male population of this country, one 
 in 17.7 is color blind, and one in 55 cannot distinguish red from green; 
 add to this, it is said that pale green shows red in a fog."* 
 
 *^ay there not be a question in regard to the correctness of the expression "color blind- 
 ness/' when reiJBrred to practically in its connection with the three very marked lights (white, 
 
67 
 
 THE EULE OF THE EOAB AT SEA; OK, THE STEEEING 
 AND SAILING KULES. 
 
 (Proposed in 1868, after publication of the Order in Council of July, 1868.) 
 
 Regulations for Preventing Col- Proposed Regulations for Pre- 
 lisions at Sea, <&c. venting Collisions at Sea, <&c. 
 
 ( Suggested Alterations are in Italiot.) 
 PRELIMINARY. 
 
 Art. 1. In the following rules Art. 1. In the following rules 
 every steamship which is under sail every steamship which is under sail 
 and not under steam is to be con- and not under steam is to be con- 
 sidered a sailing ship; and every sidered a saihng ship; and every 
 steamship which is under steam, steamship which is under steam, 
 whether under sail or not, is to be whether under sail or not, is to be 
 considered a ship under steam. considered a ship under steam. 
 
 RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS. 
 
 Art. 2. The lights mentioned in Art. 2. The lights mentioned in 
 
 the following Articles numbered 3, the following Articles, and no others,, 
 
 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and no others, shall be carried in all weathers from 
 
 shall be carried in all weathers from sunset to sunrise, 
 sunset to sunrise. 
 
 red, and green) as seen ordinarily ? Officers and look-out men should be taught the difference' 
 in the appearance of the three lights by frequent exhibitions of them, and their differences as 
 seen by observers at different distances, pointed out to them by experts. Raw hands, and 
 careless or unobservant officers, are not likely to decide promptly as to the color of light, 
 liable as it is to vary in shades of color by the state of the atmosphere ; a little instruction, 
 however, it is believed, could in a great degree remove that difficulty, or at least show who 
 should not be placed in positions requiring prompt and correct judgment in regard to dis- 
 tinguishing colors. It has been ascertained by actual test that a deep red glass cTiimney placed 
 around the flame of a lamp, absorbed 80 per cent, of the entire light, (diminishing the distance 
 of its visibility in that proportion to a white light of otherwise equal power and intensity,) 
 while a Trench ■pink colored chimney, under the same circumstances, absorbed 57 per cent, of 
 the entire light. 
 
 It is a well established fact that fog imparts a redness of color or tinge to all lights. White 
 less reddish in proportion to its natural clearness and brilliancy, and other colors in the same 
 way; but, if the lights are properly attended to and bum as they should do, it will not be 
 difficult to distinguish white from red or green, or green from red. Bad oil, bad ventilation, 
 bad lamps, and bad attendance vfill give all lights what sailors call a dirty look, and even 
 in the clearest weather they will have a reddish titige. 
 
 T. A. J. 
 
68 
 
 LIGHTS FOE STEAMSHIPS. 
 
 Art. 3. Seagoing steamships when 
 under weigh shall carry — 
 
 (a) At the foremost head, a bright 
 white light, so fixed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an 
 arc of the horizon of 20 points of 
 the compass; so fixed as to throw 
 the light 10 points on each side of 
 the ship, viz: from right ahead to 
 2 points abaft the beam on either 
 side, and of such a character as to 
 be visible on a dark night, with a 
 clear atmosphere, at a distance of 
 least five miles. 
 
 (b) On the starboard side, a green 
 light, so constructed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an 
 arc of the horizon of 10 points of 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw 
 the light from right ahead to two 
 points abaft the beam on the star- 
 board side, and of such a character 
 as to be visible on a dark night, with 
 a clear atmosphere, at a distance of 
 at least two miles. 
 
 (c) On the port side, a red light, 
 so constructed as to show an uniform 
 and unbroken light over an arc of 
 the horizon of 10 points of the com- 
 pass, so fixed as to throw the light 
 from right ahead to 2 points abaft 
 the beam on the port side, and of 
 such a character as to be visible on 
 a dark night, with a clear atmos- 
 phere, at a distance of at least two 
 miles. 
 
 {d) The said green and red side 
 lights shall be fitted with inboard 
 screens, projecting at least three 
 
 Art. 3. Seagoing steamships when 
 under weigh shall carry — 
 
 (a) At the foremast head, or 
 below the foreyard, {where it can 
 be best seen,) a bright white light, so 
 fixed as to show an uniform and 
 unbroken light over an arc of the 
 horizon of points of the com- 
 pass, so fixed as to throw the light 
 
 points on each side of the 
 
 ship, viz : from right ahead to 
 
 on either side, and of such a character 
 as to be visible on a dark night, 
 with a clear atmosphere, at a dis- 
 tance of at least miles. 
 
 (5) On the starboard side, a green 
 light, so constructed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an 
 
 arc of the horizon of points of 
 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw 
 
 the Hght from right ahead to 
 
 on the starboard side, and of such a 
 character as to be visible on a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at 
 a distance of at least miles. 
 
 (c) On the port side, a red light, 
 so constructed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an 
 
 arc of the horizon of points 
 
 of the compass, so fixed as to throw 
 
 the light from right ahead to 
 
 on the port side, and of such a 
 character as to be visible on a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at 
 a distance of at least miles. 
 
 (c?) The said green and red side 
 lights shall he carried. 
 
 and shall be fitted with 
 
69 
 
 feet forward from the light, so as 
 to prevent these lights from being 
 seen across the bow. 
 
 inboard screens, projecting at least 
 three feet forward from the light so 
 as to prevent these lights being seen 
 from across the bow. 
 
 LIGHTS FOR STEAM TUGS. 
 
 Art. 4. Steamships, when towing 
 other ships, shall carry two bright 
 white masthead lights vertically, in 
 addition to their side Hghts, so as 
 to distinguish them from other steam- 
 ships. Each of these masthead 
 lights shall be of the same construc- 
 tion and character as the masthead 
 lights which other steamships are 
 required to carry. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE 
 
 Art. 5. Sailing ships under weigh 
 or being towed shall carry the same 
 lights as steamships under weigh, 
 with the exception of the white 
 masthead lights, which they shall 
 never carry. 
 
 Art. 4. Steamships, when towing 
 other ships, shall carry two bright 
 white masthead lights vertically, in 
 addition to their side lights, so as 
 to distinguish them from other 
 steamships. Each of these mast- 
 head lights shall be of the same con- 
 struction and character as the mast- 
 head hghts which other steamships 
 are required to carry. 
 
 SAILING SHIPS. 
 
 Art. 5. Sailing ships under 
 weigh or being towed shall carry 
 side lights only, namely: A green 
 light on the starboard side and a 
 red light on the port side, {of the 
 same character, and in the same 
 relative position, and screened sim- 
 ilar to those of steam,ers as in 
 Art, 3.) 
 
 If a sailing ship is not astern 
 of the towing steamer, but is lashed 
 alongside of her, or has one in either 
 side of her, then she shall carry 
 a bright white light at the foremast 
 head or below the foreyard {where 
 it can be best seen) in addition to the 
 two side lights, and the steamers 
 shall carry none. 
 
 LIGHTS ASTERN. 
 
 Art. 6. Any vessel seeing the 
 lights of another coming up astern 
 of her shall exhibit or wave a light 
 at the stern until such vessel has 
 passed. 
 
70 
 
 EXCEPTIONAL LIGHTS FOE SMALL SAILING VESSELS. 
 
 Art. 6. Whenever, as in the case 
 of small vessels during bad weather, 
 the green and red lights cannot be 
 fixed, these lights shall be kept on 
 deck, on their respective sides of 
 the vessel, ready for instant exhibi- 
 tion ; and shall, on the approach of 
 or to other vessels, be exhibited on 
 their respective sides in sufficient 
 time to prevent collision, in such 
 manner as to make them most visi- 
 ble, and so that the green light 
 shall not be seen on the port side 
 nor the red light on the starboard 
 side. 
 
 To make the use of these portable 
 lights more certain and easy, the 
 lanterns containing them shall each 
 be painted outside with the color of 
 the light they respectively contain, 
 and shall be provided with suitable 
 screens. 
 
 Art. 7. "Whenever, as in the case 
 of small vessels during bad weather, 
 the green and red lights cannot be 
 fixed, these lights shall be kept on 
 deck, on their respective sides of 
 the vessel, ready for instant exhibi- 
 tion ; and shall, on the approach of 
 or to other vessels, be exhibited on 
 their respective sides in sufficient 
 time to prevent collision, in such a 
 manner as to make them most visi- 
 ble, and so that the green light 
 shall not be seen on the port side 
 nor the red light on the starboard 
 side. 
 
 To make the use of these portable 
 lights more certain and easy, the 
 lanterns containing them shall each 
 be painted outside with the color of 
 the light they respectively contain, 
 and shall be provided with suitable 
 screens. 
 
 LIGHTS rOE SHIPS AT ANCHOE. 
 
 Art. 7. Ships, whether steam- 
 ships or sailing ships, when at 
 anchor in roadsteads or fairways 
 shall exhibit, where it can best be 
 seen, but at a height not exceeding 
 twenty feet above the hull, a white 
 light in a globular lantern of eight 
 inches in diameter, and so con- 
 structed as to show a clear, uniform, 
 and unbroken light visible all round 
 the horizon, and at a distance of at 
 least one mile. 
 
 Art. 8. Ships, whether steam- 
 ships or sailing ships, when at 
 anchor in roadsteads or fairways 
 shall exhibit, where it can be best 
 seen, but at a height not exceeding 
 twenty feet above the hull, a bright 
 white light only, in a globular 
 lantern of eight inches in diameter, 
 and so constructed as to show a 
 clear, uniform, and unbroken light 
 visible all round the horizon, and 
 at a distance of at least miles. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE PILOT VESSELS. 
 Art. 8. Sailing pilot vessels shall Art. 9. Sailing pilot vessels shall 
 
71 
 
 not carry the lights required for not carry the lights required for 
 
 other sailing vessels, but shall carry 
 a bright white light at the masthead, 
 visible all round the horizon, and 
 shall also exhibit a flare-up light 
 every 15 minutes. 
 
 other sailing vessels, but shall carry 
 a bright white light at the masthead, 
 visible all round the horizon, and 
 shall also exhibit a flare-up Hght 
 every 15 minutes. 
 
 LIGHTS FOR FISHING VESSELS AND BOATS. 
 
 Ai't. 9. Open fishing boats and 
 other open boats shall not be required 
 to carry the side lights required for 
 other vessels ; but shall, if they do 
 not carry such lights, carry a lantern 
 having a green slide on the one side 
 and a red slide on the other side ; 
 and on the approach of or to other 
 vessels such lantern shall be ex- 
 hibited in sufficient time to prevent 
 collision, so that the green ligTit shall 
 not be seen on the port side, nor the 
 red light on the starboard side. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats 
 when at anchor, or attached to 
 their nets and stationary, shall ex- 
 hibit a bright white light. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats 
 shall, however, not be prevented 
 from using a flare-up in addition if 
 considered expedient. 
 
 Art. 10. Open fishing boats and 
 other open boats shall not be required 
 to carry the side lights required for 
 other vesssels; but shall, if they do 
 not carry such lights, carry a lantern 
 having a green slide on the one side 
 and a red slide on the other side j 
 and on the approach of or to other 
 vessels such lantern shall be ex- 
 hibited in sufficient time to prevent 
 collision, so that the green hght shall 
 not be seen on the port side, nor the 
 red light on the starboard side. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats 
 when at anchor, or attached to their 
 nets and stationary, shall exhibit a 
 bright white Ught. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats 
 shall, however, not be prevented 
 from using a flare-up in addition if 
 considered expedient. 
 
 RULES CONCERNING FOG SIGNALS. 
 
 Art. 10. Whenever there is a 
 fog, whether by day or night, the 
 fog signals described below shall be 
 earned and used, and shall be 
 sounded at least every five minutes, 
 viz: 
 
 (a) Steamships under weigh shall 
 use a steam whistle placed before 
 the funnel, not less than eight feet 
 from the deck. 
 
 Art. 11. Whenever there is a 
 fog, whether by day or night, the 
 fog signals described below shall be 
 carried and used, and shall be 
 sounded at least every five minutes, 
 viz: 
 
 (a) Steamships under weigh shall 
 use a steam whistle placed before 
 the funnel, not less than eight feet 
 from the deck. 
 
72 
 
 {d) Sailing ships under weigh 
 shall use a fog horn. 
 
 (c) Steamships and sailing ships 
 when not under weigh shall use a 
 bell. 
 
 (b) Sailing ships under weigh 
 shall use a fog horn. 
 
 (c) Steamships and sailing ships 
 when not under weigh shall use a 
 bell. 
 
 Note. — The range and intensity of the lights, and a "fixed relative- 
 position" for the side lights, to be hereafter determined by practical 
 
 men. 
 
 STEEEING AND SAILING RULES. 
 
 SAILING SHIPS. 
 
 Art. 11. If two sailing ships 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. 
 
 Art. 12. When two sailing ships 
 are crossing so as to involve risk of 
 collision, then, if they have wind on 
 different sides, the ship with the 
 wind on the port side shall keep out 
 of the way of the ship with the 
 wind on the starboard side, except 
 in the case in which the ship with 
 the wind on the port side is close 
 hauled and the other ship free, in 
 which case the latter ship shall keep 
 out of the way; but if they have 
 the wind on the same side, or if one 
 of them has the wind aft, the ship 
 which is to windward shall keep out 
 of the way of the ship which is to 
 leeward. 
 
 Art. 12. A sailing ship on the 
 port tack shall keep out of the way 
 of a sailing ship on the starboard 
 tack, and a sailing ship which is 
 to windward shall keep 'out of the 
 way of a sailing ship which is to 
 leeward. 
 
 STEAMSHIPS. 
 
 Art. 13. If two ships 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. 
 
 Art. 13. A steamer having an- 
 other 
 
 End on, shall port. 
 
 On her port side, shall port. 
 
73 
 
 Art. 14. If" two ships 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. 
 
 On her starboard side, shall 
 starboard and stop, and reverse, 
 {if necessary.) 
 
 SAILING SHIP AND STEAMSHIP. 
 
 Art. 15. If two ships, one of 
 which is a sailing ship and the other 
 a steamship, are proceeding in such 
 directions as to involve risk of col- 
 lision, the steamship shall keep out 
 of the way of the sailing slup. 
 
 Art. 14. A steamship shall keep 
 out of the way of a sailing ship. 
 
 SHIPS UNDER STEAM TO SLACKEN SPEED. 
 
 Art. 16. Every steamship, when 
 approaching another ship so as to 
 involve risk of collision, shall slacken 
 her speed, or, if necessary, stop and 
 reverse ; and every steamship shall, 
 when in a fog, go at a moderate 
 speed. 
 
 Art. 15. Every steamship shall, 
 when in a fog, go at a moderate 
 
 VESSELS OVEETAKING OTHER VESSELS. 
 
 Art. 17. Every vessel overtaking 
 any other vessel shall keep out of 
 . the way of the said last-mentioned 
 vessel. 
 
 Construction of Articles 12, 14, 
 15, and 17.— Art. 18. Where, by 
 the above rules, one of two ships 
 is to keep out of the way, the other 
 shall keep her course, subject to the 
 qualifications contained in the follow- 
 ing Art. , 
 
 Proviso to Save Special Oases. — 
 Art. 19. In obeying and constru- 
 ing these rules, due regard must 
 be had to all dangers of navigation ; 
 and due regard must also be had to 
 
 Art. 16. Every vessel overtaking 
 any other vessel shall keep out of 
 the way of the said last-mentioned 
 vessel. 
 
74 
 
 any special circumstances which Art. 17. Every steamship shall 
 may exist in any particular case carry a compass on the bridge. 
 rendering a departure from the 
 above rules necessary in order to 
 avoid immediate danger. 
 
 Ifo ship under any circum- 
 stances to neglect proper precau- 
 tions. — Art. 20. Nothing in these 
 rules shall exonerate any ship, or 
 the owner, or master, or crew 
 thereof, from the consequences of 
 any neglect to carry h'ghts or sig- 
 nals, or of any neglect to keep a 
 proper look-out, or of the neglect of 
 any precaution which may be re- 
 quired by the ordinary practice of 
 seamen, or by the special circum- 
 stances of the case. 
 
 EOYAL UNITED SERVICE INSTITUTION. 
 
 Evening Meeting. — Monday, April 16, 1866. 
 Eeae Admiral R. COLLINSON, C. B., in the chair. 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA, AND THEIR EEMEDY BY MEANS OF AN IMPROVED 
 
 SYSTEM OF LIGHTS. 
 
 By Commander J. A. Heathcote, late H. M. Indian Navy. 
 
 The subject which, by the kind permission of the Council of this 
 Institution, I am allowed to present to your notice this evening, is that 
 of Collisions at Sea, and an improved arrangement of lights with a view to 
 their prevention. It is scarcely necessary to remark that the disastrous 
 
75 
 
 collisions which are constantly occurring are not only eminently 
 injurious to commercial and shipping interests, hut are also the cause, 
 oftentimes, of dreadful destruction of human hfe, with its attendant 
 miseries, and in this view of the subject, as well as that of the destruction 
 of property, I feel sure that any attempt to prevent or lessen such dis- 
 asters would meet with a kind and considerate reception from an institu- 
 tion such as this, composed of distinguished officers and gentlemen, and 
 under the direct approval and support of the government itself. This 
 subject should, no doubt, properly be divided into three heads, viz: 
 collisions between steam vessels, between steam vessels with sailing 
 vessels, and between sailing vessels. I propose to-night to treat only of 
 steam vessels. 
 
 Of the collisions which actually take place, but very few are ever 
 brought to the notice of the public. Where life is lost, the case will 
 most likely be mentioned in the papers, or where a ship is run down and 
 sunk on the spot, it will not pass without mention; but still no great 
 prominence is given even to cases like these, while those of minor 
 importance are left wholly unrecorded. Even the law courts hear only 
 of those cases when there is a disputed responsibility, but many a long 
 bill for damages by collision is paid without their intervention; and it is 
 only those who have to pay the bills that are most sure to hear of every 
 case that occurs. It is only the underwriters of this country, at Lloyd's, 
 and the various large insurance companies at the principal seats of com- 
 merce, who can tell how frequent is the occurrence of this particular 
 casualty of the sea, and how disastrous is its effect upon the commercial 
 interests of the kingdom. 
 
 But how do collisions occur? What is their principal cause? For 
 some few years of late I have been employed, together with several 
 officers of the royal navy and of my own service, by an association at 
 Lloyd's, whose particular province it is to take cognizance of collisions, 
 and, in fact, of every other disaster of the sea; and while so employed 
 I have certainly heard more of collisions than could possibly be gathered 
 in a much longer period of ordinaiy nautical experience. My attention 
 has thus been directed to the subject, and particularly with a view to 
 discover the origin, the prime cause of these frequent accidents. I will 
 attempt, therefore, to answer the question. Collisions are not very 
 varied in their attendant circumstances, their main features are all very 
 similar. I do not mean to say that there are not differences which, to 
 the minds of the astute lavryers who have the handling of these cases 
 when they get into the Courts of Admiralty, are constantly discovered 
 in the interests of justice, differences of essential importance in adjusting 
 responsibility, but on points which inferior minds might, until enlightened, 
 
76 
 
 think altogether of minor consideration. Such differences as these 
 there are, no doubt, but still it wiU not be denied that collisions invaria- 
 bly involve a mistake, a misapprehension on one side or the other, this 
 is followed by alarm and confusion, during which the contact occurs, 
 with more or less damage. This, at least, is what is to be inferred from 
 any evidence that may be taken, or any explanation that may be given 
 of the occurrence; for the evidence is always conflicting, the explana- 
 tions are seldom satisfactory. But of what nature is the mistake, the 
 misapprehension, which is the foundation of the whole matter? Are 
 there not rules of the road at sea as well as on land, with the advantage 
 of those, for the sea being all alike for nearly every civilized nation of 
 the globe, so that a vessel meeting another on the seas at night may feel 
 sure that there is a compact between them as to what each shall do in 
 order to pass on in safety ? Such is, indeed, the case, and yet A meets 
 B at night, and the first thought which occurs to him is, " Which way is 
 B going?" and B sees A, and wants to know which way A is going. It 
 is just this which both most desire to- know, for upon it must depend 
 their tactics; upon it must depend the best measures to be adopted to 
 avoid collision; it is just this which neither can tell; it is just on this 
 point, in this particular, that the mistake, the misapprehension, the error 
 in judgment occurs, which is the source and mainspring of the accident. 
 Neither vessel can know the course the other is steering. They can see 
 and judge of this in the day time, but not at night, notwithstanding the 
 lights which all vessels, of whatever nation, are now obliged by law to 
 carry ; and this, no doubt, is the principal cause why collisions are most 
 frequent at night. Could it be known at night, as it is in the day time, 
 what course a vessel in sight is steering, it is plain that the probability of 
 collision at night would be reduced to nearly the same level as in the 
 day time ; and could a vessel at night observe the change of course made 
 by another in her proximity, as she can in the day time, the advantage 
 of daylight for the avoidance of collision would depend principally, if 
 not entirely, upon the distance at which the course, or change of course, 
 of an approaching vessel could be observed. 
 
 Before illustrating this by a case, it will be necessary briefly to state 
 the present system of lights. The regulations as to steamships are these: 
 "Abt. 3. Sea-going steam ships when under way shall carry — 
 "(a.) At the Foremast Head, a bright "White Light, so fixed as to 
 show an uniform and unbroken light over an are of the horizon of 20 
 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light 10 points on each 
 side of the sliip, viz : from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on 
 either side ; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with 
 a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles. 
 
77 
 
 " (b.) On the Starboard Side, a Green Light so constructed as to 
 throw an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 
 points of the compass; so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead 
 to two points abaft the beam on the starboard side; and of such a char- 
 acter as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a dis- 
 tance of at least two miles. 
 
 "(c.) On the Port Side, a Red Light, so constructed as to show an 
 uniform and imbroken Hght over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of 
 the compass; so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two 
 points abaft the beam on the port si&e; and of such a character as to be 
 visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least 
 two miles. 
 
 " {d.) The said Green and Red Side Lights shall be fitted with inboard 
 screens, projecting at least three feet forward from the light, so as to 
 prevent these hghts from being seen across the bow." 
 
 These are the rules at present in force. You will observe that there 
 is no regulation regarding the height at which the white light is to be 
 carried, nor is there any rule as to any relative position of one light to 
 another, or between all the lights. If the white light is at the foremast 
 head, the red light anywhere on the port side, and the green light any- 
 where on the starboard side, the terms of the act of Parliament are com- 
 plied with. In practice, the spirit of the law is acted up to, rather than 
 the letter; and it is found more convenient and less expensive to hang 
 the lantern which should represent the white masthead hght at an easy 
 distance down the forestay; so this is the arrangement in most merchant 
 vessels, and it appears to be nearly as efiicient as the more strict con- 
 formity to the letter of the act, which is less frequently adopted. As 
 regards the side hghts, they are placed in different vessels, as was 
 remarked to me by a friend, in every conceivable position between the 
 hawse-pipes and the tafirail; and yet these at any rate are, notvwth- 
 standing their irregularity, in strict conformity with the regulations; 
 they are on the side of the vessel, and that is all that is required of 
 them. 
 
 Such being the rule, and such the corresponding practice — ^for here 
 rule and practice are not at variance — -let us examine the effect. A 
 (Diag. 1) at night sees on her port bow the white masthead light, and 
 the green hght of another steamer B. This stranger may be approach- 
 ing on a course nearly opposite to that of A. Her red hght, though 
 not observable, may be only just shut out, and hq,lf a point from the 
 direct hue of approach is sufficient for this. But it is equally probable 
 that B may be crossing the path of A at right angles, or she may be . 
 steering a course only four points different from that of A herself. That 
 
78 
 
 is, if A is steering N.N.E. and sees B's lights beai-ing north, B may be 
 rapidly nearing A on a S. by E. or S. half E. course, or, she may be 
 steering any other course between that and E.N.E. 
 
 And it is impossible for A in any way to divine, under the present 
 regulations as to lights, in which of these different directions B may be 
 proceeding. 
 
 And B is equally in a dilemma as to what course A may be steering. 
 
 Now take a case which has actually occurred, and I will select one 
 where the vessel was run down and sunk in a few' minutes — a case of 
 which the facts have been thoroughly well sifted ; for they have engaged 
 the attention of some of the first lawyers of the day, which, nevertheless, 
 exhibits the usual characteristics of a coniHct of evidence, and explana- 
 tions unsatisfactory on some most important points. Off Cape St. 
 Yincent, on a November night, a few years ago, the "Araxes," going 
 from England to Gibraltar, met the " Black Prince," going from Gib- 
 raltar to England. The "Black Prince" appears to have been rather 
 to the westward of the other, or farther from the land, and, believing she 
 could do best by keeping outside the strange vessel, she altered her 
 course still further to the westward. The "Araxes," on the contrary, 
 first sighted the " Black Prince " nearly ahead, and therefore ported her 
 helm, as directed by the statute; that is, she also went to the westward, 
 and in doing so ran into the "Black Prince," cut her down and sunk 
 her, and property to the amount of £25,000 was lost. Another very 
 similar case has more recently occurred in the channel, where the 
 "Murillo" was run down by the French steamer "Dix D^cembre," when 
 three Hves were lost and property to the amount of £60,000. The cir- 
 cumstances of this case are nearly similaf" to the last. Of course, neither 
 vessel tried to run the other down, they both endeavored to their utmost 
 to avoid colhsion, and to this end they adopted the measures wliich each 
 thought best, both being ignorant of the course the other was steering. 
 But there was an error in judgment, a misapprehension on one side or 
 the other, or on both sides, and the result was a fearful destruction of 
 life and property. Both vessels would have gone clear of each other in 
 the daytime, and why? because they could see the way the other was 
 steering; and it is impossible to suppose that these accidents could have 
 occurred had each vessel, although at night, been able to Icnow the 
 course of the other, and to observe and note any change of course made 
 by the other. 
 
 And to show the absolute necessity of knowing the course which an 
 approaching vessel is pursuing in order to avoid collision, it will be only 
 necessary to quote one more example. A sees nearly ahead the green 
 light of another steamer, B, which she supposes to be coming nearly 
 
79 
 
 end-on to her, she therefore, in accordance with the statute, ports .her 
 helm, and expects that B will do the same, which no doubt she would do 
 if she were coming nearly end-on, and thought that A was doing the 
 same; but,B, instead of coming nearly end-on to A, is really steering a 
 course nearly at right-angles to that of A, and this being the case, it is 
 plainly not the best thing that A can do to port her helm, and yet A, in 
 porting her helm, is acting up to the regulations and to the best of her 
 judgment, but by doing so, is seeking a collision while trying to avoid it. 
 She has committed herself to a manoeuvre which she would not have 
 contemplated for an instant had she been able to ascertain and know B's 
 course— the direction in which B might be steering. 
 
 The manner in which I propose that vessels may be enabled to know, 
 at night, the course another is steering, with nearly the same accuracy 
 as iu the day time, and may also be able to observe any change of course 
 in another, is, as I mentioned at the outset, by an improved system of 
 hghts, or rather by an improved arrangement of the lights already in use. 
 
 I am well aware that any system of lights, whether this or any other, 
 to be of any good effect, must be of general adoption; and to obtain 
 anything like a general adoption, or to hope to obtain it, the system 
 proposed must not only supply a recognized want, but must do so 
 efficaciously, simply, and inexpensively. 
 
 I think the necessity of the knowledge which this system proposes to 
 supply cannot be denied ; whether the want is met as it should be, and 
 whether the proposed system possesses to a sufficient degree the indis- 
 pensable qualifications of simplicity, efficiency, and inexpensiveness, it 
 will be for the meeting to judge. The proposed arrangement, at any 
 rate, is a very simple one, were it not so I could not consider it of any 
 value whatever ; it wiU, therefore, take but a very short time to describe. 
 It consists in regulating the present lights in fixed positions with regard 
 to each other, and in so placing them that the side lights when seen 
 directly beneath the masthead light shall give a line of sight of 45° or 
 four points on either bow of the vessel observed; and, further, that the 
 height of the bright light above the level of the side Hghts be always in 
 a fixed proportion to the distance between the two side lights. The rule 
 then for placing the side lights would be this: The hne between the side 
 hghts being at right angles to the keel, that this line be at a distance 
 before, or in front of, the masthead or bright hght equal to half the 
 distance between the side lights. Let A (Diagram 2) be taken to repre- 
 sent the fore part of the deck of a steam vessel, h being the place of the 
 foremast, c and d represent the proper positions of the green and side 
 Hghts respectively. By this arrangement there will be obtained three 
 distinct and important Hnes. The one right ahead when all three lights 
 
80 
 
 are visible, and one on either bow at an angle of 45° or four points when 
 neither side light is seen directly under the white light. And for the 
 purpose of estimating the remaining points of the compass at which the 
 lights may be seen, a fixed proportion of the height of the masthead 
 light to the distance between the side lights is necessary; and the most 
 simple proportion for this purpose, the proportion which would give the 
 estimate desired most readily, and be the most valuable for the object in 
 view, would be that the height of the bright light above the level of the 
 side lights should be equal to half the distance between the side lights. 
 This proportion might possibly, in small vessels, place the white light too 
 low; but that the proportion be the same in large and small vessels is 
 essential. 
 
 Perhaps another convenient proportion would be, that the three lights, 
 when seen directly ahead, shall form the points of an equilateral triangle. 
 The effect of the lights with either of these proportions for the height 
 of the masthead light is shown in the accompanying diagram No. 3 ; the 
 first proportion (or that of height above level of side lights, which equals 
 half the distance between the side lights, and which I believe to be best,) 
 is shown with the outhne of the light fully marked ; in the other the out- 
 line is dotted. Let us now examine the working of this system. 
 
 A, (Diagram No. 4,) steering N.N.E., sees on her port bow a bright 
 light directly above a green light bearing north; she at once knows that 
 a steamer, B, is crossing her bows, steering S.E. She observes the greeu 
 light gradually to draw out to the right of the bright light, and she 
 then knows that B is altering her course to the eastward ; or, if the green 
 light opens out to the left of the bright light, she knows that B has 
 ported her helm, and that there is danger of collision Or, B sees on 
 her starboard bow, bearing south, a red light open to the right of the 
 bright light, she then knows that a steamer. A, is approaching her on a 
 course between N. ^ E. and N.E., and by the degree at which the lights 
 are open, one from the other, she will be able to judge, within a point or 
 a point and a half, the actual course which A is steering ; and she will 
 also be able to discern directly any alteration of course which A may 
 think fit to make. If A starboards her helm, the red light V7iU become 
 more open of the bright light until the green light of the starboard side 
 is seen ; but if she ports her helm, the red light wiU close with the bright 
 hght imtil they are in one line. On the system, as at present carried 
 out, neither B's nor A's course could be estimated witliin nearly ten. 
 points; whilst under the arrangement now proposed B's course is known 
 exactly, and A's course, her position being nearly the most unfavorable 
 possible, can be a,scertained within a point, or a point and a half at most. 
 Where the least degree of accuracy is attainable is where it is least 
 
Vixsdsteerinfi 10 pointu In Ihr Irft oflhr tine nl' 
 Veiwin^,- or W hearing North is stMrinff fV.JV.W. 
 
 —©■--3 
 
 Vesisel sfperutff S painttr to tike Mt of Ow line of 
 heJiruig; or if bearing North is gteerinff West 
 
 ^~-"\0 
 
 V&fs&l- niewififf 6 poinix tu the Uft of th» ljin« of 
 bearing; or if h^jui-in^ J^orlJt is steering W.S. IV. 
 
 VfttftpJ. ^/eerifw ^ poinla fjt ike. Left of the Une of 
 bearing, • orifheai'inff Noi'lK is steering S . W. 
 
 Vessels stea^in^ Z points to fft& Id^ of the line, of 
 bearing,- or iP bearing NortJt is steering S. S. W, 
 
 VesBpl steering, direcify on ike tine of beajrng,' or 
 if bearing NortJi is steering SoiUJi . 
 
 Vessel steering 2 points to t/te light of tfie. line of 
 itearing; or //* bearing North, is steering S. S.E. 
 
 -®— ;?. 
 
 -•©- 
 
 --^-O 
 
 Vessel steering 4- points to the. r^ht of the One of 
 bearing; of if benring NorOt is ste^ering S. JS. 
 
 -^- 
 
 Yeasdatpering points to therighlof'the Utie of 
 bearituf; or iF bearrng North, is steering E. S.H. 
 
 -■&- 
 
 \bisei stterrnff 8 points to the- rigfit of t/u; h'nr. of 
 hearing: or if hearing North- is sttmimg East 
 
 -■&- 
 
 Vessd atenrinf) 10 paints to the. right, of the. Vive of ■ 
 btaring; or ij' hatriru) Nort/i, is slxenng E.Jf. E. 
 
 ■~®-<S) 
 
 JReoi is shown- thus . . - ' 9 
 Orirn,....,, ..... . . @ 
 
 Brigkb.., , © 
 
Dia^ecm TNT? 1 . 
 
 ])iag:rajn j "N? 4. 
 
 
 ""■"-__ 
 
 ' 
 
 " 1 
 
 ..-' 
 
 
 
 '^ % 
 
 '''/' 
 
 ^ 
 
 '\' 
 
 Diagram N? 2 
 
 'I' 
 
 / 
 
 1 \. 
 
 y. 
 
 t 
 
81 
 
 required — that is, when the vessel seen is steering at an angle greater 
 than 90° to the line of bearing. 
 
 This simple system would, I think, tell readily and unmistakeably the 
 course steered by vessels sighting each other at night with nearly the 
 same accuracy as can be known in the day time. Any system of lights 
 to be really valuable must be so simple as to be read at a glance, and as 
 plain as to admit of no misinterpretation, and I trust that the arrange- 
 ment now proposed may be found to fulfil these requirements, and may 
 thus be a means, if generally adopted, of greatly decreasing the danger 
 of navigation, and particularly of preventing some of the numerous and 
 disastrous collisions which are now becoming of such frequent occurrence. 
 
 The proposition which I wish to lay before you and invite you to 
 discuss is then shortly this: 
 
 1st. That vessels approaching one another, in order to determine what 
 measures are best adapted to avoid collision, must know approximately — 
 that is within two or three points at most — the course the other is steering, 
 and that the want of this knowledge is a fertile source of collision. 
 
 2d. That the present regulations with regard to the lights carried by 
 steam vessels do not enable even an approximate knowledge to be gained, 
 at night, of the course steered by the vessel whose lights are seen. 
 
 3d. That an improved arrangement and regulation of the lights already 
 in use, such as that now suggested, would supply this want; and by 
 enabling a correct judgment to be formed of the course steered by an 
 approaching vessel as soon as her lights are seen, would be calculated to 
 lessen the liability of colhsion. 
 
 I must apologize for the roughness of the diagrams and for the imper- 
 fections of my explanation. 
 
 I beg to tender you my best thanks for the kind attention which you 
 have given to this subject, and 1 shall esteem it a favor if gentlemen 
 present will kindly state their opinions on the proposition. I shall, of 
 course, be most happy to answer any questions or give any further 
 explanation that may be desired. 
 
 Captain Heathoen : I should like to ask if the fact of a vessel being 
 very much down at the stern would not alter the position of the triangle ? 
 
 Commander Heathcote: Mathematically, yes, but not practically. 
 
 Commander Colomb, K. N. : I wish to make one or two remarks. I 
 have listened with a great deal of interest to the paper just read, and I 
 must say that I fully agree with every single word which has been uttered. 
 I think it one of the most important subjects that we could discuss in this 
 Institution. The commerce of England is increasiag round our shores 
 every year; the speed of our ships is increasing; the numbers which are 
 collected round the centres of our commerce are becom ng so enormous. 
 6 
 
82 
 
 that really the chief danger a ship has to encounter in bringing her ware 
 to the market where they are to be sold — that is England — is the danger 
 of running foul of or of being run into by other ships, who are also 
 bringing their wares to the same mart. I will endeavor to make my 
 remarks as short as possible, though, unfortunately, I have a good deal 
 to say, because on a former occasion I had the misfortune to stand in 
 Mr. Latham's way (who is to read the second paper this evening.) When 
 I heard his paper afterwards, it was such an uncommonly good one that 
 I bitterly regretted the abridgment which I caused. 1 hope I shnU not 
 do it again. While agreeing with every word which has been said by 
 the lecturer, as to the placing of permanent lights, and thinking really 
 that there can be no question about it, that being a measure which should 
 be carried out immediately, there is positively no objection to it — while 
 agreeing with all that he has said in that way, I still think that our system 
 of permanent lights does not meet all the requirements of the case — does 
 not prevent all the danger of collision, which one would expect from 
 them. I should class collisions at night under three heads, supposing, 
 of course, that every ship carries her proper regulation lights. The first 
 would be when either from a bad lookout or from the thick weather no 
 lights whatever are seen, which I believe is the commonest case of all. 
 The next class would be when the lights are seen, but through particular 
 states of the atmosphere or other causes, such as color-blindness on the 
 part of the lookout man, the red hght and the green light are mistaken; 
 or it may be that a white light is mistaken for a green Hght. The last 
 class where collisions occur would be when the lights are fully made out, 
 but when an approaching ship thinks it is better not to follow the rule 
 of the road from other reasons. When a collision is nearly inevitable 
 there is always a certain moment of doubt, and that moment of doubt is 
 very often fatal. You have to exercise your judgment in an instant as 
 to what you are to do. We had one case mentioned by the lecturer, the 
 "Araxes" and the "Black Prince." It was a case in point. There was 
 another case much nearer home, between the "Helen Sinclair" and the 
 "Minna," where the "Helen Sinclair" was sunk; that was precisely a 
 similar case off Erith, in the Thames. The " Wanato," the " Samphire," 
 and the "Fanny Buck," were cases of the first description of collision 
 that I have mentioned. It seems to me that one great desideratum 
 would be, if it were possible, to increase the power of our hghts, so as 
 to force a lookout man, however much he might be inclined to doze over 
 his work, and however bad his lookout might be, to understand that a 
 certain colored Hght was showing in a particular direction. The next 
 thing that is wanted would be something by which a ship, feeHng that 
 she was obliged to depart from the rule of the road, should be able to 
 
83 
 
 announce at once to another ship approaching her that she was so 
 departing from it, or, it might be, that she was following the rule of the 
 road. I have considered it quite impossible to increase the power of 
 permanent lights, but a subject to which Captain Bolton and myself, 
 about ten or eleven months ago, turned our attention, was the endeavor 
 to provide something like temporary lights — to supplement the perma- 
 nent lights, but not by any means to supersede them, because with the 
 improvements which the lecturer has suggested they would be as perfect 
 as permanent Mghts could be. But we want something stronger. I 
 believe in the majority of collisions the ship which is about to receive 
 the blow is perfectly aware of it for some minutes previously. That was 
 so in the case of the "Samphire;" I believe it was so in the case of the 
 " Wanato ; " and certainly it was so in the case of the " Helen Sinclair" 
 and the " Minna," in the Thames. If ow, it has always struck me that 
 it would be desirable to have some signal which you could make at once 
 to an approaching ship, if you saw that she was likely to come into col- 
 lision with you, you being on the right tack ; or, if the case were such 
 that you were not able to alter your helm, it would be desirable to be 
 able to say to her at once, " Here I am, steering in such a direction." 
 For this purpose one would provide these Hghts. Or, again, if you 
 wanted a signal to say, "I am in doubt about the way you are steering; 
 I am putting my helm a starboard; make the best of it, and alter your 
 course." Now, we have here three pyrotechnic lights; they are colored 
 red, white, and green. They are distinguished — the red having a single 
 ring on it, the white having a double ring, and the green three rings. 
 They are kept in an air-tight box on deck, of convenient shape, so that 
 it can be placed where it is most convenient. It is supposed you see a 
 ship coming down upon you — say on the port side ; you are close-hauled, 
 or lying to, or have stopped your engines, and you perceive something 
 coming. She does not perceive your red light. You have this, which 
 is an enormously powerful red • light. There is a little plug on the top ; 
 by pulling out the plug you produce the light at once. It seems to me 
 that the person in charge of the other vessel would, seeing a bright red 
 light, port his helm at once. Again, if you are approaching another 
 ship end-on, and you are going to follow the rule of the road, and are 
 not quite sure what he is going to do, you burn a red hght and "port 
 your hehn ! " He sees your red light, and he ports his helm without any 
 further consideration. It seems to me that in a great number of these 
 cases had we had something of this sort coUisions might have been avoided. 
 These pyrotechnic lights are here for any gentleman to look at. We 
 cannot fire them here, because it would be rather a choking proceeding; 
 but after the lecture, if any one would Hke to see them burned, we can 
 burn them outside. 
 
84 
 
 H. C. EoTHEEY, Esq., Registrar, Admiralty Court: "With the permis- 
 sion of the chairman, I should like to make a few remarks upon the very 
 able paper that Captain Heathcote has been reading to you. The only 
 point about which I have any doubt, and it is one to which a great many 
 of Captain Heathcote's observations apphed, is as to the relative height 
 of the white light and the two colored Hghts. He said, if I understood 
 him correctly, that the Hghts should be so placed that they would form 
 an equilateral triangle. Perhaps Captain Heathcote will be good enough 
 to say whether the height of the white Hght above the deck will make 
 any difference at all? Because, if I understand his system correctly, 
 (and I think it impossible for anybody to have paid any attention to it 
 and not to have seen the great value of the system,) the importance of 
 it is this: if you see a red light and a white light of a vessel, you will 
 know, of course, that you are on the port side of that vessel; if you see 
 the red light and the white light in the same vertical line, you know that 
 you are four points on the port bow of that vessel. If you see the green 
 light and the white light in a vertical line, you know you are four poiats 
 on her starboard bow. But whether the white hght be one foot or two 
 feet, or three feet, or twenty feet above the colored hght, if you see them 
 in the same vertical Hne, I do not very well understand what difference it 
 -would make. These are the only observations I would wish to make. 
 
 Captain Ceaupued, E. IST.: As a practical man I should, lilce to say a 
 few words — for we must look at these things practically as well as theo- 
 retically. As to the height of the hght, whether it is ten feet or twenty 
 feet, I will put it to any sailor present whether he will know the difference. 
 So far as 1 am able to pronounce an opinion, the fact of having one colored 
 lamp on one side of the ship, and another colored Hght on the other, and 
 a different colored Hght at the masthead, which light distinguishes steamers 
 from sailing vessels, puts you in the position of knowing exactly what 
 ship is coming to you. This is a point clear and well defined. All these 
 things look very pretty theoretically, but I am afraid that in actual 
 practice these laws are not carried out as they ought to be carried out. 
 Coming up the channel about ten days ago, on my retui-n to England, 
 steering a straight course in a steamer, going nine knots, we came across 
 several ships, and not a light was shown on them. Now I will put it to 
 you if a colHsion had taken place, would it have been surprising. The 
 Hghts of the steamer I w;as in were shown — the masthead light, the red 
 and the green. These other ships, I suppose, when they came near us, 
 had a great hustle and bustle on board to show a Hght. Of all the means 
 of preventing colHsions, there is one thing that ought to be depended 
 upon more than anything else, and that is the eye of the seaman. You 
 may see green Hghts, you may see red Hghts, and you may see white 
 
85 
 
 lights, but if you do not keep a good lookout, what is there to prevent 
 collisions. I do not wish to say anything against the theory of the lec- 
 turer, but I doubt whether any advantage is gained by the actual height 
 of the light, or whether the white light is at a certain angle with the red 
 light or the green light. The man must have, first of all, a good eye. 
 Coming up channel, I have often wondered that more colhsions have not 
 taken place. I think that those who keep their eyes well open will have 
 no trouble in keeping their ships clear of others. 
 
 Mr. Stirling Lacon: You say you did not see the lights in those 
 ships; was it that they were not carrying lights at all? 
 
 Captain Ceaitfued: Carrying no lights at all, or at least showing none; 
 this I am perfectly sure of. I happen to be a little curious about things; 
 and I did not go to bed very early, but walked on the deck. I saw these 
 ships, and had my glass to look well at them. I have been absent from 
 England about three years, and I had thought the law was stiingent 
 enough. But if the law is not stringent enough, steps ought to be taken 
 to make it more sftingent; and there ought to be a heavy penalty upon 
 ships at sea for not showing lights. In a foggy night in the channel, if 
 ships have not their lights, what is the use of telling them to carry lights. 
 I say there ought to be a heavy penalty ; and that all ships ought to be 
 reported which do not carry lights ; which, if carried and seen, would 
 prevent many of the collisions that take place. 
 
 J. A. Haepee, Esq. : It is my ill fortune to have these cases to deal 
 with. I know that persons have represented to me that collisions which 
 take place are frequently the consequences of a careless attention to the 
 rules of road ; and I know that a great many persons have to pay very 
 large sums of money fi'om negligence in the observance of the rules of 
 the road, or from causes which Captain Heathcote has pointed out to- 
 night, and from imperfection in the rules of the road in several cases. 
 And a great amount of property is destroyed for which no remedy is 
 ever obtained, because of the uncertainty of this very rule of the road. 
 But I understand that the question to-night is confined to the question 
 between steamers. The fact that the gentleman who spoke last has come 
 up the channel in a steamer and seen a great number of steamers without 
 a light, is scarcely the point to-night. It may be a question for discussion 
 another evening, whether some alterations may not be made in order to 
 give greater protection to saihng ships with respect to each other, and to 
 steamships with respect to sailing ships. But the simple question, as I 
 understand it, to-night, is a question between steamships. I do not think 
 the gentleman who spoke last was here at the commencement of Captain 
 Heathcote's address. - I think he said he came in at a late period. It is 
 quite plain he did, because he seemed to treat a point which he thinks is 
 
86 
 
 in Captain Heathcote's system as important, which is quite incidental to 
 it, not vital and not necessary to it at all; and with respect to which a 
 blot has been hit upon and exactly described by Mr. Kothery, which has 
 no importance, excepting so far as relates to the introduction of a new 
 system of lights. Mr. Kothery wiU be glad, no doubt, to contribute to 
 any other system which will have the effect of making it a good woi'king 
 System. It is not essential to Captain Heathcote's system at all, that the 
 white light should be at a fixed height above the other. As I apprehend 
 the point, it really has nothing important to do with the question. The 
 great question is the relative position of the white light and the colored 
 light solely; and Captain Heatheote has explained, that a vessel approach- 
 ing another may see in a moment by the relative position of the white 
 light and the green light, or the white light and the red light, the course 
 which that ship is steering; and also may see in a moment, under ordinary 
 circumstances, not the extraordinary circumstance of an intense fog, when 
 no human precaution can be taken, but under ordinary circumstances 
 may discern in a moment the slightest change in the course of the vessel 
 approaching, and shape her proceedings accordingly. Captain Heatheote 
 has suggested a system which it is quite evident will work with infinite 
 accuracy, namely, the placing the white light in such a position that the 
 line of vision between the white light and any one of the colored fights 
 will show that the keel of the vessel is at four points — i. e., that she is 
 steering a course four points from the reverse side of bearing. Any one 
 seeing those lights will know in a moment the exact course of the vessel. 
 And it is quite plain that if that course is any other — if the line of vision 
 forms any other angle than that four points, you can observe it to a 
 nicety, and you will also detect the slightest change. If she ports her 
 helm, you will see that in a moment ; if she starboards her helm, you 
 will see that equally. "When I say in a moment, I mean in suflScient 
 time to enable you to alter your course accordingly. I think scarcely 
 anybody is aware of the enormous consequences of the establishment of 
 any signal system by which one ship can ascertain the course, and the 
 change of the course of another ship approaching. A vast amount of 
 property is imperilled almost every night by the want of some such 
 system. It is quite impossible for a ship seeing the fights of another 
 ship, as they are arranged now, to get such an indication as vriU enable 
 her to guide her way. They just know one single circumstance. They 
 see the port or starboard fight of a ship, and anything more than that 
 they know not. They discover the relative position of the two ships 
 when it is too late to avoid a collision. Then, I must say, you must have 
 a stronger light when you are approaching a ship, a stronger red fight at 
 the spot where the red light should be, and a stronger green fight at the 
 
87 
 
 spot where the green Ught should he. That would be a very important 
 portion of Captain Heathcote's system. Almost all maritime countries 
 have adopted the rule of this country; and I have no doubt it would not 
 be exceedingly difiScult to get a general concurrence to a change in the 
 law of this country. 
 
 The CflAiEMAif : No change is required. 
 
 Mr. Haepee: The estabhshment of such a system then will not be so 
 difficult as I anticipate. 
 
 Mr. Peitchaed rose to offer some observations. 
 
 The Chairman: I know there are some gentlemen present who are 
 anxious to hear Mr. Latham's paper on gun-cotton cartridges, and I 
 beHeve they would like the present discussion to be closed for this evening ; 
 the question will no doubt be brought before the Institution on another 
 occasion. I will now call upon Captain Heathcote to reply. 
 
 Captain Heathcote: I think the cliief question raised was about the 
 height of the white light. The principle of the height is necessary in 
 this particular. This being the position of the hghts, when they are 
 seen in one hue, or one beneath another, the four points, or 4.5 degrees 
 of angle, is very well defined. But the question is to measure, to judge, 
 and to estimate the intervening angles, that is an angle between the four 
 points and the end-on or between four points and any greater angle. For 
 that reason the proportion of height is necessary; because if the pro- 
 portion varied, the angle between the lights when seen obliquely would 
 be very different. For instance, if one ship adhered to this proportion 
 she would show her Hghts at. two points in the position shown in the 
 diagram ; whereas, if another vessel showed her bright light at a lower 
 level, she would show it at a different angle, and thereby represent herself 
 as steering a different course. For that reason proportion is necessary, 
 and for no other. But the particular propprtion of the equilateral triangle 
 is not essential, the principle being that a proportion be fixed and 
 universal. 
 
 Mr. Kotheet: Quite so. Captain Craufurd's principal remark was 
 about the necessity of a good lookout and a good eye. I believe it can- 
 not be disputed, that with the best eyes and the best lookout, you cannot 
 tell a ship's course. That is the case. I do not think I have made any 
 mistake in that diagram, (No. 1.) The green light there shows nothing; 
 you may keep as good a lookout as you can, and yet the green light will 
 show you nothing except that the starboard side of the vessel is presented 
 towards you from a line very nearly ahead to ten points round the com- 
 pass. It is no guide to the course of the ship ; and it is necessary to 
 know the course of a ship to avoid collision. 
 
88 
 
 Mr. Haepeb: One remark. With respect to the height, it seems to 
 me that the lower the light the more distinct it would be. 
 
 Captain Hbathcote : That is what I say. I believe the equilateral 
 triangle is not the best. The better proportion is when the height of 
 the masthead light is equal to half the distance between the side lights. 
 You will observe that with this proportion the angles are more easily 
 read than with the equilateral triangle. But a possible objection to that 
 occurs to me, that the white light at that height above the level of the 
 side lights might in small vessels be too low. 
 
 The Chaieman : I must confine myself to very brief observations. I 
 feel perfectly certain that we have not had sufficient time to discuss the 
 subject on hand, for we have only partially entered into it. I trust it 
 will be resumed another evening this session. I would only say at the 
 present moment, with respect to the difficulty of placing the red and 
 white lights before the foremast, I see a difficulty in trimming them 
 when you get into a sea. That is a difficulty which, as a practical sea- 
 man, I am afi-aid of. I will not detain you any longer, except to ask 
 you to join me in a vote of thanks to Captain Heathcote for the able 
 manner in which he has brought this matter forward. 
 
 Monday Evening, June 18, 1866. 
 Vice-Admibal J. H. CODRINGTOlSr, C. B., in the Chair. 
 
 ADJOURNED DISCUSSION. 
 
 The Ohaieman: Captain Heathcote has been kind enough to come 
 here this evening with the view of a further discussion taking place on the 
 subject which he introduced to us at a former meeting, and the reading 
 of the paper on which subject has given us much pleasure and a great 
 deal of information; and also in the hope that other officers may make 
 suggestions on the subject, so that we may all of us be able to form 
 opinions as to the best system for preventing collisions at sea at night. 
 I think it would be desirable if Captain Heathcote would be good enough 
 to give a short statement of what took place the other evening. 
 
 [Captain Heathcote then made a short statement of the principle of 
 the improved arrangement of the lights of steam vessels by him proposed 
 and described in the paper read on the 16th April last.] 
 
 Captain Heathcote: I should now like to make a few remarks upon 
 the question of the height of the bright light, because, when the paper was 
 
89 
 
 read, some gentlemen expressed an opinion that it was not necessary to 
 have any fixed proportion between the height of that light and the dis- 
 tance of the side lights in front of it. As I understand it, this is an 
 essential part of the arrangement. I would explain that it is so in this 
 manner: Supposing that the height of the bright Hght is fixed at the 
 proportion which I at present consider best, then A and B, in the 
 accompanying diagram, will represent in elevation the positions of the 
 bright and the green lights, respectively, of a vessel, which is beam-on 
 to the observer — that is, steering at right angles to the line of bearing, 
 because the green light B is seen as far to the right of the bright light 
 A as that light is above the level of the green hght. And this is 
 irrespective of the size of the ship; it is a matter of proportion only. 
 And if any other proportion be adopted for the height of the masthead 
 hght, so long as that proportion is fixed and known, and universal, the 
 same object is attained. Thus, if it were thought better — and perhaps 
 it might be better — that the height should be only half that above 
 
 0A 
 
 (i)c 
 
 ..0?.. 
 
 mentioned, then C would be the position of the bright hght in relation 
 to the green light B, when the vessel seen is beam-on. On the other 
 hand, if the height fixed be double what I first proposed, then D and B 
 would be relative positions of the hghts under the same conditions. 
 Whatever the proportion be, if it be fijsed and universal, as I have said 
 before, the lights whenever seen will tell an unerring tale ; but if there 
 be no fixed proportion for the height of the bright hght, then any indi- 
 cation, except that of the four points on the bows, must be hable to some 
 degree of misinterpretation. I* admit that some idea, and perhaps a 
 valuable one, would still be given of the course steered by the vessel 
 seen; and thus, be the height of the masthead light what it may, the 
 proposed arrangement would be an improvement on the present absence 
 of arrangement, but that a misinterpretation to some extent would be 
 involved is very clear ; thus, a ship carrying her hghts in about the pro- 
 portion represented by C and B when beam-on, will show them in about 
 the relative positions of D and B (for we are deaUng with proportion, not 
 with height or size) when steering a course about five points instead of 
 
90 
 
 eight points from the line of bearing; and thus if one ship carries her 
 lights in this C B proportion, and another in the D B proportion, although 
 the fact of the green light being observed to the right of the bright hght 
 is a sure indication that the ship is steering more than 4 points from the 
 line of bearing, it cannot be known whether her course is 5, 8, or 9 points 
 from the direction in which she is seen. But this can be known if the 
 proportion of height is fixed and universal, and this is my reason for 
 Urging this point as an important one in the system proposed. 
 
 W. Stieling Lacon, Esq. : I was present at the last meeting, and I 
 found that very early we departed from what I considered the main 
 object of the paper, which was to determine in what position the hghts 
 of steamers should be carried. A gallant naval officer went into a ques- 
 tion which I think was rather foreign to the subject — namely, portable 
 lights. 1 beheve those portable hghts are very valuable as accessory to 
 fixed hghts. But I think it is only justice to Captain Heathcote that we 
 should first of all express an opinion upon the system proposed by him, 
 and then go into the wider subject. There was also another gallant 
 officer who said he was coming up the channel lately, and that he noticed 
 vessels carry no lights at all. That is an important point also; but it 
 ought not to interfere with the subject of this paper, especially as I believe 
 that sl^ch questions will very soon occupy the attention of the country, 
 and that those persons who systematically break the law shall be made 
 " to answer to the law." In order that I may not depart from the question 
 myself, and that 1 may not unnecessarily occupy your time, I will, if you 
 will allow me, read from some notes which 1 have prepared, after a 
 careful perusal of Captain Heathcote's paper, which he sent to me some 
 days ago, because I think iipon such a momentous subject as this no one 
 should put forward anything that is not well and properly considered. 
 Perhaps I may be repeating, to a certain extent, what you have just 
 heard explained by Captain Heathcote, but I will be very short. 
 
 " At the last meeting a good deal was said, and nothing agreed to, as 
 to the height of the bright or white light, and its value, as regards the 
 system proposed by Captain Heathcote. It is fortunate that the value of 
 the system, as proposed, does not, said Captain Heathcote, depend upon 
 the height of that light. That light, although it may come into operation 
 in Captain Heathcote's system, has been adopted for a totally distinct 
 purpose. It is a light ordered by Act of Parhament to be carried at the 
 foremast-head to distinguish steamers from sailing vessels, ' so fixed as to 
 throw an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of twenty points of the 
 compass, so fixed as to throw the light ten points on each side of the 
 ship,' &c., &c. It is, in practice, carried below the foreyard to keep it 
 clear of ropes, and before the sail when the square foresail is set ; these 
 
91 
 
 positions are probably, under all the cirenmstanees, the best. But if it 
 was carried so low as Captain Heatheote prefers, it would have the broader 
 portions of the head-sails, when set, interfering between it and the horizon, 
 and if so low as to form the right angle triangle, as depicted in the diagi-am, 
 you will, in all probability, lose it altogether when the head-sails are set) 
 for it will be interfered with by the fore stay-sail, and when the square 
 fore-sail is set it would be obscured altogether. 
 
 "What Captain Heatheote has done is to direct attention to the fact 
 that, although by law, certain lights are ordered to be carried, namely, a 
 green hght on the starboard side and a red light on the port side ; yet, as 
 no directions are given as to the exact position of those lights, whether 
 they are to be carried before or abaft the beam, it is impossible to teU 
 what is the direction of an approaching ship's head, and what course she 
 is steering. 
 
 " If, for instance, in a dark night, your own position being South, a 
 
 W°3 
 
 IT 
 
 •W 
 
 RED 
 
 RED 
 
 [ WHITEO ^- 
 
 • WHITEO / 
 
 A A 
 
 ship (ISo. 1) with her green light fixed two points abaft the beam-, is seen 
 with her green light and bright light in one, her head will be E.N.E. 
 K another ship (No. 2) seen immediately afterwards with her green light 
 fixed abeam or abreast of the bright light, is seen with her green light 
 and bright light in one, her head will be E. And if a third ship (No. 3) 
 seen immediately afterwards with her green light fixed four points before 
 the beam, or four points from, the bow, is seen with her green light and 
 bright light in one, her head will be S.E,, and each ship is carrying her 
 lights according to law. 
 
 " This, then, is the fact, that in consequence of the Act of Parliament 
 making no provision as to the position in which the green and the red 
 lights respectively shall be carried, you may have either of them on with 
 the bright light, and you cannot tell within eight or ten points which 
 way the ships head is, and which way she is steering. Captain Heatheote 
 proposes to remedy this by making all steamers carry their lights in a 
 
92 
 
 fixed relative position, and for his suggestion I think he deserves the 
 thanks of the country and the shipping interest. 
 
 "He proposes that the red and green lights should be carried {in all 
 cases) four points before the beam or four points from the bow; then, he 
 says, if a ship is seen with her green light and bright light in one, you 
 will know the direction of her head, and that if she opens out her green 
 hght to the left of the bright hght, you will know that she is following 
 what is considered , by some as the ' Kule of the Eoad' by porting her 
 helm, and you will soon see her red hght; or, that as regards yourself, 
 you are crossing her bow, and that great caution is necessary till you 
 open out her red light. On the other hand, if the green light opens to 
 the right of the bright light, you know that the ship is either putting her 
 helm to starboard, or that you are passing astern of her; but Admiral 
 Oollinson, who was in the chair at the last meeting, and who is a practical 
 man, and whose opinion is worthy of respect, says, that if you place the 
 red and green lights so much before the foremast, he sees great difficulty 
 in trimming them when you get into a sea, for the rule must be applicable 
 to all steamers of whatever construction. 
 
 "Might not the same object be attained, therefore, by fixing the red 
 and green lights abeam or abreast of the foremast and the bright light, 
 or two points before the beam, although the position may not be so 
 desirable as that suggested by Captain Heathcote. I am aware that it 
 was said by Mr. Harper at the last meeting that by placing the three lights 
 in one vertical plane there might be a difficulty, but would the difficulty 
 be as great as that pointed out by Admiral CoUinson as attending the 
 former plan? 
 
 "Would it not be possible with the lights abreast to ascertain the 
 position of the approaching ship's head, and what she is doing, and to 
 regulate your action accordingly ? 
 
 " If the approaching ship, with her lights in one vertical plane, is steer- 
 ing the same course as No. 3, she (the approaching ship) will have hers 
 considerably open. If she opens them more, you will know that she is 
 following what is considered by some as the Kule of the Road, by porting 
 her helm, and you will soon see her red hght, or, as regards yourself, 
 that you are crossing her bow, and that great caution is necessary till you 
 open out her red hght. On the other hand, if the lights close, you wiU 
 know that she is either putting her helm to starboard, or you will be 
 passing astern of her, and when the lights are in one she will be broadside 
 on. As I said before, I am free to admit that the angle proposed by 
 Captain Heathcote is the most desirable, and ought to be adopted could 
 all the objections, such as the one raised by Admiral Collinson, be got 
 rid of. Whatever may be the future position of the red and green lights, 
 
93 
 
 there can be no doubt whatever that a fixed relative position for the 
 lights in all steamers is an actual necessity. 
 
 " So convinced am I of this, that in the hope of strengthening the 
 hands of Captain Heathcote in his good work, I do not hesitate to express 
 it as my opinion, in which I trust I shall receive the concurrence of the 
 meeting, that, 'there being no provision in the Act of Parliament as to 
 the relative position in which lights on board steamships should be carried 
 it is desirable that the position of the green light on the starboard side, 
 and the red light on the port side should be fixed by law.'" 
 
 Before I conclude I would make a short remark upon a supposed case 
 of two vessels situated in the position of the " Black Prince" and the 
 "Araxes" mentioned in Captain Heathcote's paper. 
 
 The question must not be looked at from the point of view of an intel- 
 ligent captain of a ship, but from that of a half-hazy, half-sleepy, 
 half-instructed master, who has honestly endeavored to make himself 
 acquainted with the Admiralty instructions, diagrams, and many hundred 
 clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act. 
 
 A is steering north, and sees right ahead the green and bright light of 
 another vessel B. The night is very dark, and the lights only can be 
 seen ; B 's green light is well open to the left of the bright light, and 
 A's captain imagines that B is steering " end on, or nearly end on, so as to 
 involve risk of collision," and that he must put " the helm aport, so that 
 each may pass on the port side of the other."* 
 
 He follows, therefore, what he believes is " the Rule of the lioad" 
 and ports Ms helm accordingly. 
 
 But B is steering E. or E.S.E., with her colored lights, perhaps abaft 
 the mainmast, she is moving rapidly, and her captain first sees A rather 
 later than when A first saw him, he has passed a little on A's starboard 
 boio, and A's lights, namely, a green and a bright light, are nearly abeam. 
 
 He thinks, therefore, he has only to continue his course, and that the 
 ships will pass in safety. 
 
 Presently, however, B's captain sees A's red light, and that she is 
 rapidly coming up with and endeavoring to pass ahead of him ; A having 
 ported his helm {the Rule of the Road and porting the helm occurs to 
 him also.) It is too dark to judge of distance, he puts his helm hard-a-port, 
 but it is too late, and a collision takes place. 
 
 H. C. EoTHEET, Esq.: With your permission. Sir, I would wish to make 
 a few observations upon Captain Heathcote's paper. I regret to have to 
 say anything that would seem to be in disparagement of what has fallen 
 from Captain Heathcote ; for no one can have a higher opinion of the 
 ability shown in the paper than I have. There is, however, one point on 
 * Vide Art. 13, Steering and Sailing Rules, and Merchant Shipping Act, 1862. 
 
94 
 
 which I ventured to address a few observations to the meeting on the 
 last occasion, as to the height of the white light with reference to the red 
 and green lights. And although I had not the good fortune to he present 
 when Captain Heathcote began his observations this evening, I came in, 
 I think, before he had addressed himself to that particular point, and 
 nothing that I have heard to-day has induced me to alter the opinion I 
 had previously formed ; at the same time, it is probable that Captain 
 Heathcote may be right and I may be wrong. The point in Captain 
 Heathcote's paper that I refer to, I could explain much better with the 
 diagram than without it. I came in when Captain Heathcote was 
 describing this diagram, and the observations that he made, if I recoUect 
 rightly, where these : You observe that if this vessel ports her helm, the 
 red light closes in with the white light, if this vessel starboards her helm, 
 the green light opens to the white light. The observations that he made 
 had reference to nothing else but the closing and opening of the red and 
 white lights, or the closing and opening of the green and white lights ; it 
 all had reference simply to closing and opening of the lights. 
 
 Mr. Lacon : Did he not say opens to the right and opens to the left ? 
 
 Mr. Rothert: Quite so. Moreover, Captain Heathcote stated that 
 some vessels might like to carry the white light up high, and others might 
 carry it low. This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest reasons why 
 you cannot have any fixed proportion between the beam of the vessel, or 
 the distance between the two colored lights and the height of the white 
 light above the deck. If you draw a vertical line passing through the green 
 light, whether the white light be high or whether it be low, it retains the 
 same horizontal distance from the vertical line. I think that Captain 
 Heathcote has given too much importance to the variation of the angle, 
 which a line drawn from either of the colored lights to the white light makes 
 with a vertical line passing through the white light. Now I think that 
 angle has nothing to do with it at all. Supposing a vessel had another four 
 points on her bow, the colored light and white light of the former would 
 be seen vertically, one above the other ; now if the vessel put her helm 
 either to port or to starboard, the immediate effect would be to throw 
 the lights out of the vertical to the right or left. Whether the white, 
 light was high or whether it was low would make no difference, it would 
 be thrown to the right or left of the colored light. I have here three small 
 tapers which I think will illustrate what I mean perhaps more clearly than 
 anything else. I will now light and fix these tapers. (The speaker 
 here lighted the three tapers, colored respectively red, green, and white, 
 and then fixed them on the diagram of a vessel in the positions which 
 would be assigned them by Captain Heathcote.) If the vessel is coming 
 end-on toward the Chairman, you would see all the three lights. Supposing, 
 
95 
 
 for instance, I am going in this direction, so that I am four points 
 away from the direct line towards the Chairman, then the Chairman 
 would see my green light and" my white light. If I port my helm at all, 
 then my white light opens to the left of the colored light ; if I starboard 
 my helm, it opens to the right of it. ' "Whether the white light be high 
 or low appears to me at present to make no difierence. The important 
 part of Captain Heathcote's system is whether the white light is to the 
 right or left of the colored light, and whether the lights are opening or 
 closing. Theoretically, no doubt, it is of importance to linow distinctly 
 whether a vessel is two points and a half or three points ; but, practically, 
 it does not matter much. It is a matter of much greater importance that 
 you should know which way a vessel is opening her lights, which way her 
 helm is being put, than it is that you should know whether she is two 
 points and a half or three points. I thought there was a great deal in 
 the remark made by Mr. Lacon, that there is only one place in a ship, 
 namely, the foremast head, where you can generally hang the white light. 
 And inasmuch as the foremasts differ in different vessels, it would be 
 extremely difficult to put the light in such a position that it could be 
 clearly visible, and yet be at some fixed distance, say half the beam, or 
 the whole breadth of the beam above the deck. Supposing, for instance, 
 a ship shows two points open, you see the white light and the colored 
 lights open, and the same if she was three points, or only one point ; and, 
 no doubt, there might be a difficulty in ascertaining exactly the number 
 of points ; but I do not think you could trust a seaman to determine 
 accurately to one or two points, even if the white light was at a medium fixed 
 height above the deck. All my observations have reference to that 
 partici\lar point. In other respects I think Captain Heathcote's obser- 
 vations and his system are most admirable ; and I do perfectly concur 
 with the gentleman who spoke last, that it is a matter which ought to 
 engage the attention of this Institution, and that they should call upon 
 the Government most urgently to put the colored Hghts in some fixed 
 position relatively to the white light. I entirely concur with that gentle- 
 man that four points on the bow would be the best position for the colored 
 lights, for then you would get the two lights in one when you are four 
 points on the bow ; and you would much sooner see a change, of course, 
 whether the white light opened to the right or to the left of the colored 
 light. In small vessels there may be a difficulty in carrying them four 
 points on the bow ; that is a question for practical men, but if you could, 
 1 should say undoubtedly that the four points' position is the best ; under 
 any circumstances, however, I think that Captain Heathcote's system is 
 an immense improvement upon the existing system. 
 
 J. A. "W". Haepee, Esq.: In respect to that question of the white light 
 
96 
 
 above the colored light, it seems to me that the great point is the nearer 
 the white light is to the colored light the more distinctly and more clearly 
 every variation in the position of these lights is seen. So that, if you put 
 the white light at a considerable elevation above the colored lights, the 
 indications to a vessel at a distance will be much less clear, much less 
 distinct than when they are nearly in the same horizontal plane. Sup. 
 posing they are in the same horizontal plane, a vessel approaching, seeing 
 those two lights in Hne, the white light a little above the other, knows 
 the coarse of that vessel to be four points to starboard or port of that 
 line, the least change in the course, when the lights are in that positioUj 
 is very distinctly seen. It does seem to me that those indications are 
 much less distinct when the white light is at a considerable elevation 
 above the other lights; the white light should perhaps be sufficiently 
 elevated to be seen above the colored light distinctly and clearly when 
 the vessel is four points on the other's bow, but yet not so high as to 
 make it difficult to discern the delicate differences which are produced by 
 changes of course in the approaching vessel. It seems to me that a 
 difficulty attends Captain- Heathcote's system. What becomes of these 
 lights when the ship's stay or square foresail are set? If I am correct in 
 thinking that the system is more accurate, when the white light is lower, 
 i. e., nearer to the colored lights, if you keep the colored lights on the 
 ship itself, the system is almost destroyed when the ship is under sail. 
 I do not know whether that is so. Supposing it to be so, when navigators 
 are looking for" indications of the course of an approaching ship, I imagine 
 their view might possibly be so distracted by the lights being obscured 
 by sails that a very serious mischief might follow. Then comes the 
 question, is it not possible to arrange the lights in such a manner that 
 you may secure all these indications without those difficulties. Suppose 
 a jackstay, with an arm to the right and to the left, and a light at the end 
 of each arm, and the white light in the centre, is it not possible to suppose 
 that the lights might be arranged in this way, so as to get over the 
 difficulty I have pointed out? 
 
 Mr. Rotheey: I should like to say one word about .what Mr. Harper 
 has said. No doubt it would be most important if the lights could be as 
 much as possible upon the same horizontal line, because you do see a 
 variation much more rapidly than if the white light is higher. But then, 
 inasmuch as the white light must be placed in the middle of the ship, it 
 would be obstructed very often by sails or by persons moving about, 
 unless you put the whole of them up high, in fact, on a level with the 
 foretopmast head. And considering that these lights have to be carried, 
 both in fine weather and in rough weather, I would ask what kind of 
 support you could give to your colored lights in that position, so as to 
 
97 
 
 prevent their being blown away. No doubt this point is a very important 
 one if it could be attained; and I should hke to hear what Captain 
 Heathcote has to say on the subject. 
 
 Captain Bdegess : Admiral Eyder, being unable to attend, has sent a 
 few remarks, which, with your permission, I will read to the meeting : 
 
 " Jotte 17, 1866. 
 
 "Sie: I regret very much that I shall not be able to be present at the 
 discussion on Monday. Captain Heathcote's proposal appears to me to 
 be very valuable, and I think the position he advocates, viz: that the 
 side lights should be four points on each bow, measuring from the mast- 
 head lights as a centre, is the best, provided the lantern is so fitted as to 
 be easily accessible in bad weather, and so strongly fitted as to be able 
 to resist the blows of seas, seeing that the position is rather exposed. 
 
 "A lamp, invented by a Mr. Brown, of Deptford Dockyard, and 
 which has been fitted for binnacles, has the valuable property of heating 
 its own oil, which prevents the necessity of retrimming for many hours. 
 I believe that lamps of this description, if trimmed with Colza oil, would 
 not require to have their wicks cut more than once in twelve hours, pro- 
 vided the reservoir was slightly raised above the wick, so as to produce 
 an overflow of oil. 
 
 "If the side lights can be so fitted as not to require to be disturbed 
 throughout the night, the only objection to the exposed position recom- 
 mended by Captain Heathcote would be removed. The great advantage 
 of the position proposed by Captain Heathcote, viz: the side lights four 
 points on each how, is, that that position is the middle point between the 
 extremes of danger and safety, viz: between the position in which the 
 ship's head is pointing at you, and that in which her course is parallel to 
 yom-s. By the two lights being in one in this central position, any 
 variation to the left or light, showing that the angle included between 
 the courses of the two A^essels is changing, is easily detected at once. 
 Whereas if the side lights were abreast of the mast-head lights, and the 
 ship is first seen in the same position as above, any change in the angle 
 included between the two courses vdll not be so easily detected, as it is 
 much easier to detect changes in a small angle than in a large angle. 
 
 "Whether both ships are under weigh, or one is at anchor and the 
 other under weigh, no conclusion could be drawn by the captain of the 
 ship at anchor in the one case, or by either of the captains in the other 
 case (even if Captain Heathcote's proposal was enforced by law) that the 
 other ship had put her helm, either one way or the other, merely because 
 the green or red light was seen opening out to the left or right of the 
 masthead light; but if the relative positions of the side-lights and mast- 
 7 
 
98 
 
 head lights are regulated by law, the captain of one ship, on perceiving 
 the approach of another ship, would be guided to a much safer conclusion 
 as to whether there is any risk of a collision, and as to what steps ought 
 to be taken to prevent such an accident than if, as at present, the side 
 lights may be anywhere. 
 
 "Tours, faithfully, 
 
 "A. P. EYDER." 
 
 Commander Colomb, E. K. : As I was one of the unfortunate culprits 
 who went a little further than he ought to have gone on the last occasion, 
 I must endeavor not to go so far this time. Several remairks have been 
 made by different speakers to-night, which I think call for a little ftirther 
 notice. It is quite possible that one might make a very shght amount of 
 confusion — confusion worse confounded! — an unpractised speaker very 
 often does that. However, I shall endeavor to address myself to two or 
 three -points, which I think want to be made a little clearer, First of all, 
 • I would take Admiral CoUinson's objection to Captain Heathcote's 
 proposal. He said he thought that there would be a difficulty in 
 trimming the lights if they were placed in a fixed position so far forward. 
 Now, on board a great many of the larger class of men-of-war, the hghts 
 never appear on deck at all; they are trimmed between decks, in a small 
 place built out through the ship's side, where the lanterns are placed.with 
 very strong plate-glass outside. You can carry that system to any 
 extent in smaller vessels, because there is no reason why there should 
 not be a communication between the deck below and the inside of the 
 glazed niche, which will show outside the ship, so that a lamp may be 
 taken inside this covered passage, trimmed between decks, and replaced. 
 It need never appear on deck at all; it need never appear in the air; so 
 that, as far as that goes, I do not see any objection to the admirable 
 proposition of Captain Heathcote. Now, there have been a great many 
 questions raised, if I understand it aright, as to the necessity or non- 
 necessity of a relative proportion between the height of the mast-head 
 light and the breadth of the ship, or rather the breadth between the two 
 hghts. It has been said that whatever that height be, let it vary in ships, 
 that still you will ascertain alterations of helm by the closing or the 
 opening of the green or red hghts from the vertical line of the white 
 hght. Now if you only wanted to ascertain changes of helm, that of 
 course would attain your purpose. But that is not all you want to 
 ascertain. Ton want to ascertain, on first sighting a ship, without any 
 change of her helm whatever, what her course is: becausCj the very 
 moment you see a ship at sea, it is desirable you should at once be able 
 to make up your mind what your own course should be. The great 
 
99 
 
 difficulty you have on meeting a ship at sea, is to ascertain at once how 
 she is steering, so as to understand what lies before you, and to see what 
 your proper course should be — whether to foUow the rule of the road, 
 as they call it, or go contrary to that rule of the road, which is often the 
 rule of safety. Unless you have a fixed inclination of the lights, for 
 every difference of course of the ship you are approaching, from the line 
 of bearing — unless that inclination be fixed in every ship, how is a seaman 
 to form any judgment whatever as to the course the ship is steering? 
 We will say, you have a ship abeam. You know you are abeam of her, 
 because of a certain angle formed by the line joining the hghts with the 
 horizon. Tou see a certain distance between the lights. That ship may 
 be much further off or she may be much smaller, but the two hues 
 which join the lights form the same angle with the horizon ; and whether 
 the line be here or there, you know that the ship is steering the same 
 course — you know yo.u are abeam of her. That is the point that Captain 
 Heathcote wants to establish first of all. Now, another point was 
 brought forward. Mr. Lacon said there would be this difficulty, if the 
 lights were brought sufficiently low down to make the height of the light 
 a good proportion with the beam of the ship, the bright light would be 
 covered by the head-sails. I should imagine that when the head-sails 
 were set, we do not care so much whether she is a steamer, because she 
 is governed by the wind; and if you do not see the white light at all, 
 you understand that ship to be governed by the wind. Whether she is 
 a steamer or a sailing vessel can make very httle matter to you, you can 
 .ascertain her coiu'se by what the vidnd is. I had prepared some remarks 
 opening up the whole question, but at this hour of the evening, and 
 having very vividly before my eyes what has passed, I think perhaps it 
 would not be advisable to go any further. The question is a very much 
 larger one than the meeting is at present aware of. It is very well for 
 us to lay down regulations as to the position of the lights, but the regu- 
 lations as to the nature of the lights is only in a slight degree attended to. 
 It is evaded by way of cheapness in the smaller class ships, and in some 
 of the larger, to a very extraordinary extent. There are very few lights 
 (mast-head and side lights) ordinarily supplied to ships which fulfil the 
 regulations. There are very few side hghts which show to two points 
 aft the beam; there are very few mast-head lights which show to more 
 than fifteen points of the compass. At present we cannot get the regu- 
 lations obeyed, and we must first turn to the rule of having the law 
 obeyed, and then we can go on making our laws with the certainty that 
 they vdll continue to be obeyed. The question is such a large one that, 
 though it is late in the session, I should be very much disposed, if the 
 Council wished it, to draw up a short paper going a little further into 
 
100 
 
 the way in which the law is evaded, the construction of lights, and the 
 general state of the case as regards those lights. There are one or two 
 speakers beside me who would wish to branch out a little; and I think 
 the feeling of the meeting is that, whatever the minor details of Captain 
 Heathcote's plan might be, the plan itself is so admirable that it strikes 
 you at once as being the thing that should be adopted and carried out. 
 To my mind there can be no dissension about the matter. It seems 
 quite certain that some plan of that sort regulating the position of ,the 
 bow hghts as regards the mast-head light should be adopted. 
 
 Mr.. Haepek: That strikes me as a most startling proposition, that a 
 steamer under sail is governed by the wind. 
 
 Captain Colomb : So far as you are concerned only, on approaching 
 her and making out her course. 
 
 Mr. Haupee: There is considerable risk of interference by the sails 
 of a steamship with the accurate, defined, settled system of Captain 
 Heathcote. Is it true that a steamer under sail is governed by the wind? 
 If it is not, it does seem to me that the system proposed by Captain 
 Heathcote would be materially affected on occasions when sails were 
 used by a steamer. It seems to me to be true that the system of Captain 
 Heathcote would be much more accurate in proportion as you get the 
 white light lower down, and the angle which it forms with the colored 
 light more obtuse. It may be important to put the white light at any 
 height contemplated by Captain Heathcote. But it strikes me it is 
 dangerous in proportion as navigators have to depend upon accurate 
 observations, and upon the view they conceive of the course of vessels by 
 the indications of the lights, if those indications are, upon a particular 
 occasion, obscured or done away with by the sails. If it is true that a 
 steamer under sail is governed by her sails, of course you have inde- 
 pendent indications which are quite different. It does seem to me that 
 that question has not exactly been touched, namely, that there may be a 
 chance of that excellent proposition of Captain Heathcote's being practi- 
 cally interfered with. Supposing that to be admitted, it is quite possible 
 to consider whether the principles laid down by Captain Heathcote 
 cannot be by some little practical alterations made independent of these 
 difiiculties. 
 
 Captain Heathcote: "What Mr. Harper very much fears is that the 
 indications might be false. I would remark, that where there is no 
 bright light seen, there will be no indications. Where a green or red ' 
 light only is seen, the vessel would be supposed to be a sailing ship, and 
 treated accordingly. 
 
 Mr. RiDGWAT : I would remark that while everything has been said 
 with reference to the position of the lights, nothing has been said abont 
 
101 ,/^^' 'yi/r. 
 
 the duties of the oflBeers on board ship and of the men M^'navigat^ the 
 ship, a very material point. The question of collisions kt|sea is8ne of 
 considerable importance. I, unfortunately, on one occas3lpn\piitWmty- 
 nine persons on board a ship. They got as far as the Downs/ Either a 
 steamer ran foul of the ship or the ship ran foul of the steamer. Being 
 called upon to pay money to the people who embarked, I inquired, 
 "Who is to blame?" It proved, on investigation before the Trinity 
 House, that the ship had been the cause of the accident, owing to the 
 negligence of her officers and men, so I paid no money. I think that 
 many collisions take place at sea, not from the wrong position of the 
 lights, but from the inattention of the persons on board. Frequently 
 the owners of the ship appoint to the command inefficient individuals. 
 A case occurred a few days ago where the pilot of a ship found that the 
 officers of the ship were drunk before he left the ship. 
 
 Captain Henry D. Grant, R. N.: 1 only wish to say that Captain 
 Heathcote's system is one that merits the full approbation of every 
 seaman. As having had command during the last four years of cruizers 
 in the most dangerous waters on the coast of America and New York, 
 the difficulty I practically found was in knowing exactly the position of 
 the lights. Yery often I have known, particularly in French vessels, 
 that the hghts have been placed in steamers right abaft the mizen mast. 
 In some they are aft the bridge. So great is the uncertainty as to the 
 position of the lights, that very often, when I have seen a vessel, the 
 first question that has come into my mind has been, "Where is that 
 vessel's light placed?" Because it makes a very material difference 
 whether they are placed on the bow or aft. One vessel I commanded 
 was a very small gunboat; and I think I may be allowed to be a judge 
 as to whether there was any danger in placing those lights forward. 
 During that time we passed through three hurricanes, and we never had 
 the lights once washed out or damaged in thei slightest degree. The 
 place was a box built into the bulwarks forward, with strong plate glass. 
 Once only we had a plate glass smashed, but even then the light was 
 uninjured. But I do think it is a question of very great importance 
 whether we could not have better lights. The lights of Mr. Brown have 
 struck me as being the best adapted for our purpose, especially those for 
 binnacles. With regard to the observations about vessels being under 
 sail, I do not think that is of so very much importance ; because if we 
 are out in the broad ocean, and we see a vessel with her steamer lights, 
 whether she is under sail or under steam, we are to treat her as a steamer. 
 But the importance of Captain Heathcote's system is in close waters, 
 such as running up a river, when the commander of any steam vessel 
 would be highly culpable that carried sail. We want then to be in the 
 
102 
 
 position to do any possible thing under steam, and no vessel can do that 
 if she is carrying sail. With regard to another question that has been 
 mooted, the responsibility of the officers, I must say that when I have 
 seen mates of merchant ships keeping watch and watch, I have thought 
 it was a very hard matter for them to be able to look after lights, or to 
 have their minds clear in very difficult water. 
 
 The CnAiEMAif : However we may differ as to some of the details of 
 this subject, I think we must all feel extremely obliged to Captain Heath- 
 cote for the clear and lucid way in which he has brought tliis subject 
 before ns; and I must add, the very efficient system which he has brought 
 forward. We are also very much obliged to the gentlemen who have 
 favored us with their opinions and criticisms on the subject, because I 
 feel convinced that the more a subject of this sort is investigated and 
 criticised, the more nearly we shall arrive at the truth, and add to the 
 efficiency of the service. There are various points involved. I do not 
 know whether it is necessary to go into them all. For myself, I should 
 prefer naturally the position that Captain Heathcote proposes for these 
 lights; but I see some practical reasons in the case of the mast-head 
 light against that. The only place that I can see for a mast-head hght 
 to be constantly in view at all times, in all cases, and in all positions, for 
 it must be always that, is at the mast-head. I cannot see that it would 
 do anywhere lower down. If I place it lower down, nearly on the level 
 with the side lights, as was proposed by one gentleman, there are so 
 many objects in the centre of the ship that would interfere, right or left 
 of the bow, with the sight of that light. Moreover, a. steamer, though 
 under steam, may have a sail set ; may sometimes set her jib, sometimes 
 set her foresail; and we know that any light low down on the foremast 
 would thus be invisible. It is only above the fore-yard that a light on 
 the foremast can be seen permanently, some put it on the forestay; but 
 it must be decidedly above the line of the foresail or before it. Now, an 
 objection was taken to the position of the bow lights being, as Captain 
 Heathcote proposes, a certain distance before the line of the foremast. 
 For myself I see no objection to that. One of the gentlemen who has 
 favored us with his opinions, as having commanded a small vessel, has 
 given us a practical case in point. I can myself mention that when I 
 commanded a line-of-battle ship in 1854, I was one of the first who 
 placed the bow lights in the position described, on the middle deck well 
 forward, and they stood in every ease of bad weather. They were 
 trimmed from the main-deck with all the advantages that we have heard 
 mentioned to-night. I believe that the same thing can be done with 
 care in small vessels. I do not want to go into the duty of officers 
 seeing that their lights are trimmed; for if there is one thing in which I 
 
103 
 
 have found officers and men equally ignorant and equally careless, I must 
 say, it is in. the trimming and the care of lights. They do not know the 
 conditions under which oil is burned. Many of them shut up a lamp 
 and think it is to burn without air. Having had the superintendence of 
 an Admiralty dockyard, I can speak from long experience upon that 
 point. I have never seen grosser ignorance on the part of officers and men 
 than upon that point. But I do not see what objection there is to have 
 the deck lights in the position Captain Heathcote suggests, before the 
 foremast. I think we could always carry them there, taking care to 
 provide them with fresh air, and to protect them from the stroke of the 
 sea. I can see a great advantage also in knowing exactly when that 
 angle of 45° comes on. We should lose that entirely, if the lights were 
 put in the same plane ; that is to say, the Hne of the beam of the ship. 
 Then comes the question, whether that actual angle that Captain Heath- 
 cote wishes is necessary in all cases. There I conceive there may be a 
 considerable difficulty. Ships are so different; and the length of the 
 foremast differs so much in different ships, that I apprehend it would be 
 very difficult, judging by what I see of the various beam of ships and the 
 various length of foremast — for I always look to the necessity that the 
 light should be above the foreyard — I think it would be very difficult to 
 maintain that angle. But I think we could always maintain that the 
 side hghts being before the hne of the foremast, when showing in hne 
 with the white hght, should give that angle of 45°. I think that is a 
 very, great principle, and one of very great importance. Another point 
 was started about the Ughts themselves. ' There is no doubt that we can 
 very much improve our hghts. I heartily wish that the subject could be 
 gone into another evening, for it is somewhat late this evening, and I 
 must tie myself down to the subject before the meeting, and not go into 
 the nature of ships' hghts. The subject before us is an improved system 
 of hghts as to position, and that is what I wish to keep to. But I may 
 remark that we may improve our hghts very much. But I really think 
 there is something more for us to do ; all of us who are in command of 
 men must really try and improve their common sense. I have seen 
 lamps of the very best construction that the Admiralty could put into 
 ships, and when 1 have gone round the decks, they were completely 
 filled with black. They might almost have been green or red hghts, so 
 obscured was the light, and yet those gentlemen who had the charge of 
 them thought they were doing their duty. Therefore, while we are 
 talking about lights, we must see that those who have charge of them 
 must know how to treat these lights. I think that a captain ought not 
 to be above seeing that everything is done properly on board his ship. 
 He is as much bound to see that the lamps are clean as that her head is 
 
104 
 
 steered correctly. We may iroprove oiir ships' laraps very much, but 
 we must do something further than that; I do not know a better way of 
 doing it than by discussing the subject before a meeting like this. We 
 shall all learn something. I have learned something at the lectures, on 
 both this and the previous evening, from Captain Heathcote, and from 
 the gentlemen who have spoken. And, once for all, I must say we are 
 very much obhged to these gentlemen for the information they had 
 given us. 
 
 Monday Evening, July 9, 1866. 
 Yice-Admieal H. J. CODEINGTON^, C. B., in the Chair. 
 
 SHIPS' LIGHTS AT SEA. 
 By Commander P. H. Colomb, R. N. 
 
 The most recent Board of Trade returns tell us that collisions by night 
 are about three times as frequent as collisions by day, and so far encourage 
 us in placing a high value on the questions we have discussed on two 
 previous occasions, and are to continue to discuss to-night. 
 
 They also tell us that the three most pi-ohfic causes of collision are, 
 neglect or misapplication of steering rules, bad lookout, and neglecting 
 to show the proper lights. In which sentences we find texts very appo- 
 site to the particular branches of inquiry we have entered upon, and very 
 sufficient answers to those who might be disposed to think lightly of the 
 disease for which we are endeavoring to seek a remedy. 
 
 We may farther strengthen our position by adding that more collisions 
 occiu* in clear and fine weather than in a thick and foggy atmosphere, 
 while at the same time thick and foggy weather alone is stated to be the 
 cause next in productiveness of collision to those already mentioned. 
 
 One by one I propose to examine these four causes, so far as they 
 operate at night, avoiding the question of improvements in steering rules, 
 which are in abler hands, and confining myself entirely to what is, or, 
 in my conception, ought to be done with reference to lights fixed or 
 temporary. 
 
 I think it will be admitted that the terms "neglect or misapplication 
 of steering rules " embrace a very wide field, and that it is probable that 
 
105 
 
 had we the details of each case registered in the column under that 
 heading before us, we should find ample scope for argument over the 
 majority of them. We should find it difficult to say off-hand exactly in 
 what respects the steering -rules were neglected or misapplied. 
 
 Every one knows that nothing is more difficult than to balance the 
 blame in a collision case, and if we are to judge from the casual conver- 
 sations of nautical men, law and common sense come into as severe 
 collision as the ships which brought them into opposition. 
 
 While it is an absolute necessity that there should be a sea " rule of 
 the road," it is also clear that there must be an exempting clause, such 
 as Article 19 of the Shipping Act Regulations; and to my mind it seems 
 as if the heading "neglect or misapplication of steering rules" would be 
 more correctly rendered as " one ship's acting on the rule of the road 
 and the other on the exempting clause." 
 
 Considerable judgment is required when danger of collision approaches 
 whether the circumstances justify a departure from the rule of the road ; 
 but, taking the average of human nature, we should say, that imminent 
 danger is not conducive to clearness of judgment. 
 
 Captain Heathcote, as I understand him, wishes, by his method of 
 placing hghts, to give persons in charge of ships at night the greatest 
 possible time for the formation of their jiidgment, by the immediate 
 detection of the course of any approaching steamei'. He seems to think — 
 and I agree with him — that give a man time enough to think of the 
 proper thing in a doubtful case, and the proper thing will be done and 
 collision avoided. 
 
 I have no doubt myself that were his plan generally adopted, seamen's 
 eyes would in a few years get quite accustomed to estimate the course of 
 approaching steam vessels, and men would have time to use their common 
 sense, so as to avoid even an approach to a colhsion; they would not then, 
 as is now too often the case, hesitate till the time for action is past, and 
 then fall back on that refuge for the destitute, the Act of Parliament, 
 calling out "hard a-port!" and defying fate with the law on their side. 
 
 If a man in charge of a ship at night could only be sure of the exact 
 position and course of his approaching neighbor the moment she was 
 seen, how calmly he could make his arrangenaents for clearing her ! But 
 every seaman knows the anxious and painful moments which elapse 
 between the report " a light on starboard bow" and the attainment of 
 certainty as to the approaching ship's course and distance. This state ot 
 doubt gives the judgment its first blow; the longer it is in coming to a 
 conclusion, the nearer grows the danger, and the less chance is there 
 that the judgment when formed will be correct. 
 
 These circumstances lead to cases when it is not possible to get time 
 
106 
 
 for reflection, where collision becomes so imminent that unless both ships 
 obey the guidance of one common thought, disaster will result. 
 
 For cases of this kind Captain Bolton and I have prepared our 
 "Warning Lights." It has always seemed to me that if, when the danger 
 of collision is very near, one man could assume the direction of both 
 ships for the moment, the danger would pass away. 
 
 These warning lights, of intense brilliancy, and a power capable of 
 sending their light 20 miles, have been introduced by the inventors to 
 meet the above cases. 
 
 They are colored red, white, and green, and represent efficiently during 
 the thickest weather the present port, starboard, and masthead light, 
 wliich are then invisible. 
 
 If a ship, close-hauled, lying-to, or otherwise not under sufficient com- 
 mand to avoid collision, perceives another ship coming down on her 
 starboard side, and likely to foul her, she will instantly burn a green 
 warning light. This will immediately alarm the approaching ship, and 
 will cause her to starboard her helm, and so pass harmlessly astern. 
 
 A ship being approached by another on her port side will burn a red 
 light, when the approaching ship will^or^ her helm to go clear. 
 
 A ship may also, on approaching another end-on, or nearly so, bum 
 a red light to show she is putting her helm a-port and to warn the other 
 ship to do so likewise ; a green light to show she is putting her hehn 
 a-starboard, and a white light to show she is keeping her course. 
 
 The white lights are also to be burnt by vessels at anchor when ships 
 are approaching them. 
 
 The whole process of using these warning Koman lights, is therefore 
 simply applying powerful lights to carry out to their full extent the 
 Board of Trade Kegulations for preventing collisions. 
 
 The lights are perfectly safe to handle, but are so constructed that they 
 will ignite instantaneously when required. 
 
 Water-tight boxes are supplied with these lights, to be fixed on deck 
 in convenient places so that they may always be at hand when wanted. 
 The boxes are made to contain half-a-dozen, or one dozen of each 
 color. 
 
 The red lights are on the left hand, the white lights in the centre, and 
 the green lights on the right hand. 
 
 The red lights are further distinguishable in the dark, by having one 
 ring on the handle, the white lights by having two rings, and the green 
 lights by three rings. 
 
 To use them, it is only necessary to open the box, take out the light 
 of the required color, remove the cap, and draw out the wooden plug 
 quickly, the light will instantly burst into brilliant flame. 
 
107 
 
 Fig. X. 
 
 I 
 
 
 Now, if A, coming nearly into collision wi'th B, could tell her which 
 way to put her helm so as to agree with the movement she herself was 
 making, less presence of mind on either side would be required, and there 
 would be much greaier certainty of avoiding accident. 
 
 Let me take a single case illustrative of 
 the uses of these lights. 
 
 A and B discover each other on their 
 starboard bows. B, being possessed of bet- 
 ter eyes, and keeping a sharper lookout 
 than A, forms an idea of A's course, and, 
 following his common sense, starboards his 
 helm. But B's lights are both bad, and 
 badly placed, so A, laboring under his other 
 disadvantages, is veiy far from clear about 
 B's course; he therefore goes according to 
 Act of Parhament, ports his helm, and 
 comes into collision about the point C. 
 Poor B of course goes to the wall in the 
 Admiralty Court, or under a Board of Trade 
 inquiry, because it is difficult to get at any 
 distinct fact except that A ported her helm 
 and B did not. B, profiting by his expe- 
 rience, practices calling out "hard a-port" 
 as a legal solution of every difficulty and 
 no doubt finds it answei'. Now, if B, being 
 quite certain of A's course, and of the 
 I proper mode of avoiding her, namely, by 
 
 y starboarding his helm, had been able to 
 
 ^ announce to A, by burning a green warning 
 
 light, that she was doing this, or about to do so, A's doubts would have 
 vanished, and, moreover, had she now ported her helm and brought about 
 ■ a collision, B would prove having displayed the warning signal, and A 
 would legally as well as actually suffer damage. Or again, if A, being 
 in doubt, ports her helm according to regulation and burns a red warning 
 hght, B may stop, or heave to, or port his helm alone, being certain of 
 A's proceedings, but he assuredly will not put his helm.a-starboard as 
 we have seen him do. 
 
 The advantage of using red and green lights as signals in preference to 
 others are manifest enough, as "red and port" and "green and starboard" 
 are irrevocably connected in seamen's minds, and instinct alone will 
 make a man call out "hard a-starboard" if a powerful gi-een light appears 
 suddenly before him at sea. 
 
108 
 
 Equal in its evil effects with the misapplication of steering rules, 
 stands, according to the returns — " Bad lookout." Here again we have 
 a statement to which there are, as there were in the last, two sides. As 
 a man may justify himself when charged with misapplication of steering 
 rules, by appealing to the exempting clause, so a man, charged with 
 keeping so bad a lookout at night as to bring on a collision, may justify 
 himself by declaring that his opponent neglected to show the proper 
 lights, and that that was the cause of the ship not being seen in time, 
 and not his assumed inefficient lookout. And if the matter comes to 
 trial there will be uncommonly hard swearing on both sides, rendering 
 the ultimate decision almost a matter of hazard. One feels some curiosity 
 when one sees it stated that 421 casualties by colKsion occurred in the 
 six years ending December, 1864, which were caused by bad lookout, 
 against 168 which were caused by "neglecting to show the proper 
 light," — I say one feels some curiosity to know by what process such 
 conclusions were arrrived at, and how many of each class are in their 
 wrong columns. Board of Trade enquiries into collisions are naturally 
 rare, as those cases come more readily under the jurisdiction of the 
 Admiralty Court in the shape of actions for damages. When, however 
 they do so come — when the "Mary Jane" runs into the "Sarah Ann," 
 takes her bowsprit out of her, and brings an action for the loss of her 
 own port cat-head — the cause, after very elaborate argument, is commonly 
 reported to end with the stepping in of the nautical advisers of the cotu-t 
 who are " of opinio a that the ' Sarah Ann' was to blame," and the plaintiff 
 gets his damages. Now when cases of this nature turn upon a charge 
 of "bad lookout" on the one side, and "neglect of showing the proper 
 light" on the other, one feels anxious to know how the nautical advisers 
 of the court come to a conclusion on the merits. Are the accused lights 
 brought into court and examined? and if so, is there any one called iu 
 competent to examine them? 
 
 We had it stated here the other night, by a high authority, that a 
 great deal of ignorance on the subject of lights prevailed in the Eoyal 
 Navy; that statement I can most fully endorse, and I imagine that such 
 ignorance must extend still more widely in the merchant service. Nor 
 need we be very much surprised at this when we learn that many of the 
 lamp-makers themselves are profoundly ignorant of the simplest optical 
 laws, and understand very httle indeed of the nature of the wares they 
 deal in. When the Board of Trade or the Admiralty Court decide that 
 the accusation of not showing the proper light is unfounded, who examines 
 the lights to see that they are "proper?" — that is, according to regulation. 
 Relieving, as I do, in the wide-spread want of knowledge on the subject, 
 and seeing the very inefficient and improper lamps which receive a ready 
 
.109 
 
 sale at all our ports, I am tempted to believe that very little examination, 
 if any, takes place. And until it is distinctly shown that the law will not 
 uphold a ship carrying improper lights, we need not expect that improve- 
 ment in them which is now so much needed. 
 
 In the case of the " Samphire" and " Fanny Buck," which has been 
 once or t\vice quoted here, a great deal of evidence turned on the point 
 whether the " Fanny Buck" had any green light showing, afid, as might 
 be expected, such evidence was conflicting. I did not make out whether 
 the " Fancny Buck's" lamps were brought into Court, but I could not help 
 wishing that I had the examination of them, for I conceived that I should 
 have found her showing a light indeed, but such a light, and so placed, 
 that no one could see it. 
 
 We may now ask the question, " What is a proper light ?" And the 
 better to answer this question I have, through the kindness of Mr. Nunn — ■ 
 I beheve the largest, as he is certainly the best, manufacturer of ship's 
 lights in London — been able to bring together some of the best, as well 
 as some of the ordinary lights carried by ships at sea. 
 
 Let us take the masthead light first. The regulations state it is to be 
 " a bright white light, so fixed as to show an unifoi'm and unbroken light 
 over an arc of the horizon of twenty points of the compass," that is, 
 " from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on either side, and of 
 such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, 
 at a distance of at least five miles." 
 
 Now I must first say most distinctly that I have never yet seen any 
 masthead light which fulfils this, last condition. Five miles is a very 
 much greater range for ship's lights than people are aware' of, and I 
 would give a great deal to be shown any permanent light fit for ship's 
 use, which can be seen " at least five miles." The ordinary range of 
 the best masthead lights does not, in the English Channel, exceed three 
 and a half or four miles in the clearest weather. 
 
 It is, however, quite desirable to have a high nominal range for lights, 
 even where it is at present unattainable, because it at least encourages 
 makers to do the best they can towards it. 
 
 The other parts of the regulations are, however, quite attainable, but 
 are, I am sorry to say, too often evaded in order to receive a larger 
 profit upon the lamps, or else to reduce their price to merchant captains 
 who are careless of the construction of their lights. 
 
 The glasses for masthead and bow lights are usually made by hand, 
 in a cylindrical form like this produced, a plan and section of which is 
 represented in Fig. 2. They are afterwards cut in the direction of the 
 axis into the portions required to fill up the front of the lamps. 
 
 l^ow if I, being a lamp-maker, buy half-a-dozen of these cylinders, I 
 
110 
 
 can properly only make six lamps out of them, but if I am not particular 
 as to regulation I can make twelve, which of course will make all the 
 difference in my profits. If I cut the cylinder in the points A and B, at 
 the extremities of its diameter, 1 can make a lamp out of each part, 
 which will fully pass muster to the uncritical eye. But when one of 
 these lights are hoisted at the masthead of a steamer, the full power of 
 the light is 'only shown six points on each bow, instead of ten. 
 This may be clearly seen by a reference to the diagram. 
 
 Fig. 2. 
 
 O 
 
 P 
 
 #^ 
 
 E is the front part of the lens pointing right ahead; -P the flame of 
 the lamp ; A E B the lens, which terminates at A and B. If the flame 
 were a mathematical point, an observer very little before the beam 
 would get the whole power of the light; but the actual size of the flame 
 being considerable, every part of it which is hidden by the metal of the 
 lamp is so much taken from the range. About two-thirds of the flanie 
 is hidden in this lamp from an observer abeam, which is just as much 
 as to say that, supposing the light could be seen five miles ahead, it 
 could only be seen about a mile and a half abeam. The full range of 
 the light, so far as the lens goes, is only shown between the lines F P 
 and G P. 
 
 To construct a lamp according to regulation, only the piece C D should 
 be taken out of it, and then the full power of the light is displayed over 
 the arc from C round by E to D. But this latter cutting uses a whole 
 cylinder, and is therefore more expensive, and the temptation of cheap- 
 ness carries the day. 
 
 Exactly in the same way, but in a greater degree, does the snare of 
 cheapness operate to undo the regulations regarding bow-lights. The 
 colored lenses are made in the same manner as the white ones, in 
 
Ill 
 
 cylinders. One cylinder will only make two bow-glasses, when the 
 regulations are rigidly fulfilled, although the difference between this 
 cutting and that into three equal parts is so slight that one would not 
 be inclined to call upon manufacturers to waste very nearly one-third of 
 each cylinder. But the inferior lamp-makers do not rest here, for in the 
 struggle after cheapness a single cylinder is made into four, five, and I 
 believe even six bow lights, each never showing a full hght abeam, and 
 reducing the arc of light till it only shows five or six points on the bow, 
 instead of ten. What amount of good lookout will enable a man to see 
 the bow light of a ship which is ahead of him, and steering a course 
 across his bows, if it only illuminates an arc of six points of the compass ? 
 
 Owing to the difficulty of obtaining the requisite range for ship's lights 
 by increasing the amount or brilliancy of the flame, the usual course is 
 to compress the rays of light by means of lenses and reflectors. Very 
 curious ideas of optics have developed themselves in the attempts of most 
 lamp-makers to arrive at this result, of which specimens are here before 
 us. Mr. !Nunn's lamps are the only ones I have examined which are 
 constructed on anything like scientific principles; and, doubtless, as he 
 finds the subject becoming more ventilated, he will be able to make 
 improvements which will succeed commercially, doubts as to which success 
 are, at present, a drawback. 
 
 The effect of all lenses for ship's use should be simply to bend the rays, 
 which would naturally proceed in an upward or downward direction, into 
 one nearly parallel to the sea level. An objection to the practice exists, 
 which has not yet been met. This may be imderstood from the diagram 
 Fig. 3. 
 
 Fig. 3. 
 
 If the ship carrying lens lights has a very small list, say only five or 
 six degrees, observers at sea lose their full power when a few points on 
 the bow, and may lose sight of the lights altogether at a short distance 
 when abeam, or ueai'ly so. 
 
 To remedy this defect, the lights should all be carefully placed on 
 gimbals, so as to preserve their perpendicular throughout all the motions 
 of the ship. But then, again, this would^make the lamps more expensive. 
 
112 
 
 and the marine public are not sufficiently alive to the necessity of the 
 case to make it worth any tradesman's while to attempt such an 
 improvement. 
 
 "When we come to the very inferior classes of lamps which are sold 
 and used, we find that in no particular do they reach the regulations. 
 So far from the colored lights of this quality showing two miles, as called 
 for by the, regulations, I should think one-fourth of the distance would be 
 an exaggeration of their range. And if we add to all these other defects 
 bad oil, smoky and cracked glasses, leaky oil vessels, and charred wicks, 
 all of which are the rule and not the exception — ^we shall get something 
 of a clearer idea why collisions by night are three times as numerous as 
 by day, and why a conveniently bad look-out accounts for so many of 
 
 the mishaps. 
 
 There is yet one column of the returns to be dealt with, namely, that 
 which states thick and foggy weather to be fourth in order in the pro- 
 duction of collisions. 
 
 For penetrating through a misty atmosphere no sulfficiently powerful 
 permanent light exists, or is hkely to be produced, and here it is that I 
 hope an extended use of Captain Bolton's and my own warning lights 
 will reduce the number of coUisions traceable to thick and foggy weather 
 in future years. 
 
 To be able to declare your position, and the direction of your head, 
 in an instant of time to a ship coming down upon you in thick weather, 
 must undoubtedly conduce to your safety at sea. And who is to say how 
 many of these wretched casualties, such .as occurred off the Start the 
 other night — ^where a steamer runs down and sinks a schooner with all 
 hands, in a period just long enough to see it was a schooner, and to hear 
 a few drowning cries — would be avoided, were ships in the habit of 
 carrying on deck and at hand boxes of such powerful lights, ready to be 
 used at any juncture, and requiring no skill and almost no thought in 
 their management. 
 
 It is our usual course here, I observe, not to close a paper pointing 
 out defects in materiel or administration without suggesting a remedy, 
 if only to furnish a basis for discussion and the expression of opinion. 
 
 The " warning lights " form in themselves one suggested improvement, 
 and as I hear nothing but encouraging accounts of them, and as they 
 have been already taken up by one or two large companies, I am disposed 
 to hope this remedy will in course of time apply itself. 
 
 As regards the present defective construction of the majority of lights 
 carried by ships at sea, I think it would be stopped, and their whole 
 management improved, if the Board of Trade were to provide pattern 
 lamps according to regulation, and place them in the hands of their 
 
113 
 
 officials at all the cut-ports, to be exposed in the shipping offices or other 
 place of resort for merchant captains. These latter might then be 
 expected to learn more of the differences between proper and improper 
 lights, and it would become more difficult to make sales of those which- 
 were not according to regulation. And then, again, when collisiouf 
 inquii'ies arose, which turned on the light question, the pattern lamps 
 would be brought forward to condemn the guilty and exonerate the 
 innocent. 
 
 But there is one improvement I should lilte to see in ships' lamps 
 which is not touched on in any of the regulations yet. I mean the substitu- 
 tion of caudles of a selected pattern for oil. Although no candles suitable 
 for merchant ships have yet been manufactured which will give a better 
 light than the six or seven wicks of oil usually fitted in the best lamps 
 when ffi'st lighted, yet as the flame from the oil wick constantly deterio- 
 rates from the moment of lighting, while the candle flame does not do 
 so, a candle will have given out, during four hours, a greater amount of 
 light than oil. Candles also are open to none of the objections to oil. 
 They are cleaner, and much less troublesome to manage ; the glasses and 
 reflectors of candle lamps do not become so- clogged as those of oil. 
 And lastly, by estabhshing a pattern candle as weU as a pattern lamp, 
 you get a much greater certainty with regard to the quaihty of light dis- 
 played by ships. 
 
 The Chaieman: Perhaps Mr. Gray will be kind enough to favor us 
 with some remarks? 
 
 Mr. Geat, Board of Trade: I have listened to the paper of Captain 
 Colomb with very great attention and with much pleasm-e, and I may 
 say at once that, from his remarks he has evidently paid great attention 
 to the subject ; but I think he is a little hard upon the Admiralty Courts 
 in their decisions. They have the facts of the case before them ; they 
 have competent assessors to advise them; and I think that the calm, 
 deliberate judgments at which they arrive after maturely considering the 
 facts of the case, and after hearing the evidence, are very likely to be 
 right ; and if their decision is that a casualty did happen through a bad 
 look-out, we may safely conclude that such was the case. As regards 
 the Board of Trade wreck returns, I think they are quite open to the 
 question that Captain Colomb would raise. They are not, and never 
 can be, accurate and indisputable classifications of causes of all wrecks, 
 but are intended to be merely, as far as the evidence goes, approximate 
 Tables of Causes. Captain Colomb asked how we knew a colhsion was 
 caused by a bad look-out? how we knew it was caused by neglect of the 
 rule of the road? how we knew it was caused by improper lights? I 
 will teU you. ' Whenever a collision happens on the coast, whether it 
 
114 
 
 goes into the Admiralty Court or not, the case is investigated by the 
 officer of the Coast Guard on the spot; by an officer capable of forming 
 an opinion upon the points likely to come under his consideration, and 
 capable of making a report when he has formed an opinion. I will give 
 you an instance of what may be put down as neglect of the rule of the 
 road, and what as a bad look-out. I can tell you of cases where several 
 ships have been anchored together in a much frequented roadstead, 
 where not a soul has been on deck, and those below have only known 
 that they were in collision when they have been bumped out of their 
 berths, or have found themselves in the water. That, I take it, is an 
 exaggerated case of bad look-out. There are many cases equally palpa- 
 ble. But there are many cases in which ships are under way in which 
 great difficulty arises ; and if you look at the returns, you will find that 
 the headings are not put in a peremptory or exclusive manner. There 
 is one remark that Captain Colomb has made from which I most 
 strongly diifer, in which he says that the Board of Trade ought to find 
 pattern lamps and pattern candles. JSTow, the Board of Trade are not 
 lamp-makers, nor are they candle-makers, and I think that the officers of 
 the Board of Trade would strongly object to their having anything to 
 do with selecting or appointing people to select pattern lamps or pattern 
 candles, supposidg they could do it. But can they do it ? In the first 
 place, when you select the lamp and say, " that shall be the lamp that 
 shall be used," at once you put a bar to all improvement. Supposing 
 that, in what we considered our enlightened state, in 1862, when the 
 naval officers of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, in connection 
 with the naval officers of the Emperor of the French, made the present 
 regulations for preventing collisions at sea — supposing that at that time 
 we had said that a lamp of a certain pattern shall be the lamp adopted 
 in all cases — ^had we fixed on a pattern then, we should not be able to use 
 some of these lamps now shown to us by Captain Colomb, which are 
 very much better, because the pattern lamp which had been adopted 
 would have prevented their being used. Again, suppose two steamships, 
 one carrying a pattern hght adopted by the Board of Trade, the other 
 carrying the ordinary or perhaps not pattern lights, but lights equally as 
 good as the other; supposing those two ships came into collision, then, 
 according to Captain Colomb's rule, as I understand it, the one that had 
 not the pattern lights would be the one in fault. As the hghts them- 
 selves really form a very small portion of the requirements for preventing 
 collisions, that would be hard, and it would be wrong. Supposing the 
 lights that were made according to pattern were not properly trimmed, 
 supposing the glasses were cracked, or were smoked; and supposing, on 
 the other hand, the glasses of the common old lights were good, and the 
 
115 
 
 lights themselves in order, then it would be very wrong to attempt to 
 throw the blame on the vessel which had not the pattern lights, when 
 her hghts were better than the others. It would be, in fact, going back 
 to that system of "meddling and muddhng," which the government are 
 trying to undo now as much as some years ago they were trying to 
 retain. As regards the lamps of the "Samphire" and the "Fanny 
 Buck," Captain Colomb asked if those lamps were produced in court. 
 They were produced in court; they were placed before the surveyor of 
 the Board of Trade; he was asked his opinion on them, and he said, in 
 effect, that he would not pass them for any vessel in the United Kingdom. 
 The green lamp has been stated to have been made of a dirty bottle- 
 green that could not be seen at the distance of two miles and a half. 
 
 Eear-Admiral Sir F. Nicolson: "Wag that in the Admiralty Court or 
 in the first investigation ? 
 
 Mr. Geat : Here at Westminster. I have no more to say, except to 
 urge upon you all by no means to advocate Government interference in 
 matters of detail. 
 
 Commander Dawson, ^. N. : I think it is a subject of regret that we 
 have so small a meeting to-night. Perhaps it may be accounted for by 
 the fact that the subject being a naval subject we lose one-half of the 
 audience on these occasions ; our military friends not coming forward in 
 their usual strength. Otherwise, I think it is a subject of great importance 
 to those connected with naval matters, and one which, perhaps, no one is 
 better qualified to treat than Captain Colomb. He has devoted seven 
 or eight years to the investigation of this subject, not ordyin the labora- 
 tory, but he has actually carried out a long series of experiments in the 
 channel fleet ; therefore he can speak with a certain amount of experience, 
 which very few naval officers have upon that point. Therefore what he 
 has said is well worthy of being discussed. With reference to Mr. 
 Gray's reply as to the conduct of the Board of Trade in their manage- 
 ment of matters connected with the Merchant ISTayy, I do not think the 
 Merchant l^avy, as far as the safety of the seamen is concerned, have to 
 thank the Board of Trade for much. The Board of Trade do not look 
 very much after matters connected with the comfort of the seamen, or 
 vrath many of the things that bear upon the safety of their lives. To 
 me it is no matter of surprise that improper lights should be carried on 
 board our merchant ships; many of them leave our ports in a state with 
 regard to many equally vital points that is disgraceful to this country. 
 There was one portion of the subject which I came here to Hsten to to- 
 night that I hoped to have heard a httle more about, and that is with 
 reference to our own navy. Mr. Nunn has devoted a great deal of 
 attention to the subject of supplying the navy with good lanterns; he 
 
116 
 
 has gone to considerable expense, and has supplied us cei-tainly with very 
 good lanterns, the best we have had hitherto. But there is one suggestion ' 
 Captain Colomb has made which is worthy of attention, that we really 
 want some better hghts. Notwithstanding that we have got the best 
 heretofore out, we want something better, because in the Koyal Navy 
 the trimming of these lights is a serious consideration. They are left 
 one night to the captain of the foretop of one watch, and the next night 
 perhaps to the captain of the foretop of the other watch. The captain 
 of the foretop may know all the duties of the foretop, yet have very little 
 knowledge of a ship's hghts. The consequence is that the hghts are 
 very badly trimmed and badly taken care of; and though there is what 
 is called a lamp-trimmer in Her Majesty's ships, yet his education and 
 knowledge seldom go fm-ther th&n how to clean the brass of the lamp. 
 A light, which may be very good in the first watch, will be found towards 
 twelve o'clock, or in the middle watch, to be getting very dim indeed. 
 Mr. Nunn was on one occasion complained to by the captain of a ship- 
 of-war as to the bad hght given out by his lamp. Mr. Nunn asked 
 permission to see the lamp, it was shown to. him, and he found it was 
 covered inside with grease and oil, and the wick, and arrangements 
 inside, were in such a condition that it was impossible for the lamp to 
 give a proper light. I really believe that that very often occurs on board 
 Her Majesty's ships ; how much more often then must it occur on board 
 merchant ships, where there is no midshipman to go round every half 
 hour to see that these men do their duties. I think it would be a good 
 thing to get rid of the oil altogether and replace it with candles. Mr. 
 Nunn has also given a great deal of attention to that point, as well as 
 Captain Colomb, in the endeavor to discover a candle which will carry 
 a number of wicks so as to give a good light. It has not proved an easy 
 problem to solve, but it is one which I think is deserving of great attention, 
 to get better lights if possible, and to use them to the best advantage 
 when we have got theni. 
 
 Mr. Habpee: I understood Captain Colomb to propose that the Board 
 of Trade should have a lamp, which should not be authoritatively issued 
 by the Board of Trade as a lamp to be used necessarily by all persons, 
 and the non-usage of which should, in a case of trial for collision, at 
 once condemn the ship; but that the Board of Trade should have a 
 model lamp made, which model lamp should be a standard lamp, a lamp 
 of reference, so that the tradesmen who are manufacturing lamps without 
 any knowledge at all, and the shipovraers who are using them without 
 any care whether their lamps are effective or not, should have before 
 them a model lamp, and the public should be able to have one alwavs to 
 refer to — a model lamp efiiciently constructed, and examined by the 
 
117 
 
 Board of Trade, whose function, it seems to me, is especially to interfere 
 in snch cases, and who are not to be supposed to drop their hands in the 
 face of such difficulties as those of lamps, because it is interfering with 
 private enterprise. It woxald be, it seems to me, specially within the 
 functions of the Board of Trade. 
 
 Mr. Geay: Under what act of Parliament? 
 
 Mr. Haepeb : Under general principles. The Board of Trade makes acts 
 of Parliament for all these cases, and bases those acts upon broad general 
 principles. The broad general principle has been announced by Mr. 
 Gray to-night, that the " meddling " of the Board of Trade is •' muddhng." 
 Now, all government is meddling ; government means meddling. If Mr. 
 Gray is prepared to say that the Board of Trade never meddles without 
 muddling, well and good ! "We must not look to them for any alteration 
 in the matter of lamps; we cannot think of applying to them to make 
 a standard lamp. But I imagine Captain Colomb simply meant, not 
 that the Board of Trade should issue a definite kind of lamp which was 
 to be used necessarily by all ships, but that they should issue a standard 
 lamp, so that persons who wished it should know whether tradesmen 
 were supplying them with proper lamps ; or, that persons who were going 
 to send goods abroad and entrust them in a ship, if they thought the 
 question of lamps an important one, might refer to that standard lamp, 
 and might see whether their property was sufficiently protected in this 
 respect. 
 
 Mr. Geat : "Would you have model anchors and cables as well ? 
 
 The Chairman: The question is that of ships' lights, and I must ask 
 you to confine the discussion to that question. 
 
 Captain Leopold Heath, K. N., C. B.: It is a very important question 
 that has been raised. The government have decreed that ships shall 
 carry certain lights; and I think it is quite open to argument that the 
 government should define what those lights should be. 
 
 Kear-Admiral A. P. Rydee: The question has been raised by Captain 
 Colomb with reference to the nature of the oil consumed. Now, sperm 
 oil is used invariably by the Admiralty for the side lights of ships at sea. 
 I had the opportunity a few months ago, when I had charge of the Coast 
 Guard, of instituting some experiments on the relative value of sperm 
 and colza oil for the purpose of side lights. The experiments were all 
 in favor at the first start of the colza oil. But, on reference to the 
 "Victualling Department, I was informed that if sperm oil was put in 
 iron casks, as it always had been, or, if it was put into another cask in 
 which there was a nisty nail, the sperm oil was materially injured; and 
 that they, had, therefore, lately adopted the plan of sending it to sea in 
 casks made of some other material than iron, and they hoped that the 
 
118 
 
 oil would retain its character. After this I had the opportunity of insti- 
 tuting other experiments with the sperm oil, which was kept in the 
 improved casks, and the result of these experiments surprised me. 1 
 think the different officers of the eleven ships that carried on the experi- 
 ments during the winter were perhaps equally divided as to the relative 
 merits of the colza and sperm oil. But the expense of the oils is as one 
 to two; the colza is only half the expense of the sperm. There seems 
 not to be much difference, so far as we could make out, as to the relative 
 brightness given out by the two oils. There is one point about the rays 
 which Captain Colomb spoke of. 1 do not think he alluded to the 
 reflectors in the interior part of the lamp. 
 
 Captain Colomb: I did not mention them. 
 
 Admiral Eydeb: The reflectors in Mr. I^unn's lights are always 
 metallic, which apparently after a little time lose their power of reflection. 
 The reflector becomes rough from being polished with sandstone, and 
 very soon ceases to be a perfect reflector. In fact, I have seen a reflector 
 painted; this, of course, has prevented its sending forth any rays at all. 
 Mr. Stephenson, the great light-house designer and constructor in Scot- 
 land, is trying to get a perfect reflection from ship's lights by means of 
 glass prisms, which could be easily cleaned with a sponge, and, therefore, 
 require no rubbing or polishing. He has put one on the Scotch hght- 
 house yacht, and he hopes to get a very good result. He says he can 
 construct it very economically indeed. In that case you would save all 
 that lost angle of hght, and you would throw out rays, as you do from a 
 reflector now to a certain extent, only you would send them by total 
 reflection by means of prisms. I beheve the green and red lights are 
 now of the same size, whereas it is notorious that the gTeen hght is not 
 seen so soon as the red. If you wish the red and green to be seen at 
 the same time from a ship a-head, the green hght ought to be more 
 powerful to brmg it up in intensity to the red. When I was a member 
 of the light-house commission I looked into the question of colors and I 
 found the green stood very low indeed in the scale. It occurred to me 
 what objection could there be to having a white light instead of a green 
 hght ? At all events, the green light should be made as good as possible, 
 and be brought up to the standard of the red hght, which can only be 
 done by having the lamp for the green light half as large again as the 
 lamp for the red light. 
 
 Captain Colomb: I quite agree with most that Admiral Eyder has 
 said; but I do not think it would be possible by any system of reflectors 
 to use them in the same way that lenses are — that is to say, to catch the 
 back rays and throw them out again. You would increase the power of 
 the light as far as they are reflected, but unless you did away with the 
 
119 
 
 lens altogether, you would still have the effect I have shown there; you 
 would have a brighter light by the combination of the lens and the 
 reflector which we have here. By the combination of the lens and 
 reflector we get a brighter light throughout the whole disc of light; but 
 the objection to a fixed Hght remains just as strong as ever — that is to 
 say, the lens bends the rays, and the reflector must also bend them to 
 give you any extraordinary power of light; and the rays being bent out of 
 one place and into another, the lamp must be allowed to move to keep the 
 rays in the direction in which you want them to travel. As to colza oil, 
 I believe it is most commonly used in merchant ships. Mr. Nunn has 
 found exactly the same result that Admiral Ryder did; that it is very 
 much better, and requires less trimming, and is more suitable altogether 
 for ship's lights than sperm oil. I should like to ask one qiiestion of 
 Mr. Gray. He has mentioned a certain class of cases which he says is 
 put under the column of "neglect or misapphcation of steering rules." 
 If the cases he has mentioned come under "misapplication of steering 
 rules," what class of cases comes under "general neglect and want of 
 caution?" 
 
 Mr. GrEAT: K you will only be good enough to call at my office to- 
 morrow I will show you with great pleasure. 
 
 Captain Colomb: I only wished to ask the question. 
 
 The Chaieman: We are very much obliged to Captain Colomb for 
 the paper which he has been good enough to read to us, and also to the 
 gentlemen who have made their remarks upon it. I conceive that we 
 gain very much by these discussions. One gentleman has remarked 
 aboiit the smallness of our audience. I attribute it not only to the fact 
 that it is a naval question, and, therefore, more exclusively belonging to 
 the naval profession; but also to another fact, namely, that a very large 
 proportion of our members trust to reading the reports of our meetings, 
 and if there were only a dozen people here, there are a great njany who 
 read the reports and profit by them as much as if they were present. 
 At any rate, we must not restrict in our imaginations the usefulness of 
 these meetings by the number of persons who happen to be present. 
 With respect to the question between Captain Colomb and Mr. Gray, of 
 the Board of Trade, there is a good deal to be said on both sides, and 
 where there is a good deal of truth on each side, I think we may gain 
 something from each. In the first place it would be a very bad thing if 
 any fixed standard for these lights were made, because it is always the 
 tendency of authority, whatever it may be, to regulate everything for a 
 number of years, and thereby to shut out improvements which might be 
 called innovations. That would never do. At the same time, on the 
 other hand, we must remember that those who are entrusted by the 
 
120 
 
 community with the power of making these regulations, might very 
 reasonably be called upon by public opinion to go one step further and 
 see that those regulations are exactly compUed with. Certainly, looking 
 at some of these lights before us, these specimens of imitations, I think 
 we may fairly say that the regulations made by the Board of Trade by 
 the authority of the country, are not complied with. There are certain 
 rules laid down; surely somebody should be responsible for those rules 
 being carried into effect. I think in all cases of official inquiry, whether 
 before a court of law or whether before the constituted authorities who 
 have to inquire into them, we might have the question looked into as to 
 whether these wholesome regulations made by the Board of Trade are 
 virtually carried out, not m words, but in fact, so that the opposing sliips 
 might either be considered innocent or guilty according to the law laid 
 down by the authorities. Another question is the question of candles. 
 Decidedly, the better light is that given by an oil lamp, if it is well trim- 
 med and attended to, and has plenty of air. I agree ia the advisability 
 ■of having a light which will be continuous, which will be the same light 
 throughout, and which will not requu-e so much trimming and so much 
 watchfulness on the part of those who, unfortunately, are often deficient 
 in the common sense necessary to keep those lights in order, 'therefore, 
 I think candles, if we coidd get them good, would answer better. But 
 there is a good deal also in the question of keeping candles on board 
 ship, whether they would deteriorate by long keeping or not ? I, myself, 
 know that such things do sometimes deteriorate by keeping, and do not 
 give a good light, and that, whereas, at first they would be good for ships' 
 lights, their illuminating powers would so far fall off that you could not 
 trust them at all. Therefore, we must not too quickly adopt candles 
 without experiments. Another point was that of lamps dehvering their 
 rays always horizontally. The only way to do that is to gimbal the 
 whole lamp with its glass covering ; and we must take care that it is done 
 from the inside, so that the stroke of the sea, when it comes up the slup's 
 side, shall not come across the gimbal at all. If we can manage that we 
 shall do well. I do not know that there is any other point that I need 
 mention. With respect to figure 2, it speaks for itself. But I think we 
 might fairly ask the constituted authorities to condemn any ship of any 
 size — man-of-war or merchant ship — that did not carry out the regulations 
 regarding the proper size and the proper periphery of the lens. We 
 might ask for that. Be the ship large or small, it is only having a larger 
 or smaller lens. But the principle is the same, and the principle should 
 be carried out. I have now only to thank the gentlemen who have 
 spoken for their opinions, and for the information they have given us, and 
 especially to thank Captain Colomb for the paper he has read. 
 
121 
 
 A FEW llEMARKS ON THE " EULE OF THE ROAD," AND 
 SUGGESTIONS FOE ITS AMENDMENT. 
 
 By Captain Chables Cubme, E.N. 
 
 Having been kindly granted permission, I wish to make a few remarks 
 on what we sailors caU the " Eule of the Eoad," and to offer one or two 
 suggestions for its amendment in particulars which I think urgently 
 demand it. I must, in deference to you and justice to myself, observe 
 that I do not for a moment suppose that I am going to say anything 
 new on the subject, for I am fully aware that it has occupied the earnest 
 attention of many men more fitted and able than myself to deal with 
 it ; but it is a branch of our profession that I have always been attentive 
 to, and have lately been called upon to go closely into. I tliink the 
 discussions of the last two meetings have plainly shown that we are all 
 agreed as to the great value of any system of hghts that would enable a 
 ship at night to ascertain not only the position of another ship she may 
 be meeting, but the course that ship is steering, her own being indicated 
 in the same manner; but I am sure you vdll agree with me that the 
 most accurate knowledge of their mutual courses will be of little value 
 to the officers in charge of the navigation of those ships, unless they are 
 furnished with a clear, distinct, and generally apphcable rule of the road. 
 
 Undoubtedly the principle that should govern the movements of two 
 ships meeting, should be the keeping or getting out of each other's way 
 by the shortest and most expeditious route — in the case of an impending 
 collision every second of time saved being of the utmost importance. 
 Now in the case of ships meeting each other " end on" — i. e., all masts 
 in one, or showing each other hath side hghts, or "crossing" each other 
 under such conditions as to make it indifferent in point of time which 
 side they should pass each other on, or which ship should give way to the 
 other — it is manifest that an arbitrary and conventional rule is necessary, 
 and this is furnished by the regulations, which provide that in the one 
 case the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall give 
 way to the other; and in the other, that the helms of both shall be put 
 top)ort, so that each ship may pass on the port side of the other. So 
 far so good. But when we come to cases under other conditions, I 
 venture to assert, that on investigation it will be found that in many 
 instances collisions have been caused by the officer in charge of one of 
 
122 
 
 the meeting ships, without the least reference to the particular circum- 
 stances of the case, putting his helm to port, and comforting himself with 
 the reflection that, as he was obeying the "written law," so he was 
 placing himself beyond the reach of blame, happen what might ; for be 
 it observed that Article 14, while directing which ship is to give way, 
 makes no mention of how it is to be done, and I know that the opinion 
 has been, and still is, widely prevalent, that it -must be done hj porting 
 the helm; it can easily be shown that in some cases such a course would 
 be a dangerous, and in many others a long and circuitous one. The 
 officer of the other ship takes what perhaps I may be allowed to call the 
 " common sense" view of the case, puts his helm to starboard, or, it may 
 be, holds on, and the consequences are such as are unfortunately too familiar 
 to us all. Cases can be given in which ships have sighted each other at 
 a distance of several miles, but by perseverance in a course similar to the 
 foregoing, have succeeded in running foul of each other. 
 
 As it stands first I will, however, return to the article governing the 
 case of ships "meeting," as it is called (Article 13,) and in it I object to 
 the use of the expression " nearly end on," as vague and indefinite, and, 
 as may be easily proved, productive of much dangerous doubt and 
 misconception. I propose that Article 13 shall run thus: " If two ships 
 under steam are meeting end on — i. e., so as to show each other all masts 
 in one or both side lights— the helms of both shall be put to port, so that 
 each may pass on the port side of the other." It will be observed that 
 this applies only to the case of ships meeting each- other in exactly 
 opposite courses. 
 
 Again, in Article 14, which provides for the case of ships imder steam 
 "crossing," it is laid down that "the ship which has the other on her 
 own starboard side shall give way to the other," but does not direct how 
 it is to be done. Now no doubt it will be said at once, " any saihr will 
 see at a glance how it is to be done, and there is not the shghtest occasion 
 for any \\Titten rule on the point;" but I assert, and can bring ample 
 proof in support, that it is often attempted in the wrong way, and not 
 only that, but on reading the reports of cases of collisions that have been 
 tried, it will be found that a sh.i])putting her helm to starboard, has in some 
 cases been held to be in the right, and in others, under apparently precisely 
 similar conditions, has been held to be wrong, for not porting her helm 
 "according to the statute," and I am convinced that, clear as the cases 
 in which the starboard helm is necessary and proper, may appear to you, 
 or to any men thoroughly up to their work, there are a very large number 
 of men for whom a clear imperative du-ection is required, and I ventine 
 to suggest that Article 14 should stand as follows: "If two ships under 
 steam are approaching each other in any other direction, so as to involve 
 
123 
 
 risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard hand 
 shall give way to the other, which she shall do by putting her helm to 
 port, if she has not reached the other's line of keel and sees her red side 
 light only, but by putting her lielm to starboard if she is on the other 
 ship's line of keel and sees hoth the other ship's side lights, or has crossed 
 her line of keel and sees her green side light only." For the convenience 
 and ready reference of captains and officers in charge of the navigation 
 of ships, I propose that a table such as that given hereafter, showing all 
 the different conditions under which ships may meet, with risk of collision, 
 should be placed near the bridge and wheel, and to facilitate the use of 
 it, the lookout men should be instructed to make their reports in one 
 regular form, thus: "Green light right ahead; red and green light on 
 starboard bow; red light on port bow;" and so on, the officer in charge, 
 at a glance at the table, sees at once what is to be done. 
 
 I wish to say a few words more about the expression " nearly end on." 
 I have consulted with several of the most experienced officers I know, 
 and all are agreed that it is dangerously indefinite, and indeed can only 
 be stated arbitrarily to mean, a direction not differing more than a point 
 or two from an exactly opposite course. Under the present system ot 
 lighting it is evident that we are utterly unable to ascertain this at night ; 
 a system such as the excellent one proposed by Captain Heathcote, would 
 enable us to do so with a great degree of accuracy, but as things are, and 
 as the regulations are at present worded, it is evident that an officer is 
 left in doubt as to whether he is to obey the rule for meeting or crossing; 
 I venture to say that the wording I have suggested for the Articles 13 
 and 14 does away with the uncertainty; the relative position of the masts 
 in the day time, and the seeing particular side lights at night, will give 
 unmistakable indications as to which rule should be followed. 1 will not 
 take up more of your time by quoting any particular cases, but several 
 may be found which clearly illustrate what I have said as to the miscon- 
 ception and consequent wrongdoing which appear to result from the 
 present regulations, of which 1 should say that they clearly recognize and 
 admit the necessity of legislation, but do not carry it sufficiently far. It 
 is for your consideration whether what I suggest goes far enough without 
 being impracticably and mischievously minute. Since I first took up 
 this subject I have obtained a pamphlet published in 185T — but who the 
 author is I do not know — ^which contains a letter from the Admiralty, dated 
 December 11, 1854, addressed to Messrs. G. McTear & Co., of the Steam 
 Packet Office at Belfast, and as it bears directly on our present subject, 
 and is moreover strongly confirmatory of my own views, I will quote it, 
 observing that in paragraph 2 of Messrs. McTear's statement, a small 
 alteration is necessary in detail but not in principle, in consequence of 
 
124 
 
 the regulation pointing out which ship of two crossing is to give way, 
 being of a date long subsequent to that correspondence. 
 
 Correspondence between Messrs. McTear, of Belfast, and the Admiralty 
 on the subject of the Instructions relating to Steamers^ Lights.. 
 
 Messrs. McTear say: 
 
 " Supjaosing two steamers from nearly opposite points of the compass 
 to be approaching each other with the masthead and green lights only 
 of each visible from the other, we wish to know what should be done 
 should each continue her course, or rather put the helm a little to stai-- 
 board than otherwise, or should each port and cross the bows of the 
 other? 
 
 " On the other hand, supposing the masthead and red lights only of 
 each visible from the other, should each continue her course; or, if 
 anything, port a little, not starboard ? 
 
 " There is an opinion prevalent amongst captains that, when two 
 steamei's are meeting one another, the helms of both should be poeted, 
 without reference to what lights are visible from each; but, as there 
 are some who think otherwise, we feel anxious to know which is correct, 
 and shall be glad to have your opinion on the subject. 
 
 "1. The interpretation of the latter is, that in the first situation, as 
 shown by your diagrams, where A sees only the masthead and red hghts 
 of B, but B sees all the lights of A, each vessel should port her helm; 
 or, B continuing her coui-se. A should certainly ^or^, and pass astern of B. 
 
 *"2. That, in the second situation, where A sees B's masthead and 
 green lights only, but B sees A's three lights, each vessel should starboard 
 her helm; or, B continuing her course, A should starboard, and pass 
 astern of B. 
 
 " 3. That, in the third situation, where A and B see but each other's 
 masthead and red lights, they should continue their respective courses; 
 or, if any change be made in the helm, it should be in the poet direction. 
 
 "4. That, in the fourth situation, where A and B see but each other's 
 masthead and green lights, they should continue their respective courses; 
 or, if any change be made in the helm, it should be in the starboard 
 direction ; and lastly, 
 
 " 5. That, in the fifth situation, where A and B see all the lights of 
 each, the helm should be ported in both. 
 
 "We shall feel obliged by your informing us, at your earliest con- 
 venience, if the interpretation herein given be correct; or, if not, what 
 is the proper explanation of the diagrams." 
 
 _ *Ab, according to the latest regulations, ''the ship having the other on her own starhoard 
 side is to give way to the other," this should be substituted—" or A continuing her course, 
 B should starboard and pass ahead of A." It will be observed that this does not affect the 
 principle of the use of the starboard helm in certain cases. — C.C. 
 
125 
 
 The following is the reply of the Admiralty : 
 
 "Admiealtt, Bee. 11, 1854. 
 " Gentlemen : Referring to your letter of the 17th ult., upon the subject 
 of the interpretation of the Circular No. 107, relative to lights to prevent 
 collision, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 
 to acquaint you that the opinion which you allege obtains among masters 
 of steam vessels, that when two steamers meet one another the helm of 
 ioth is to be ported, without reference to which lights are visible from 
 either vessel, is erroneous, and founded upon a misconception ; indeed, 
 their Lordships are of opinion that such a course would not only be a 
 violation of the established regulations, but might lead to very disastrous 
 consequences. 
 
 " In conclusion, I am commanded to acquaint you that the interpreta- 
 tion given in your letter of the several diagrams illustrative of the 
 established regulations which is opposed to the misconception is perfectly 
 correct. 
 
 " I am, gentlemen, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 (Signed) " A. Milne. 
 
 " Messrs. G. McTear & Co., 
 
 " Steam Packet Office, Belfast." 
 
 Thus it appears that the interpretations in the paragraphs which are 
 marked 1 to 5 contain a correct view of the intended regulations. 
 
 The diagrams they refer to are to be found, I believe, in any of the 
 copies of the "Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea," issued by 
 the Board of Trade. I particularly wish to point out to you that, although 
 this correspondence so clearly establishes the fact of the existence of the 
 misconception on the subject of the obligatory use of the porthelm on 
 all occasions, and their Lordships so strongly express their disapproval 
 of that interpretation, and their concurrence with the one set forth by 
 Messrs. McTear & Co., yet, so far as I am aware, that approval has 
 never been made generally known, and I am asking for notliing more 
 now than that the principle therein recognized, shall be put in a clear, 
 imperative form. So that in ease of collision there may at all events be 
 less than the present difficulty in deciding who shall bear the burden and 
 penalty of wrongdoing, and that the hesitating and, perhaps, inexperienced, 
 may be relieved from much anxious and painful indecision. 
 
 In conclusion and explanation of the table, I should like to observe 
 that although it is intended to include all the cases in which collision 
 is possible, they all may be reduced under the two heads of ships meeting 
 each other '■'■end on" when e&ch ports her helm; and meeting each other 
 
126 
 
 in any other direction, so that there is risk of collision, for wliich case 
 we need only establish the mode of giving "way to be followed by the 
 ship having the other on her own starboard side, the other ship will of 
 course have her opponent, if I may so call her, either on her port side, 
 in which case she should keep her course, or ahead, when she should 
 put her helm to ;port, if she sees the red side hght only, but tO' starboard 
 if she sees the green side light only. 
 
 The following diagrams illustrate cases in which it is proposed that 
 it shall be declared obhgatory to put the helm to starboard. 
 
 Case I. 
 
 In any one of the three positions of B shovra in the diagram, A sees both 
 B's side lights on his starboard bow or side. B sees A's green side hght 
 only, right ahead. A must give way by putting his helm to starboard. 
 B would probably go clear if he kept his course, but as a matter of pre- 
 caution, he should put his helm to starboard also. 
 
 Case II. 
 
 In this case A and B see each other's green side lights only, and it is 
 evident that if they both keep their courses they would go clear of each 
 other, but as, in supposed compliance with the statute, it is too often the 
 
127 
 
 practice for one or both to port their helms, or still worse for one to 
 starboard and the other to port, it is suggested that it be made obliga- 
 tory that, one green side light only being seen, the helms of both sliips 
 shall be put to starboard. 
 
 Table for the use of captain and officers in charge of watches, showing 
 the course to be pursued on sighting a steamer's lights. 
 
 BEAEING AND DESCEEPTION OF LIGHTS. 
 
 EVOLtlTIONS TO BE PEEFOEMED. 
 
 T'ort the helm. 
 Port the helm. 
 Starboard the helm. 
 
 Starboard the helm. 
 Port the helm. 
 Starboard the helm. 
 
 Red and green lights right ahead. 
 Ked light right ahead. 
 Green light right ahead. 
 
 Red and green light on starboard bow. 
 Red light on starboard bow. 
 Green light on starboard bow. 
 
 [In the last case ships ought not to go near each other without touching 
 the helm, but it is safer to put it to starboard.] 
 
 Red and green light on port bow. ) 
 
 Red light on port bow. > *Keep your course. 
 
 Green light on port bow. ) 
 
 *N. B. — Mind your port helm, and keep or get the lights broad on your port bow. — C. C. 
 
128 
 
 In conclusion, my proposals are to do away with the expression 
 "nearly end on" in Article 13, introducing a definition of "end on;" 
 to supplement Article 14 by directions how the giving way is to be 
 performed (in other words, to declare when starboard helm may and 
 ought to be used;) and the giving to officers in charge of ships, a table, 
 which, with the proper instruction to the look-out men, will, I think, 
 materially assist them in doing the "right thing at the right time." As 
 I understood the subject for to-night was " the safe navigation of steam- 
 ships by night," I have not touched upon the articles applying to sailing 
 ships, and I am not prepared to say that it is requisite, but I anticipate 
 little difficulty will be found in framing rules for their government upon 
 the same principles, should it be thought necessary. I trust that, even 
 if my propositions are disapproved of, either as unnecessary or bad in 
 form, that at least what I have said will have the effect, by producing 
 discussion, of calhng forth from the proper authorities some such clear 
 expression of opinion as that I have referred to as having been given in 
 the Admiralty letter of December 11, 1854. 
 
 Captain Heath, R. N., C. B.: I take it that no two ships, seeing only 
 green lights, would ever put their helms aport. 
 
 Captain Cuemb: But let us come to the case of two ships meeting 
 "end on, or nearly end on," as they call it. We will suppose B is 
 shghtly inclined — at night we cannot tell how much. A in this case 
 sees both the side lights. Are they meeting, or are they nearly end on? 
 
 Mr. Gray: They would not involve risk of collision by proceeding 
 straight. 
 
 Mr. Haepee: What is the legal definition, under Article XIII, of 
 coming end on? 
 
 Captain Cueme: There is no definition. 
 
 Mr. Haepee: What is "coming end on?" 
 
 Captain Cueme: When both side lights are seen; when both ships 
 see each other's side lights. 
 
 Mr. Haepee: Then, when coming nearly end on, they can only see 
 one side light? 
 
 Captain Cueme : One side light, certainly. If they see both, th'ey are 
 clearly both end on. This ship here first of all shows both her lights; 
 she turns in this way; and the moment she passes from that position, 
 she shows one light only. But you cannot tell how far she has gone 
 round, and you may be treating it as a case of nearly end on, whereas, 
 instead of that, she is crossing. 
 
 Captain Heath: Might I ask you to draw the ship A so that the red 
 light is seen by B — the case of a ship that sees the other on her port 
 bow. The point I want to put is, that if a ship lay in the direction of 
 
129 
 
 A, yom' rule would say that as she sights B on her starboard side, she 
 must give way. Now, the other ship ought, by the same rule, to put 
 her helm a-port; but I do not think your rule says so. 
 
 Captain Ctirme: It would only be adding to the regulations. It is a 
 case that does not very often occur. But if this ship is ever so little 
 round, showing her green light, she would have to give way; but in this 
 case A sees both B's lights. I put a note in, that a ship having another 
 on her port side, is entitled to hold on; and if she does anything, she 
 is entitled to put her helm a-port, so as to ensure her red Hght being 
 seen. 
 
 Rear-Admiral Sir F. l^iOHOLSOiir, C. B. : If a ship is in the position of 
 A, you say,' she must put her helm a-starboard. Now, supposing B puts 
 his helm a-port. 
 
 Captain Curme: B has no business to do so, because he sees ahead of 
 him a gi-een, light; and by my rule he puts his helm a-starboard. 
 
 Sir F. Nicholson: It is an understood thing by your rule that he puts, 
 his helm a-starboard ? 
 
 Captain Cueme : That is what is clear to me, if these rules are carried 
 out, that seeing a red light is the signal to .put the helm a-port, and 
 seeing a green light is a signal to put the helm a-starboard. With any 
 system hke that proposed by Captain Colomb the light does two things ,-. 
 it distinctly shows what you are doing yourself, and shows the otTier ship 
 what she ought to do; and in carrying out that system you will find tha-t 
 no mistake can possibly happen. 
 
 Commander Heathcote: "Will Captain Curme read the rule again?' 
 
 Captain Cubme: "A ship seeing ahead of her a green side light, is to 
 put her helm a-starboard." That is, B sees ahead of her a green side 
 light, and therefore has to put her helm a-starboard. ■ 
 
 Captain Heath: Why not add to that, "a ship seeing ahead of her a 
 red side light shall put her helm a-port?" 
 
 Captain Cukme: I have arranged it in this way: a ship seeing ahead 
 both side lights, what is she to do? She carries out the arbitrary rule 
 that says "put her helm a-port." The next case is, a ship seeing ahead 
 of her a red side light — that is, a sliip turning suflBcient to show a red 
 side light — she shall port her helm. Then, if a ship sees ahead of her 
 a green side light, she is to starboard her helm. Then, here is the other 
 case, if a ship sees on her starboard bow two side hghts, then she has to 
 put her helm a-starboard. Of course, the correlative case to that is, a 
 ship seeing ahead of her another ship's green side lighjt, they both put 
 their helms a-starboard. The third case is, a ship on her own starboard 
 bow sees another • ship's green side light, then there is no question that 
 they are both to put their helms a-starboard. Under the present 
 
130 
 
 interpretation of tlie rule they would both put their helms a-port, and 
 would go miles out of their way by doing so. But by the proposed rule, 
 a ship seeing on her starboard bow a- green side light, would put her 
 ' helm a-starboard. Captain Ourme then read the letter written from 
 Belfast to the Admiralty, and given- in his paper. 
 
 Mr. Stieling Lacon: What is the answer? 
 
 Captain Curmb read the answer given in his paper. 
 
 Mr. Lacon: That was written in May, 1854, and stiU there has been 
 no alteration of the rule ? 
 
 Captain Cubme : The only alteration made is, that it is now laid down 
 that the ship which has the other on her starboard side shall give way. 
 But this answer has never been published. To several to whom I have 
 referred the case, I have put the question in this way: a ship showing 
 her green hght to another and seeing the other's green light, what 
 would she do ? They have said, why no man in his senses would put 
 his helm to port. But there are nmnerous cases where it is done, because 
 many seamen have got that one idea in their heads, that whatever lights 
 are made out they must port their helm directly. 
 
 The Chaiemaw: That is not according to the rules? 
 
 Captain Cukme: It is according to the rules. 
 
 Admiral Rydeb: It is not according to that Admiralty letter which 
 has never been made public. 
 
 Mr. Lacon : It is according to the rules. 
 
 Admiral Ktdee: The Admiralty Kegulations say not a word about 
 starboarding the helm, not a word. The new regulations, issued a few 
 years since, prescribe most imperatively ^^ porting'''' the helm under 
 certain circumstances in the case of steamers, viz., when two steamers 
 are '■^meeting end on, or nearly end on-j''' but they prescribe as impera- 
 tively that when two steamers are " crossing with risk of collision," the 
 steamer which "has the other steamer on her starhoard side is to give 
 way," and vice versa; but "giving way" may, of course, be effected 
 by porting or by starboarding, and the adoption of one of these courses 
 may be vei-y dangerous, and of the other perfectly safe; the mode of 
 "giving way" has, therefore, been left hitherto entirely to the judgment 
 of the captain of the ship that is enjoined to give way by the above 
 regulations. 
 
 Mr. Geay : Suppose the two ships approaching nearly end on, and 
 each showing the other the green hght, would those ships run the risk of 
 collision if they were to continue to hold their course? 
 
 Captain Cueme: Certainly not. 
 
 Mr. Geay : Then the rule does not apply ? 
 
 Captain Cueme : But putting the helms a-starboard turns them more 
 away from each other. 
 
1.31 
 
 Mr. Geat: But if each sees the other's green light, and if the course 
 on which they are proceeding will carry them clear of eacli other, then 
 the rule does not apply, because the rule says "if they are approacliing 
 nearly end on, so as to incur risk of collision." 
 
 Captain CttRME: Who is to form a judgment? 
 
 Mr. Geat: The people on board, of course. 
 
 Captain Ctteme: But we must make rules for stupid people — for 
 wrongheaded people. 
 
 A Membee: Your rule is, if you see a green light you starboard your 
 helm ; if you see a red light you port your helm ? 
 
 Captain Cdeme: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lacon: Surely such a rule as proposed by Captain Curme would 
 be understood by the most ignorant man. Legislation should be, not 
 for the intelhgent captain only, but for the half-instructed man, who has 
 honestly puzzled over the Merchant Shipping Act, with its upwards of 
 500 clauses, and the Admiralty regulations and diagrams. He honestly 
 tries to understand them, but he cannot, and surely such a rule as that 
 proposed by Captain Curme would meet the dullest comprehension. 
 
 Captain Ctteme: Mr. Harper will bear me out that there are number- 
 less cases where ships have run into each other because they thought it 
 was an inflexible rule that when they sight each other they must port 
 their helms. 
 
 Commander Heathoote: There is one case in which I think the 
 simple rule might act not beneiicially, that is, supposing one vessel sees 
 a red hght on her starboard bow, then, according to the rule, the vessel 
 seeing the red light is to port her helm, and the vessel seeing the green 
 light is to starboard her helm. The rule as simply stated just now was, 
 that a red light being seen by a vessel she should port' her helm ; and ^ 
 green hght being seen by a vessel she should starboard her helm. That 
 is very simple. 
 
 Captain Cttejce: That was an hasty attempt of mine at summarising 
 it; but I did not intend to alter the rule that one ship making out 
 another on her starboard side is to give way, and that the other is to 
 hold on. 
 
 Commander Heathcote: Then that is not the rule. 
 
 Captain Cueme : I confess that is the case, but I ought to have put it 
 in this way : "When a ship, by making out another on her own starboard 
 side, is bound by the present law to give way, she shall give way, and 
 when a ship making out another on her port side is entitled' to hold on 
 by the law as it is now, she shall hold on ; so that my alteration would 
 merely be, that ships making out another in such a direction, that it is 
 incumbent upan them to give way, shall give way, by putting their helms 
 
132 
 
 to port if they see the red side light only ; but by putting their helms to 
 starboard if they see both the side lights, or the green side light only. 
 
 Captain Bakee: You mentioned the case of the "Pacha" and "Erin," 
 in the Straits of Malacca. That was a peculiar case. They made each 
 other out about five miles distant ; it was a hazy night, fine weather. They 
 made each other out about half a point on their bow, not more than that, 
 or nearly right ahead. They were steering S.E. by E., and N.W. by W. 
 The " Pacha" was coming N.W. by W., and the captain being, I presume, 
 rather a timid man, put his helm a little a-starboard. The other com- 
 mander, whom I know very well, had it reported to him that a steamer's 
 light was ahead. He came on deck and gave the man at the wheel the 
 order, " Just keep that steamer clear on your port bow." "Aye ! Aye !" 
 In the meantime time the "Pacha" was edging off with a starboard 
 helm ; the captain of the " Erin" looking up could not see the light, and he 
 said, " Do keep her clear on the port bow." He had not the slightest idea 
 that the other steamer would starboard her helm, the rule being to port — 
 there being a rule now that two ships, meeting nearly end on, should 
 port as they approach. The captain did not think for a moment that 
 the other would be starboarding, therefore he did not look at his com- 
 pass; and the man at the wheel did not tell him the sliip had gone off 
 four or -five points, until it became actually a case of contact. As they 
 approached each other one piit liis helm hard a-starboard, and the other 
 hard a-port, and they ran into each other. If there are too many rules, 
 the system will become too complicated, it must be either "port" or "star- 
 board." If you have too many rules men will get confused. That is 
 my impression from an experience as commander of a steamer for many 
 years. The rule to port appears to me to be a very good one, no doubt, 
 jneeting either end on, or nearly end on. I merely mention this, having 
 been perfectly aware of the circumstances of these two ships. It was a 
 peculiar case; I suppose there is scarcely another on record lilce it. 
 One man was timid; he put liis helm a-starboard, and kept edging off a 
 little ; the other put his helm a-port, according to the Admiralty regu- 
 lations. 
 
 Captain Cueme : There are already two rules, the 13th and lith, and I 
 only propose to omit indefinite expressions in Article 13, and supplement 
 Article 14 by directions how the giving away is to be performed. 
 
 Mr. Lacon: Will you allow me to say, from what we have heard 
 to-night, and also from what we heard in the two nights' discussion on 
 Captain Heathcote's paper, that it more and more convinces me that the 
 great loss of life at sea, and the great destruction of property, arise from 
 preventible causes. I hope that men like Captains Heathcote, Curme, 
 and Colomb, will go on with the agitation of these subjects; and by and 
 
133 
 
 bye we shall have a Reform Bill which I believe will be of great advantage 
 to the country and to the public generally. But I believe that the 
 mischief of the existing state of things lies in the want of responsibihty. 
 Just now you heard Mr. Gray wishing to repudiate additional responsi- 
 bility being thrown on the shoulders of the Board of Trade. Mr. Gray 
 says it is ridiculous to make the Board of Trade responsible. We had 
 an instance of a ship that had a hole irt her boiler. It was impossible 
 the Board of Trade could know it, they were purposely kept in ignorance, 
 of it ; yet an Irish jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter against the 
 Board of Trade. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the Board of 
 Trade should wish to throw the responsibility off their shoulders, and 
 throw it on the shoulders of the proper persons, the owner, and (through 
 the owner) the captain, his mates, and the engineers. 
 
 The Chairman : We may also say of this paper that we are very much 
 obliged to Captain Curme, and also to the gentlemen who have favored 
 Tis with their remarks. The more these subjects are agitated, the nearer 
 we shall get to the truth. I think we have pretty nearly come to a 
 conclusion that something is wanting, though we may disagree as to what 
 the exact wording should be. It will, I think, take a little trouble and 
 attention to make out the exact wording which will be required for 
 meeting the various points. I can see that something is wanting ; yet, 
 we must always be very careful in making regulations that we do not 
 make that which we shall have to unmake shortly afterwards. Therefore 
 I should like this subject to be well thought over before any alterations 
 are made. We may see an evil, and may make an alteration which we 
 may find afterwards not to be the exact thing. At the same time we 
 are indebted to those gentlemen who have pointed out to us that some 
 alteration is requisite, and also the direction in which that alteration 
 should be made. 
 
134 
 
 Monday Evening, July 16, 1866. 
 Eeak-Admikal a. p. EYDEK in the Chair. 
 
 ON "THE LOSS OP LIFE AT SEA." 
 By William Stieling Laoon, Esq. 
 
 This being the last evening of the season I will now, that I have 
 received the permission of the Chairman and the meeting, explain to you 
 what may be considered the result of our several deliberations upon the 
 "Loss of Life at Sea," and the various subjects incidental to it. 
 
 I shall represent the matter to the Council that the papers and discus- 
 sions upon them may be brought together in one pamphlet, that the 
 pubHc and authorities may judge of the value of this Institution, and 
 award the merit where merit is due. 
 
 It was after the discussion upon Captain Cm-me's paper on Monday 
 evening last that I went home and pondered deeply upon what I had 
 heard, and it was that night, from 12 to 3 a. m., that I lay awake during 
 the very time that the " Amazon" and " Osprey" were sinldng, and the 
 next morning I carried to the Admiralty a diagram of which that below 
 is a copy. 
 
 I said then (twenty-four hours before' we received intelligence of the 
 collision) that vessels meeting in that position would, in all probabihty, 
 come to grief. At the same time 1 deposited what I considered to be a 
 remedy for the future, which I will presently explain to you. 
 
 The present state of the law is not sufficienly explicit, and can be best 
 described by "the Eule of the 'Road," which I noticed this week in the 
 "Notes and Queries:" ' 
 
 "The Rule of the Road is a paradox quite, 
 When sailing your vessel along; 
 If you go to the left, you'll be sure to go right, 
 If you go to the right, you'll go wrong," 
 
 In the mquiry that is about to take place I have the greatest confidence 
 that the honor of all parties will be safe in the hands of those in whose 
 custody it will be placed by law, and that one man may not be acquitted 
 or fond guilty at the expense of another, but that if the law is at fault— 
 the law will he found guilty. 
 
135 
 
 Diagram, de^posited at the Admiralty. 
 
 CREEN 
 
 IRICHT 
 
 Aet. 14. — If two ships 
 are crossing each other so 
 as to involve risk of coUi- 
 sion, the ship which has the 
 one on the starboard side 
 shall keep out of the way 
 of the other. 
 
 In a letter to Belfast, 
 1854, their lordships 
 strongly disapprove of 
 the use of the jport 
 helm under such cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 ./ 
 
 reJ Vc 
 
 CREEN 
 
 BRIGHT 
 
 Aet. 13. — If two ships 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. 
 
 Where A sees B's masthead and green light only, but B sees A's 
 three Hghts, each vessel should starboard her helm; or, B continuing her 
 course, A should starboard and pass astern of B. 
 
 Sanctioned by Admiralty Letter, December 11, 1854. 
 
 Second position. 
 
 
136 
 
 By both vessels putting their helms to po'''t they would pass each 
 other to port, if they are at sufficient distance to clear each other. But 
 they may become, accidentally, so near each other, that doing so — that 
 is, by porting their helms — a collision becomes inevitable. Thus, then, 
 great caution is required by two vessels crossing each others' courses 
 when in this position, and it is clear they must be guided by circum- 
 stances. We believe it is erased from the rules laid down by the 
 Admiralty.* 
 
 I differ, in toto, from what has been laid down within the last two or 
 three days by a great authority, that a man-of-war is entitled to follow 
 her own notions and to pirouette about the seas, misleading everybody. 
 Make your laws correct, and the captain of the man-of-war will be as 
 much bound by them as the commonest merchant skipper. 
 
 The next thing I would explain to you is, what we have learnt from 
 Captain Colomb's paper, that the law, with respect to ships' lanterns, is 
 very generally departed from, and it appears to me partly to arise from 
 the fact . that what you have required from shipowners is useless, and 
 throws an unnecessary expense upon their dioulders. You require from 
 them what common sense tells you is useless, but make your laws in 
 unison with common sense, and then punish the slightest infringement 
 of them. 
 
 Captain Colomb has told you that the lenses are manufactured in 
 cylinders or circles, and that to cut one for the. bright light into, twenty 
 points involves a waste of the other twelve ; whereas, if sixteen points of 
 an arc should be considered sufficient, one cylinder or circle might be 
 cut into two lenses. 
 
 In the same way, for the side or colored lights, the circle or cylinder 
 should now be cut into two lights only, involving a waste of nearly one 
 third of the glass, whereas, if nearly eight points of an arc should be 
 considered sufficient, one cylinder or circle might be cut into three or 
 perhaps four lenses. This latter may be drawing the thing rather too 
 fine, but it is worthy of consideration. In the suggested alteration of 
 the law, reference is had to this matter because your laws should be 
 practicable, and no departure from them should for one moment be 
 permitted. 
 
 Proposed Rules for Steamers meeting at Night. 
 
 Sea-going steamers when under weigh should carry — 
 At the foremast head a bright white light so fixed as to show an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of nearly sixteen 
 
 * "Rules of the Eoad, or Laws of Passing Vessels." Sold by J. D. Potter, 31, Poultry, 
 Agent for the sale of Admiralty Charts and other publications. — W. S. Ii. 
 
137 
 
 points of the compass (the lense being cut into two), so fixed as to throw 
 the light eight points on each side of the ship, namely, from right ahead 
 to abeam on either side, and of such a character as to be visible on a 
 dark night with a clear atmosphere at a distance of at least four miles. 
 
 On the starboard side, a green hght, sd constructed as to throw an 
 uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of nearly eight 
 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light from 07ie point on 
 the bow, or one point from the line of keel, to one point abaft the beam 
 on the starboard side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 On the port side, a red light, so constructed as to throw an uniform 
 and unbroken hght over an arc of the horizon of nearly eight points of 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw the Hght from one point on the bow, 
 or one point from the line of keel, to one point abaft the beam on the 
 port side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with 
 a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 The said red and green lights shall be fitted with inboard screens pro 
 jecting at least three feet fcft-ward from the hght,. so as to block out the 
 colored lights from one point from the bow, or one point from the hue 
 of keel, on either side. 
 
 All steamers to have their hghts in one fixed relative position. — Yidc 
 Captain Heathcote's paper. 
 
 Portable lights, auxiliary to fixed hghts. — Vide Captain Colomb's 
 paper. 
 
 Articles 13 and 14 of the steering and sailing rules to be repealed as 
 regards steamers meeting at night. 
 
 Hule 1. 
 
 If a vessel showing a bright light only sees a bright light only, she 
 should put her helm to port. 
 
 Bule 2. 
 
 If a vessel shows a red light to another which is also showing a red 
 light, she should put her helm to port, and the approaching vessel, 
 seeing a red light, should put her helm to port. 
 
 If a vessel shows a green light to another which is also showing a 
 green light, she should put her helm to starboard, and the approaching 
 vessel, seeing a green light, should put her helm to starboard. 
 
 Rule 3. 
 If a vessel shows a red light to another which is showing a green 
 
138 
 
 light,, the vessel sliowing the red light should mind her port helm and 
 stand on. 
 
 If a vessel shows a green light to another which is showing a red 
 light, the vessel showing the green light should mind her starboard 
 helm, stop if necessary, and -then port her helm. 
 
 GREEN 
 
 RED 
 
 RED /I \ CREEM 
 
 GREEnI ° / RED 
 
 * GREEN V / RED 
 
 red/ „\ GREEN RED ( o) CREEM 
 
 \ 
 
 
 i 
 
 RED / O \CRE£N RED / O IgreeN 
 
LA¥ OF THE PORT HELM. 
 
 On the 30th October, 1840, the Trinity House (London) issued the 
 following order: 
 
 ******** "And, whereas, the 
 recognized rule for sailing vessels is, that those having the wind fair shall 
 give way to those on a wind ; that when both are going by the wind, the 
 vessel on the starboard tack shall keep her wind, and the one on the 
 port tack bear up, thereby passing each other on the port hand. 
 
 " That when both vessels have the wind large or a-beam, and meet, 
 they shall pass each other in the same way on the port hand — to effect 
 which two last-mentioned objects the helm must be put to port. And 
 as steam vessels may be considered in the light of vessels navigating with 
 a fair wind, and should givQ way to sailing vessels on a wind on either 
 tack, it becomes only necessary to provide a rule for their observance 
 when meeting other steamers or saihng vessels going large." 
 
 " Under these considerations, and with the object before stated, this 
 JBoard has deemed it right to frame and promulgate the following rule, 
 which, on communication with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, 
 the Elder Brethren find has been already adopted in respect of steam 
 vessels in Her Majesty's service; and they desire earnestly to impress 
 upon the minds of all persons having charge of steam vessels, the 
 propriety and urgent necessity of a strict adherence thereto, viz: 
 
 " EULE. 
 
 " When steam vessels on different courses must unavoidably or neces- 
 sarily cross so near that, by continuing their respective courses, there 
 would be a risk of coming in collision, each vessel shall put her helm 
 to port, so as always to pass on the port side of each other. A steam 
 vessel passing another in a narrow channel must always leave the vessel 
 she is passing on the port handP 
 
 It has been, and is still contended, by many very intelligent and 
 accomplished seamen, that the foregoing " Rule of the Port Helm" for 
 steamers, was a departure from the principles which had previously 
 obtained in the rules, or common law of the sea for passing vessels, that 
 that departure from well-established principles was extremely unfortunate 
 in its consequences ; that the present Eules under the " Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act," as amended in 1862, are in the main merely developments of 
 
140 
 
 • 
 the vicious principle introduced by that Rule, and, with exceptions, 
 probably the cause of accidents by collision, which they were intended to 
 prevent. 
 
 Whether these positions can be sustained or not, they are well deserv- 
 ing of the consideration of every intelligent seafaring man whose life or 
 property depends upon the correct understanding of the established 
 "Rules of the Road" and the " Sailing and Steering Rules," by which the 
 vessels of all or nearly all maritime nations are now authoritatively 
 governed. Among the earliest recorded "Instructions for the Conduct 
 of Ships of War," (issued some time during the last century to the British 
 Navy,) are as follows: 
 
 II. 
 
 " In order to avoid inconvenience from the customary practice founded ' 
 on the regulations in the General Printed Instructions, with respect to 
 the conduct of senior officers towards their juniors, the ships of war are 
 to bear up for each other, shorten sail, &c., without regard to the seniority 
 of the commanders, or other claim of distinction, in such manner as shall 
 be found most convenient on either part, and may best guard against the 
 hazard of falling on board of each other. But when ships are upon different 
 tacks, and must cross near each other, the ship on the starboard tack is 
 to keep her wind, while that on the larboard is always to pass to leeward." 
 
 In the " General Instructions to the Night Signals," &c., by Su* C. 
 Knowles, 1780, is found: 
 
 " 1st. All sliips on the larboard tack are to bear up for those on the 
 starboard tack when passing on opposite tacks." 
 
 In the British Naval Instructions of 1816 the Instruction II, quoted 
 above, reads: "When ships are upon different tacks, and must cross near 
 each other, the ship on the starboard tack is to keep her wind, while that 
 on the larboard taclj is always to pass to leeward, bearing up in time for 
 that purpose, if necessary," and omitting all the rest of the original 
 instructions. 
 
 It would seem, from these "Instructions," that it was then held that 
 the best security against collisions was to be found in leaving the judg" 
 ment free (as to the helm to be used) of the persons in charge of the 
 ships ; that there was no compulsory rule in regard to altering the helm, 
 for the ship on the port tack always had the option of avoiding crossing 
 near the vessel on the starboard tack by starboarding her helm and 
 tacking, which has always been, and is still practiced at the present day, 
 by good seamen; and that the only binding rule which then existed was 
 the on'e making it compulsory foK the ship on the starboard tack to 
 
141 
 
 continue her course, so that her certain movements should become a 
 fixed element to guide the action of the approaching ship. It does not 
 appear whether the Trinity Kules of 1840 were issued as mere embodi- 
 ments of the assumed usual customs of shipping — the common or unwritten 
 laws of the sea — or as actual laws, binding upon British shipping in the 
 same manner, though not to the same extent, as the present statutory 
 Kule of the JRoad and Steering and Sailing Kules, under the amended 
 Merchant Shipping Act of 1862, now adopted by most of the maritime 
 nations of the world. There, howeverj is nothing in the rules, ["that 
 those having the wind free shall give way to those on a wind ;" and, 
 " that when both are going by the wind, the vessel on the starboard tack 
 shall keep her wind and the one on the port tack bear up, thereby passing 
 each other on the port hand,"] interfering more with a free exercise of 
 the judgment in particular cases, than there was in the rules of the last 
 century, already quoted. 
 
 The rule, " that when both vessels have the wind large or a-beam, and 
 meet, they shall pass each other on the port hand, to effect which two 
 last-inentioned objects the helm must be put to port," is in eflfect the 
 same as the two former, except in the extremely rare case of two ships 
 approaching each other end on, with the wind exactly a-beam, for a ship 
 with the wind even a point abaft the beam must consider herself as 
 having the wind free, and should know that any ship right ahead, and 
 steering an exactly opposite course, will not be much off the wind. 
 
 The ship with the wind a little abaft the beam would not ordinarily 
 haul up and pass to windward of the approaching, nearly, or quite close- 
 hauled ship. If the wind was on her starboard side she would most 
 liliely starboard, and not port her helm. The approaching vessel, by the 
 wind, within a point or so, would not consider herself "free," in the sense 
 to make her give way, and would probably, under such circumstances, 
 continue her course, or at most haul up to " a rapfull and taut bowline," 
 which would require the starboard helm if the wind should be on the 
 port side. 
 
 The third rule, just quoted, is of itself of little importance, but it has 
 been made the foundation of a universal rule to govern the movements 
 of steamers — a class of vessels not in existence when the old rules were 
 found. 
 
 The Trinity 'Board says : "And as steam vessels may be considered in 
 the light of vessels navigating with a fail* wind, and should give way to 
 sailing vessels on a wind on either tack, it becomes only necessary to 
 provide a rule for their observance when meeting other steamers or 
 sailing vessels going large." " Under the circumstances," &c., see ante, 
 and then follows the Eule, " where steam vessels on different courses 
 
142 
 
 must unavoidably cross so near that, by continuing their respective courses 
 there would be a risk of coming in collision, each vessel shall put her 
 helm to port, so as to pass on the port side of each other." 
 
 "A steam vessel passing another in a narrow channel must always leave 
 the vessel she is passing on the port handP 
 
 It has been well said, by an able writer on this subject, that " the old 
 rules, as we have seen, left the judgment free as to the helm to be used; 
 they only bound ships in particular situations to maintain them. Every 
 person in charge of a ship under these rules formed his judgment, and . 
 acted on facts established by her own situation, and not by his estimate 
 of the situation of any approaching ship. If his ship were on the starboard 
 tack by the wind, she stood on and feared and avoided nothing. If she 
 were on the port tack she was safe from everything on her port side, 
 because anything approaching on that side must be free, and therefore 
 bound to keep out of her way; but, on the other hand, everything 
 approaching on her lee bow was an object whose path must be avoided. 
 The law being always in force did not admit of a difference of opinion 
 as to the obligation incmTcd. 
 
 " If she were before the wind or free, she used her judgment in each 
 individual case as it arose, acting so as to pass astern of ships crossing 
 her course from either side, and knew, from her own situation, that all 
 ships calculating on her doing so would simply continue their courses. 
 
 " The principles of the new rule are totally different. It binds the 
 judgment as to the port helm to be used, and it binds no ship to maintain 
 her situation ; whether it is in force or no is a matter of opinion depend- 
 ing on the estimate formed of a remote contingency. It acts, in fact, in 
 direct antagonism to the laws of sailing vessels, and throws aside the 
 experience of ages at a blow." 
 
 An expert, called as a witness before the British Parliamentary Com- 
 mittee in 1860, said : " Here is a necessity for an agreement between both 
 parties as to any danger, utterly immindful as to difference of opinion ; 
 one man thinks that if each continues his course there is no danger, the 
 other, to be on the safe side, ports his helm and causes the colUsion, and 
 the collision then becomes a justification for concluding there was danger." 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that the cases arising, or that might arise, 
 between saiUng vessels where a compulsory helm for both was desirable, 
 must be extremely rare, and that there was no necessity "for such a 
 revolution — any interference with old principles." 
 
 The authors of "The Law of the Port Helm"* say: "A little consid- 
 eration will tell us that the cases are quite as rare in steamers." 
 
 ' By Commander P. H. Colomb, R. N., and Commander H. W. Brent, E. N. London, 1866. 
 
143 
 
 "Let X (Fig. 1) be a steamer steering N., and let Y be another of 
 equal speed, steering N.E., at the point a. If the two ships continue 
 their courses, there will be risk of collision at the point o. They must, 
 therefore, both port. But porting by no means lessens the danger, as, if 
 Y ports more than X, there may still be collision, and X can never come 
 up to his old course without infringing the rule, unless he completes a 
 circle. The rule of port helm is here distinctly mischievous. Why . 
 should Y be compelled to shift his helm, when by simply easing his 
 engines the object is fully gained? and why should not X continue his 
 course untroubled by Y ? 
 
 . "Suppose Y in the position h, steering E. There is again risk of 
 collision at o, again both ships must port. What is required is simply to 
 get X on Y's port bow without danger. Then why should X not assist 
 in bringing that event about by continuing his course, letting Y alone 
 port — or if he prefers it — stop his engines? 
 
 " Suppose Y in the position c. Both ships again port by the rule, and 
 certainly clear each other ; but supposing Y to port till he brings X on 
 his port bow, in what way does X assist by porting his own helm? 
 Would he not be much sooner in a position of safety by continuing his 
 course? and would not Y be much more satisfied if he knew that X 
 would not alter his course ? 
 
 " Suppose Y in the position d; it is evidently a matter of perfect indif- 
 ference which way either of the two ships shifts her helm, so long as 
 they do not both use different helms, so port helm for one of them is just 
 as good, but not better than starboard. For both to sliift their helms is 
 as unnecessary in this case as we saw it to be in the others. 
 
 "If Y be in the position e ovf, and X ports, Y does not assist matters 
 by porting also, nor is the use of port helm by X the best means of 
 avoiding a collision at o; the stoppage of her engines is distinctly 
 preferable. 
 
 " For X and Y to port when Y is at ff, is only less dangerous than X 
 porting and Y starboarding. 
 
 " We have thus seen that for two ships to put their helms ar-port when 
 one is in the position X, and the other in those of a, b, c, e, f, and ^, is 
 not the best mode of avoiding collision at the point o. And that there 
 is no absolute necessity for both ships porting when at the points X and 
 d, but as some change of helm on the part of one ship is necessary in 
 this latter case, it may as well be port as starboard. 
 
 "But if the view is correct for a, b, c, e,f, and g, it is also correct for 
 any intermediate point except d; and as the case of X, when Y is at the 
 point d, is clearly exceptional, there is nothing in the circumstances of 
 steamers meeting in the open sea justifying a compulsory helm. 
 
144 
 
 "From what has been stated, we gather that the Ti-inity Board, in the 
 establishment of port helm as the rule for steamers, were guided by a 
 fancied analogy between it and the rules already in existence for saihng 
 vessels, which analogy did not really exist. . 
 
 " To make this rather more plaii^, let us suppose X and Y to be sailiijg 
 vessels, X to be on the port tack, wind "W.iN'.W. "We have seen her as 
 a steamer compelled to shift her helm on nearing every ship marked in 
 the diagram, but now we find she keeps her course, and does not touch 
 her helm if Y be in either of the positions a, h, c, or d. Only in the 
 case of Y being in the position e, does she shift her helm, or trouble 
 herself as to danger of collision, whilst Y cannot approach her from the 
 positions f and g. 
 
 "Let X be on the starboard tack, wind E.N.E., she gives way to 
 nothing, and never shifts her helm at all. 
 
 " Let her be nearly before the wind, which may be from S.S.E. to 
 S.S.W., and she starboards her helm to clear Y in the positions b and c, 
 and sheports it to clear Y in the positions e and/". There can be no ship 
 in the position d, and for ships in positions a and g, she takes such means 
 as may appear best to effect the end in view. 
 
 " Only in the single case of . Y being in the position d, with the wind 
 E. or ~W., would the rule of port helm rigidly apply. 
 
 "Fully admitting that violent changes in steering and sailing rules are 
 as dangerous in their way as all other revolutionary movements are in 
 theirs — and therefore recognizing the propriety of the Trinity House 
 seeking to establish their new steam rules on the basis of the old sailing 
 ones — we have said enough to warrant our belief that the introduction 
 of the rule of port helm was in itself a departure' from, and not a 
 following up of the principles which governed sailing vessels. 
 
 " We discover, by an examination of the reports of the Committee of 
 1831, and the Eoyal Commission of 1836 on Steam Navigation, and 
 especially from the evidence appended thereto, that the real source of 
 this rule of compulsory helm was the practice of vehicles in the streets 
 being applied to steamers in rivers, with very little thought of the 
 changed condition surrounding steamers in the open sea. 
 
 "Here, for instance, is a paragraph in the report of 1831: 
 
 " ' That it should be generally understood that, whenever two steam 
 vessels find themselves unexpectedly near each other, ' stem on,' both 
 vessels are to put their helms a-starboard, unless there be some evident 
 cause to prevent it; and if the vessels be not dii-ectly 'stem on' to each 
 other, their helms should be only altered so as to make them sheer from 
 each other.'* 
 
 ' See Appendix A. 
 
145 
 
 " This Committee only take into consideration the steam navigation of 
 the River Thames, and there were at that date but fifty-three steamers 
 navigating the river, of which eleven only belonged to other ports ! 
 
 "The Koj^al Commission of 1836 drew attention to the fact that the 
 suggestions of the Committee of 1831 had never been acted on, and 
 that 'the evil by accident continued to increase.' 
 
 '"We are aware,' say the Commissioners (p. 13, report) 'that the 
 same rule (for saihng vessels) is not strictly applicable to steam vessels, 
 and that there exists great difficulty in treating a subject involving the 
 varying nature of the circumstances in which steam-vessels are placed 
 in a river, as regards the state of the tide, the depth of water in the 
 river, &c., &c.'* And in the Appendix to that report we have, ' Pro- 
 posed regulations for the navigation of steam-vessels,' the first clause of 
 which states that — 
 
 "'Zm the Thames, and in all the rivers and channels of the United 
 Kingdom, and in all cases of wind, weather, and tide, steam vessels are 
 to endeavor to keep on that side of the river or channel which lies on 
 their starboard hand;'* nor is there in the seven clauses of these regula- 
 tions any sign of a contemplated rule except in rivers and channels. 
 Thus we see plainly enough that the Trinity Board rule of port helm for 
 steamers was founded, not on the existing custom of sailing vessels in the 
 open sea, but on the existing custom of steamers in rivers, embodied in 
 the second paragraph of their rules. 
 
 "But, in fact, if what we have already said be admitted as true, half 
 the labor of proving the badness of the rule of port helm is taken off our 
 hands. For, first, we admit, and it will be generally admitted, that the 
 new rules should have been analogous to the old, and we have failed, on 
 examination, to detect such analogy. 
 
 " Secondly, we tried to show that for both ships to shift their helm was 
 never the best way to avoid collision. Now the only excuse for the 
 introduction of a new principle would be its superiority to the old one. 
 If, therefore, the new rule of port helm was a new principle, and was yet 
 not better than the old one, the impropriety of its introduction stands 
 confessed. 
 
 "But let us now investigate a little more closely the operation ©f the 
 rule, and we think it may be shown to be in itself vicious and dangerous, 
 without reference to any other rules whatever. 
 
 " In referring to Fig. 1, and describing the operation of compulsory 
 port helm, we have pre-supposed several matters, all in favor of the rule, 
 but which in fact are very seldom concurrent. 
 
 • * See Appendix B. 
 
 10 
 
146 
 
 "We supposed the ships X and Y in all positions to have equal speed, 
 to be equally distant from the colhsion point, and to alter their helms at 
 the same moment. 
 
 "But now, considering the ships X and T, in Fig. 1, to be steam 
 vessels. If Y at a be a vessel of greater speed than X, or, which is the 
 same tiling, be nearer the point of collision and ports first, a colhsion 
 may become imminent. And, moreover, if the sweep which Y at a 
 makes in turning to starboard would naturally cross X's course ahead of 
 her, X by porting will increase the danger. Whereas, if Y's sweep will 
 naturally pass astern of X, the danger of colhsion is past, and X need not 
 touch her helm. The same argument apphes if Y be in the position of b 
 or c; but here a diagram (Fig. 2) will assist in explaining all these cases. 
 If Y, in the position of a>, ports her helm, describing a sweep a^v, there is 
 no risk of colhsion whether X ports or not. If Y waits till she is in the 
 position a' and then ports, a colhsion may occur if X does not port or 
 starboard, but for the safety of the ships it is a matter of indifference 
 which she does. If Y, however, does not port till she is in the position 
 a', X will only increase the danger by porting. 
 
 " Port helm is, therefore, useless to avoid a ship which is porting between 
 a} and «', and dangerous when the ship ports between the points a' and 
 a\ The case at a" is clearly exceptional. It is consequently unadvisable 
 to use port helm in avoiding a ship approaching on the port side which 
 has already ported. 
 
 " The position of Y at 6 (Fig. 1) is chosen for closer investigation as 
 the middle case, which, by extreme treatment, most clearly exposes the 
 deficiencies of the rule of port helm. It is not to be understood that we 
 suppose Y, in the position a% would^ continue her helm a-port a moment 
 after she had crossed X's course. But, on the other hand, in snch a case 
 X, by porting, would keep herself still on Y's stai-board side, which it 
 has been the object of both ships all through to avoid. 
 
 "The same principles which are seen to govern the case of ships meeting 
 when the course is at right angles, evidently govern them at all other angles, 
 but these cases being more difficult to illustrate by diagram are omitted. 
 "Again, what is true of port helm for ships approaching on the port 
 side, is also true of starboard helm for ships approaching on the starboard 
 side; and in the diagram Fig. 1, g,f, and e, are in the same position 
 as regards X, as the latter was respecting a, b, and c. 
 
 " We still have the indifferent case where Y is at d, but that we have 
 already sufficiently remarked upon. 
 
 " Upon the whole, we seem at tliis point to have arrived at the distinct 
 conclusion that the rule for boik ships to port their helms is unsafe in 
 all cases except one, when it is unnecessary. 
 
147 
 
 " We have as yet supposed that the ships X and Y, in Fig. 1, although 
 they might be unequally distant from the point of collision in time or 
 space, and not simultaneous in the movement of their helms, were yet 
 fully aware that there was risk of collision if they continued their courses, 
 which understanding pre-supposes an accurate knowledge of each other's 
 speed and course. 
 
 " But it will be at once admitted that this knowledge never exists. The 
 great mass of colHsions which any sailing and steering rules would obviate, 
 arise simply and distinctly from the want of this knowledge. 
 
 " It is now necessary to examine the i-ule of port helm as applied under 
 these conditions of fact. 
 
 " We have spoken of all the cases in which there was real risk of colli- 
 sion by a continuance of both ships' courses, and that risk was known to 
 both ships. We now speak of those cases where there is no risk of 
 collision, but that risk is supposed by either ship. 
 
 "Taking X, in Fig. 3, in his old position, we find at once we need con- 
 sider no cases on his port side, as a supposed risk of collision causing 
 him to port his helm, leads to no result whatever. It is diiferent with 
 ships on his starboard- side if Y be at d, e, f, or g, it is quite evident, 
 without further illustration, that the application of the rule by either X 
 or Y, or by both of them, will most probably lead to disastrous conse- 
 quences. 
 
 "There is yet one aspect in which the introduction of the rule of 
 port helm as first issued, must be viewed before we pass on to other 
 considerations. The observance of the rule required on the part of a 
 steamer, a further piece of knowledge; or the non-observance of it might 
 be justified by acting on a supposed fact, namely, that her approaching 
 neighbor was not a steamer. X, a steamer, (Fig. 1,) might suppose Y — 
 also a steamer — in the position c to be a sailing vessel on a wind, and Y 
 might know X to be a steamer. X would starboard and Y wouM port, 
 and a collision would occur. 
 
 . "The cause of collision would be set down as X's negligence in not 
 making out Y to be a steamer. The real cause would be the law making Y 
 at e pursue a course different to that she would have pursued had X been 
 right in his supposition. 
 
 "We have now reviewed the original sweeping rule of port helm for 
 steamers as at fii-st issued under high authority. We have shown it to 
 be erroneous in its foundation, and the first step in a wrong direction. 
 We shall now endeavor to show how legislation wandered deeper and 
 deeper into the darkness, never attempting for 22 years to recover its 
 lost path, until we meet in the Act of 1862 with a little ghmmering of' 
 light amongst more murky clouds than -ever ! 
 
148 
 
 "There was one feature in the Trinity House rule which has been 
 obhterated — ^whether judiciously or not we do not here stop to enquire — 
 it was not compulsory. 
 
 " The Board simply desired ' to impress upon the minds of all persons 
 having charge of steam vessels, the propriety and urgent necessity of a 
 strict adherence' to it. ' 
 
 "Whatever other effects a non-compulsory interpretation of the rule 
 may have developed, there were some which probably had a very 
 important, and, in our view, a very injurious action on subsequent 
 legislation. 
 
 " The rule being simply a recommendation would be only partially 
 obeyed, therefore its effects would be only partially understood. Those 
 who did not adopt it could only offer an adverse opinion, unbacked by 
 actual experience of its working. Those who did adopt it were most 
 probably impressed beforehand in its favor, and their experience of its 
 action was neither extensive enough, nor probably adverse enough, with 
 the small number of steamers and the partial adoption of the rule — ^to 
 shake their preconceived faith in it. Nor even with those who adopted 
 it was it probably allowed to override the judgment in each particular 
 case. So that when it was suggested, after six years of non-compulsory 
 working to make it compulsory, there would be no strong evidence against 
 the rule itself, although there would be plenty testifying to the unsatis- 
 factory nature of the whole an-angement as it stood. 
 
 " The rule of port helm would, therefore, come before Parliament with 
 the authority of the Trinity House, backed by six years' use, and com- 
 paratively imopposed. 
 
 " The natural cure for dissatisfaction at the existing arrangements would 
 be, therefore, a uniform enforcement bf existing rules. The ultimate 
 result was the following 9th clause of the Act of 1846 for steam vessels: 
 
 "'And be it enacted, That every steam vessel, when meeting or 
 passing any other steam vessel, shall pass as far as may be safe on the 
 port side of such other vessel; and every steam vessel navigating any 
 river or narrow channel shall keep as far as is practicable to that side of 
 the fairway or mid-channel of such river or chamiel which lies on the 
 starboard side of such vessel, due regard being had to the tide and to the 
 position of each vessel in such tide; and the master or other person 
 having charge of any such vessel, and neglecting to observe these regu- 
 lations, or either of them, shall, fo;r each and every instance of neglect, 
 forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding £50.'* 
 
 ' See Appendix C. 
 
149 
 
 " Now, if this enactment bo compared with the Trinity House rules, wo 
 observe that, while compulsory observance is for the first time introduced, 
 the rules themselves are not nearly so stringent. The words 'as far as 
 may be safe,' are susceptible of a double construction, but we think the 
 plain meaning to have been that ships were to pass on the port side of 
 each other when it was safe to do so. Then, again, the words 'meeting 
 or passing' do not seem to apply except in cases where the approaching 
 ships are steering nearly opposite courses, whilst the Trinity rules 
 expressly included all cases whatever of steamers crossing. 
 
 " The second paragraph of the Trinity Rules, compared with its corres- 
 ponding words in the Act, bring out in a very forcible way the different 
 ideas under which the sentences were framed. 
 
 " On the whole, it appears that we now had compulsory obedience to 
 a relaxed rule, instead of optional obedience to a stringent one. 
 
 " The natural result was a confused idea of the stringency both of the 
 rule and of its observance. 
 
 " The effect of tliis view is seen in the following clause in the Act of 18 5 1 : 
 
 "XXVII. 'Whenever any vessel proceeding in one direction meets a 
 vessel proceeding in another direction, and the master, or other person 
 in charge of either such vessel perceives, that if both vessels continue 
 their respective courses they will pass so near as to involve any risk of 
 colKsion, he shall put the helm of his vessel to port, so as to pass on the 
 port side of the other vessel, due regard being had to the tide and to the 
 position of each vessel with respect to the dangers of the channel, and, 
 as regards saihng vessels, to the keeping of such vessels under command ; 
 and the master of any steam vessel navigating any river or narrow 
 channel, shall keep as far as is practicable to that side of the fairway or 
 mid-channel thereof which lies on the starboard side of such vessel; and 
 if the master, or other person having charge of any steam vessel, neglect 
 to observe these regulations, or either of them, he shall, for every such 
 offence, be Hable to a penalty not exceeding £50.'* 
 
 " Hitherto we have seen sailing vessels untouched by legislative enact- 
 ments ; in this clause we have the whole of old sailing rules swept away, 
 and all navigation in the open sea reduced to one compulsory and abso- 
 lute rule of port helm. 
 
 " Doubtless, were it possible that one single rule, to be acted on in all 
 cases, could be maintained with safety, such a rule would be a boon to 
 seamen ; but in the foregoing pages it has been, we think, made sufficiently 
 clear that the rule of port helm is not such a one as to satisfy that position. 
 
 "This is the proper place to advert to some facts whose weight in deter- 
 mining the formation of the rules deserves careful estimation. 
 
 * See Appendix D. 
 
150 
 
 " The frequency of accident from collision has always been — as might 
 be supposed — greater by night than by day. At the present time it is 
 three times as great. The former fact being known to most persons, it 
 must be supposed that the framers of the rules for steering would natu- 
 rally be most anxious to limit the chances of collision at night, and 
 would probably have the circumstances of ships at night prominently 
 before them in any arrangements they might decide on. 
 
 "Before the days of steam, the wind, a force common to and governing 
 the movements of all ships meeting at sea, gave an observer in any one 
 ship a basis for the more or less accurate determination of the course of 
 any ship near at hand, so that at night seamen were not altogether with- 
 out the means of judging as to the best method of keeping clear of the 
 course of a ship which it was their duty to avoid. But when ships 
 began to move under the impulses of a power generated within them- 
 selves, there was no longer any basis whereon to estimate the direction 
 of an approaching steamer's head. 
 
 "The idea of marking the sides of a ship by different colored lights did 
 not become .a regulation until 1848, and at the end of 1849 there were 
 still 'an alarming nmnber of steam vessels either in ignorance of, or 
 disregarding, or iuefSciently observing the system,' so that when the 
 last quoted statute was drawn up, few people could speak from much 
 experience as to the possibility of estimating a ship's course at night. 
 The obvious reflection is, that it was probably thought impossible to 
 leave steamers to act on their judgment in avoiding each other when 
 there was no basis whereon to form such judgment ; and it was probably 
 hoped by a fixed steering rule to obviate all necessity for such a basis. 
 
 "Further legislation took place in the enactment of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act in 1854. The clauses which follow are merely a more 
 precise and definite exposition of the principles laid down in 1851: 
 
 " '296. Whenever any ship, whether a steamer or a sailing ship, pro- 
 ceeding in one direction, meets another ship, whether a steamer or a 
 sailing ship, proceeding in another direction, so that if both ships were 
 to continue their respective courses they would pass so near as to involve 
 any risk of collision, the helms of both ships shall be put to port, so as 
 to pass on the port side of each other; and this rule shall be obeyed by 
 all steamships and by all sailing ships, whether on the port or starboard 
 tacks, and whether closehauled or not, unless the circumstances of the 
 case are such as to render a departure from the rule necessary in order 
 to avoid immediate danger, and subject also to the proviso that due regard 
 shall be had to the dangers of navigation, and as regards saihng vessels on 
 the starboard tack close-hauled, to keeping such ships under command.'* 
 
 * See Appendix E. 
 
151 
 
 " The best commentary on this clause is to be found in Captain Drew's 
 evidence before the Select Committee in 1861 ; we commend it to those 
 who wish to enter further into the question, but to quote portions of it 
 here would not strengthen the conviction a perusal of the whole of it is 
 calculated to produce. 
 
 " The clause remained the law for passing vessels until it was repealed 
 by the passing of the Act of 1862, by which shipping now are guided. 
 
 "Let us here recapitulate the changes in the law from 1840 to 1862: 
 
 "First. Six years of a stringent non-compulsory rule of port helm for 
 steamers. During which the old saiHng rules remained untouched. 
 
 " Second. Five years of a compulsory but pliant law of port helm for 
 steamers only. The old sailing rules remaining imtouched. 
 
 "Third. Eleven years of a compulsory sti-ingenf law of port helm 
 applicable to all classes of vessels. Total abolition of the old sailing rules. 
 
 "We doubt whether any commentary could be stronger or more 
 suggestive than the bringing together of the foregoing paragraphs. 
 
 "We therefore proceed at once to the consideration of the present 
 rules ; making the observation that the 22 years of legislation which had 
 passed before 1862, could not have been more carefully directed to 
 imbue seamen's minds with the idea they are still known to hold, that 
 the rule of port helm was a Median and Persian law which altered not.* 
 
 "The lirst gleam of light amidst the darkness appears in the following 
 extract from the report of the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping, 
 1860: 
 
 " ' The question of the Rule of the Koad * * * * when 
 vessels meet each other, deserves, however, particular attention. This 
 section in the act (1854) as it stands at present, is most unsatisfactory, 
 however the decision of our Courts of Admiralty may have modified its 
 dangerous tendency. The evidence given is conclusive that some change 
 in the existing regulations is necessary ;t and your Committee express a 
 hope that the Board of Trade will take steps to move the Foreign Office 
 to communicate with Foreign Powers, with the view to the adoption of 
 some common system founded upon general practice and professional 
 experience; and that our law may be altered accordingly.'! 
 
 "In accordance with this report the clauses of the act of 1854 were 
 expanded and modified into the ten paragraphs which now constitute the 
 sea Rule of the Road, not only for British ships, but for those of nearly- 
 all maritime nations. 
 
 * "The case of the Ann and Mary is in harmony with the belief among seamen that in all 
 cases of doubt (!) the helm is to be ported." — Naut. Mag., November, 1851, p. 598. 
 
 tThe published evidence is all against founding a rule on "risk of collision" and compul- 
 Bory helm. 
 
 t See Appendix F. ♦ 
 
152 
 
 "The rules govern the movements of two ships under the following six 
 sets of circumstances, for each of which a separate paragraph is provided.* 
 
 "1. Two sailing ships meeting (Article XI.) 
 
 " 2. Two sailing ships crossing (Article XII.) 
 
 "3. Two steamships meeting (Article XIII.) 
 
 "4. Two steamships crossing (Article XIV.) 
 
 "5. A saihng and a steamship approaching each other (Article XY.) 
 
 " 6. One ship overtaking another (Article XVII.) 
 
 "Now it is important to consider what had been the tendency of legis- 
 lation up to this point, and whether this tendency was acquiesced in or 
 opposed by the above arrangements. 
 
 "There is not much difficulty in concluding that the tendency of 
 'Eules of the Eoad' had hitherto been the suppression of the idea of 
 exceptional cases, and the reduction of all rules to such a simple form as 
 would enable them to be applied without consideration to all possible cases 
 of proximate coUision : to aggregate the various classes of circumstances 
 under which ships may meet at sea, and to deal with them so aggregated. 
 
 "The tendency of the present rules is, equally clearly, to disintegrate 
 these classes of circumstances, and to deal with each separately. The 
 tendency of previous legislation was consequently strongly opposed by 
 the act of 1862. 
 
 " The question naturally arises, whether the tendency of previous legis- 
 lation was right or wrong ? And in answering it, due regard must be 
 had to the separation between the goodness of the end in view and of 
 the means used to attain it. It may be admitted that an attempt to 
 simphfy the existing rules was justifiable, and it may further be admitted 
 that it was desirable all rules should be gathered under a single one, 
 provided that single rule could cover all cases. The selection of a rule 
 which does not cover all cases is an error of detail, but does not neces- 
 sarily make the attempt to select improper. 
 
 "It appears to us that the sole intention of the laws of 1851 and 1854 
 was simplification ; that such a tendency was, as similar attempts usually 
 are, in all respects good; and that only an unfortimate selection of a 
 rule hindered the success of the attempt and left matters in the state so 
 strongly reprehended in the report before quoted. 
 
 "Holding this view, it follows that we conclude the tendency of the 
 present act to be wholly wrong. That it has tacitly condemned the end 
 sought in previous laws, when it should have upheld the end but con- 
 demned the means. 
 
 " "We do not at this moment refer to the goodness or badness of each of 
 the rules laid down; we simply mean that the only excuses for so many 
 
 • * See Appendix G. 
 
153 
 
 rules were an impossibility of remedying the fault of the single rule 
 selected in 1854 except by such multiplication, and a clear proof that the 
 remedy was not worse than the disease. 
 
 "In order to avoid collision when there is risk of it, quick and decided 
 action on the part of those in charge of the ships is of ^11 things neces- 
 sary. To have a great variety of considerations presented to the mind 
 in the moment of action is fatal to decision ; and yet the most cursory 
 glance at these rules will show that, to any one who has mastered and 
 understands them, such a variety of considerations must present them- 
 selves every time there is risk of colhsion to a ship of which he is in 
 immediate charge. 
 
 "Let us suppose he is in a sailing vessel on the port tack, close-hauled. 
 A sail is reported on his port bow. In the interval between his first 
 sighting her and making out what she is, and that there is risk of 
 colhsion, he must reflect: 
 
 "(1.) That if she turns out to be a sailing vessel— 
 
 " a. He must port his helm should she be standing for his bow, as they 
 may be " end on or nearly end on " (Article XI). 
 
 "a^ But as he is on the port tack, close-hauled, the approaching ship 
 must necessarily be free, therefore he must not port his helm, but stand 
 on (Articles XII and XYIII). 
 
 " b. Should she turn out to be on the port tack a little more oif the 
 wind than he is himself, he will continue his course, because his neighbor 
 is to windward of him (Ai-ticles XII and' XVIII). 
 
 "5". But should it turn out that his own speed is greater than that of 
 the other, then he will keep out of her way (Article XVII). 
 
 " (2.) If she turns out to be a steamer, he continues his course (Articles 
 XV and XVIII). 
 
 " So that he may discover in the appearance of this sail which has been 
 reported, either of three circumstances which compel him to keep his 
 course; or two circumstances which will compel him to alter it, all 
 binding on him by law, and with which his judgment cannot interfere. 
 
 " We hardly think it necessary to pursue this analysis of the bearing of 
 the rules on the actual circumstances of the sea. Enough is given by 
 the foregoing example to show that the variety in the application of the 
 rules is greater than can be carried in the minds of ordinary seafaring 
 men, and if they cannot be so carried, however valuable such rules may 
 be as a standard of appeal in the Admiralty Court for the pui-pose of 
 putting one party clearly in the wrong after the event — ^they are, from 
 their intricacy, powerless to act in any degree as a preventive of collision. 
 
 "Another most vulnerable point of attack in the present rules is the 
 fact that there is no clearly defined line of demarcation showing where 
 
154 
 
 one rule ceases and another begins to operate. There are two distinct 
 modes of proceeding laid down, one for ships meeting ' end on or nearly 
 end on' and another for ships 'crossing.' The action of two ships is 
 different under each of the rules, but it is left entirely to opinion to say 
 when ships are 'nearly end on' or 'crossing:' so, as might have been 
 predicted, there* is the widest possible variety of opinion on the point. 
 Some hold that ships are 'nearly end on' when their courses cross at 
 an angle of three points. Others maintain that at night ships cannot be 
 'nearly end on' unless both colored lights might be seen from either 
 ship, which does not allow a latitude of more than one point of difference 
 between their courses. Some assert that 'crossing' is the term which 
 describes the mass of the positions in which ships may arrive to bring on 
 risk of collision. Others, that 'nearly end on' practically covers 
 nearly all such cases. Yet the conduct of ships 'nearly end on' is 
 ordered to be altogether different from that of ships ' crossing.' 
 
 " Thus^ we observe, there is absolutely no fixed rule to govern the 
 movements of ships, either as sailing vessels or steamers, when then- 
 courses are such as to bring them into colhsion at any point. One sailing 
 ship may fairly consider herself under Article XI, and the other quite as 
 fau-ly under Article XII. One steamer may act as though she were 
 under Article XIII, and- the other on the conviction that she comes 
 under Article XIV. 
 
 "Many will say these are but slight discrepancies, but they are not too 
 slight to carry in their train the frightful losses of life and property with 
 which the community is constantly startled. 
 
 " "We observe, again, in these rules, that they still involve the contrariety 
 of principle which the addition of the new rule of port helm to the old 
 saihng rules iirst displayed in 1840. Articles XI and XII carry out the 
 new rule of both ships moving. Articles XII, XIV, XV, and XVII, 
 embody the principle of the old rules that one ship only should get out 
 of the path of the other ship, which does not vary her course. 
 
 " But the old sailing rules themselves are not restored in their integrity, 
 for, by Article XI, the old immunity from movement is withdrawn from 
 the ship on the starboard tack close hauled. Nor can any impartial 
 reader admit that Article XII is a clearer or simpler mode of expressing 
 the intention that ' ships having the wind fair shall give way to those on 
 a wind,' than those words themselves convey. 
 
 " There are, however, certain of the rides to which unqualified adhesion 
 may be given with safety. 
 
 " These are Articles XIV and XVIII, about which we shall presently 
 have much more say ; and Article XVI, which is a most important one- 
 Articles XIX and XX, or a modification of them, must naturally find a 
 place in whatever rules may be drawn up. 
 
155 
 
 "We have thus, without going into extremes of detail, endeavored to 
 put forward what appeared to us the defects and merits of each stage of 
 legislation on the question of the risk of coUision, from the early days of 
 steam navigation down to the present date. 
 
 "We have not hitherto attempted to quote cases in support of our 
 views, but we have dealt with what appeared the plain inference to be 
 drawn from the existing facts of the law and the circumstances of the sea. 
 
 "It now becomes our duty to attempt the suggestion of the remedies 
 proper to be applied in correction of the errors pointed out, and we come 
 to that attempt with the more diflSdence as being impressed with the 
 knowledge that the measure of the difficulty of the problem, is the clear 
 fact that twenty -two years of legislation have failed to produce a solution. 
 
 " It may be inferred from what has been said, that we believe the true 
 remedy would be found somewhere in the dii-ection of the old saihng 
 rules. And that a return to the principles which, of old, governed the 
 highway of the sea, is the only method by which that lai'ge number of 
 collisions which now arise from "neglect or misapplication of tlie steering 
 and sailing rules"* can be lessened. 
 
 "These principles may be here recapitulated with advantage. They 
 are: 
 
 "1. Brevity. 
 
 "2. Clearness. 
 
 "3. Simplicity. 
 
 "4. That one ship only should clear the path of the other, which is to 
 stand on. 
 
 "5. The rules should depend more on matters oi fact, and less on 
 matters of opinion. 
 
 "The circumstances under which ships meet one another in the open 
 sea at the present day, do not differ in manner, however much they do 
 in degree, from those under which they met before the introduction of 
 steam. 
 
 "Their courses then crossed at various angles as they do now, and, so 
 long as sailing vessels exist, the meeting on exactly opposite courses on 
 the same line will continue an altogether exceptional case. 
 
 "The only practical difference is, that whereas there was a quarter 
 embracing twelve points of the compass, and determined by the direction 
 of the wind from which a ship could not approach another, and which 
 to the other was therefore a safety point, there is now no such safety 
 point, as by the introduction of steam, ships have become liable to be 
 approached from every quarter of the compass. But this was reaUy the 
 
 * Board of Trade Eetums. 
 
156 
 
 only change which was made in the circumstances of ships meeting; and 
 ships of all classes, whether steam or sail, when their coutses crossed at 
 a certain angle, might have acted to clear one another in precisely the 
 same manner — so far as the movement of the ships was concerned — as 
 they would have done as sailing ships steering in similar relative directions. 
 
 "But the introduction of steam, though it did not affect the actual 
 circumstances of ships meeting, yet destroyed the basis by which a 
 prearranged behavior of ships, when approaching one another, was secured. 
 
 " The direction of the wind, his own course, and the bearing of any sail 
 met with at sea, told the person in charge of the ship, in distinct terms, 
 what steps were incumbent on him to take, should it turn out that there 
 was risk of collision. But when steam came in, these matters which 
 Were well ascertained facts, became of no value in determining the proper 
 steps to be taken, for though he himself might be in a sailing vessel, and 
 governed by the wind, the ship approaching might be independent of 
 it ; and again, were he himself independent of the wind, he had no cer- 
 tainty that the approaching sliip was not governed by it, so that his only 
 means of forming a judgment on the steps necessary to avoid accident 
 was a careful examination of the approaching ship herself. 
 
 " He no longer' guided himself under the law by the facts concerning 
 his own ship, which were well known to him, but by the opinion he 
 formed of the facts relating to the other sliip, the grounds for which 
 opinion could only be partially ascertained. 
 
 "Hence we see that when the difficulties of maldng out a ship's char- 
 acter and course are greater — namely, at night — special means have been 
 taken, by the adoption of certain permanent lights, to distinguish the 
 steam from the saihng vessel, and to give some slight idea of a ship's 
 course to an observer outside her. 
 
 "These appliances modified the difficulties of the question, but did not 
 destroy them, for the law still left persons in charge of ships under the 
 impression that they were bound to act, not on their own circumstances and 
 position, but on those which should appear, as far as they could judge, to 
 belong to their neighbors. 
 
 " But although, by the use of steam the value of the wind, as a 
 common agent determining the courses and positions of ships when there 
 was risk of collision, was withdrawn, there was yet a circumstance 
 common to all ships, whether steam or sail, whenever there existed such 
 risk. The ships must either be both stem on, or the port side of one 
 must be towards the starboard side of the other. If the starboard bow 
 or side of one ship were towards the starboard bow or side of another 
 ship, there could be no risk of collision; or if the port bows or sides of 
 both were opposite, there could also be no risk of collision, nor anything 
 calling for either ship to alter her course. 
 
157 
 
 "If, therefore, rules were to be framed founded on this fact, we should 
 find them strictly analagous in principle with the old Sailing Eules, and 
 they would naturally tend more and more to simplicity, brevity, and 
 clearness. 
 
 " Rule XIV of the present regulations is consequently, in our view, the 
 most important steam rule yet issued, and one which, we believe, will yet 
 be the foundation on which all rules must be built. 
 
 " Certain modifications in the wording of the rule appear necessary, 
 which we here insert as our main position and 
 
 "First Eule. 
 
 " ' 'When any two ships intend to pass or cross near each other, that 
 one which has ihe other on her own starboard side shall keep out of 
 the way of that other; and that ship which has, or brings the other on 
 her port side, shall keep a steady course until all danger of collision 
 is past ^ 
 
 " Supposing for the moment that such a rule as this will cover all cases 
 of ships meeting at sea, its simplicity is undeniable. And all wiU admit 
 that it is capable of fixing itself distinctly in the lowest class of minds. 
 
 " There is another great advantage attaching to a rule framed in such 
 terms as these, over any involving a prescribed iise of the helm, namely, 
 that no matter what mistakes may have been made in the movements ol 
 two ships approaching each other, the application of the rule still remains 
 distinct and clear. However it may have been transgressed or forgotten, 
 at any moment when it is remembered it may vnth confidence be acted 
 on. With a compulsory helm the action of the law ceases the moment 
 one ship of two has wrongly applied it. Both are then free of the law, 
 and neither ship can draw from it any inference as to the action of the 
 other. 
 
 "Put into other words our rule infers, that any person in charge of a 
 ship is to consider everything on his port side as an object to get out of his 
 way and avoid him, with which he has nothing to do ; but every ship on 
 his starboard side is an object for him to avoid. Or, that he has the right 
 to cross tlie path of everything moving from port to starboard, but 
 everything moving fi-om starboard to port has the right to cross his path. 
 
 "Let us, therefore, test the apphcation of this rule, by the same diagrams, 
 representing the same cases as were appHed to test previous ones. 
 
 " First, we may take the case of steamers meeting steamers, as in the 
 diagram Fig. 1. 
 
 " X, a steamer, meets T, another steamer, in the position a, b, or c. 
 
 "In those positions T is on her port side, she, therefore, takes no steps 
 to avoid her, as she has the right of ci-ossing T's bows. Y, on the other 
 
158 
 
 hand, has X on her starboard side, which makes it her duty to keep out 
 of her way and let her pass. This Y may best do by easing her engines, 
 or by stopping. Being bound by no law to port her helm, Y will hardly 
 do so unless she has a very clear idea of X's course, her distance off, and 
 of the prudence of such a movement. 
 
 " But if Y be in either of the positions e, /, or g, X, having them on her 
 starboard side, is bound to keep out of their way, and to let them pass 
 her. She is noM'', with regard to them, in the same position as Y was 
 when on her port side, and is guided by the same rules and considerations 
 as Y was then. 
 
 " So far we have a perfectly clear and distinct rule governing all cases 
 of steamers meeting in the positions X and a, b, c, e,f, g, and of all 
 intermediate positions except that of d. 
 
 " We have before shown and need hardly here repeat, that the former 
 cases are the rule, and the positions d and X the exceptions, for the 
 circumstances under which ships meet at sea. 
 
 " It vrill be asked, do we propose to leave the most dangerous positioii 
 of all untouched by any express rule? The answer is, we certainly do. 
 
 " Had the course of previous legislation not been what we have shown 
 it, a rule calling on ships to pass on the port side of each other when, in 
 the words of the earliest proposed law, they were ' stem on,' might have 
 been advisable. But as such a rule would now give countenance to the 
 idea of a still compulsory ' port helm,' which it is our especial endeavor 
 to destroy, we are prepared to face the lesser evil of leaving the case 
 apparently without regulation. We say 'apparently' with a distinct 
 purpose, for we believe that we practically retain the rule of port helm 
 BO far as it is good, and only destroy that misapplication of it which is 
 mischievous. 
 
 " Let us suppose that X sights a ship right ahead at d, but does not at 
 first make out her course, under the present regulations the tendency is 
 for X to port at -once, so as to be legally right. If Y be steering due 
 south and does not alter course, X will clear her, but the chances are 
 evidently several thousands to one against her being found to steer that 
 particular course, and if Y is not steering due south, there can be no 
 collision should both ships keep their coui'ses. If Y should be steering 
 S.E. {d, Fig. 3,) X is merely increasing the danger by porting; but if Y 
 is steering anything to the westward of south there never was any danger. 
 
 "Ships opposite to one another with but a quarter of a point difference 
 between their paths, and only one mile apart, will leave a ship's length 
 between them in passing. 
 
 "But, under the action of the proposed rule, we may suppose that X 
 will be less liable to alter his own course until he makes out Y's course, 
 
159 
 
 (at d,) because there is no law compelling him to touch his helm, and 
 because unless Y be steering due south there can be no collision. 
 
 " But suppose that Y is found to be steering this exceptional course due 
 South. It will at first sight appear that both ships are left totally 
 unprovided with any guide to prevent them putting their helms opposite 
 ways, and so bringing about a collision. But this is not so, for the persons 
 in both ships will be anxious to take such a position as will give them 
 least trouble, they will each naturally bring the other on the port side, so 
 that they may not have to give way again, and the doing of this removes 
 at once all chance of collision. So that steamers will still, as now, pass 
 on the port side of each other in these cases, although no one can justify 
 himself on the plea that he ported his helm without further consideration. 
 
 " But as it is evident that there will be cases where X will starboard 
 and Y will port, notwithstanding the inducement the rule gives both to 
 port, let us take a case of this kind and ascertain how the rule will act 
 there : 
 
 "X and Y (Fig." 4) are two steamers steering opposite courses on the 
 same line, at night. We will suppose that both have the same speed, and 
 that in turning each ship describes a curve whose radius is 250 yards, 
 which is full allowance for all but the longest and largest classes of 
 ships; and we will place them not more than 850 yards apart, when X 
 at a first sights Y's white light at b, and starboards his helm. Y now 
 advanced to c, sights a light on his starboard bow. Now by the 
 rule there is clearly nothing to make Y port his helm. He has the light 
 on his starboard bow, his duty is to keep clear of the path of the vessel 
 showing that light, and he has not yet ascertained her path. Nor is there 
 any inducement for him to port his helm, as that will not put liim even 
 legally right, seeing that, should a collision occur, he will be con- 
 demned by the simple fact of the light having been observed on liis 
 starboard bow. 
 
 " But suppose that, ignoidng all these points, he yet ports him helm. 
 Having done so, and arrived at the point /", he sees X's green light now 
 arrived at the point e, not more than 500 yards distant. Y steadies his 
 helm, as the rule is still acting on him however much he may have trans- 
 gressed it, and it now directs him to keep a steady course. X at e, finding 
 himself still in the giving way position, puts his helm hard a-port, and the 
 ships pass clear of each other ultimately. 
 
 " It is not to be denied that we have here a case of the greatest possible 
 danger to both ships, but it is also not to be denied that it would be one 
 of the rarest, and that in order to produce it a series of mistakes have 
 been made which assume a perverse ignorance hardly capable of existing 
 in two minds at the same time. First, X must have wrongly altered liis 
 
160 
 
 course immediately on sighting a light right ahead, when the chances are 
 many thousands to one that the ship carrying that light is steering' a 
 course quite clear of his own. Next he must have chosen to bring this 
 light on that side which will be most likely to give him further trouble. 
 Y must, in the first instance, make the same mistake that X did of alter- 
 ing course entirely on speculation, with the additional error that, having 
 made out X on his starboard bow, it was his business to keep clear of 
 her path, which he attempted to do by running across her bows. 
 
 " But admitting that such an aggregation of errors may be expected to 
 combine so commonly to the bringing about of collision, that it is neces- 
 sary to provide specially against them, we have still a suggestion to make, 
 which we believe will meet all requirements. 
 
 " It is very seldom that two ships stand directly into danger with their 
 eyes open, one or the other of them is commonly aware of what is about 
 to happen, but from his doubt as to the ultimate proceeding of his oppo- 
 nent or other cause, he is unable to act so as to avoid it. On the other 
 hand, all experience shows that men in charge of ships sometimes feel 
 impelled to alter their helm, either one way or the other, when their 
 minds are really in doubt as to the propriety of doing so. These things 
 happen mainly at night, and the question may well be asked, why should 
 ships not use some simple signals amongst themselves, either to point out 
 their positions, or the helm they are using to approaching ships ? 
 
 " If X at <z (Fig. 4) could signal clearly and rapidly to Y at flJ, 'I am 
 starboarding my helm,' Y's mind would be perfectly at rest as to what 
 he ought to do, nor would there from that moment be the smallest risk. 
 Suppose X, although prepared to make such a signal, did not do so, but 
 that Y at the point c could say ' I am porting my helm,' so much time 
 would still be gained, and so much increased risk avoided. Lastly, sup- 
 pose neither of them thought of using these signals until Y arrived at the 
 pointy, but that she could then make, ' I am steering a steady course,' 
 X's mind would be still more assm-ed than it otherwise could be of the 
 position he stood in with regard to his neighbor. 
 
 " It will be assumed that, however well ships might be supplied with the 
 means of making such signals, such is the negligence of seamen that they 
 would refrain from using them at the only times they could do so with 
 advantage. The answer to this appears to be, that the extent of their 
 use would be measured by the handiness and simplicity of the signal 
 itself. 
 
 " We notice that, in all collision cases, some persons- in either ship are 
 found shouting 'hard a-port,' or 'hard a-starboard' to the other ship, previous 
 to contact, but long before their voices could be heard. If they were 
 provided with a signal as easy to use, but more powerful than their 
 
161 
 
 volcefe, there is every probability of their using it whenever it becomes 
 necessary or prudent to do so. 
 
 " We have now traced the action of the proposed rule for steamers, and 
 we think we have demonstrated, so far, that no evil results are likely to 
 accrue from the abolition of the rule of port helm altogether, in its favor. 
 
 "The advisabihty of making such a rule apply to all classes of ships 
 may be debated upon different grounds. 
 
 " On the one hand, we must remember that if we restore the old sailing 
 rules to their full force, we embarrass the minds of those in charge of 
 ships by modifying the' application of the steam rule we have laid down, 
 and tend towards placing that variety of considerations before them in 
 every case of approaching vessels, which we have held one of the evils of 
 the present law. We throw an additional element of doubt over choice 
 of means to avoid collision, and an additional element of dispute in the 
 apportionment of blame after the event. We certainly place sailing ships 
 in the position they held up to 1851, but it is a question whether such a 
 restoration is altogether advisable, seeing that sailing ships acted for 
 eleven years on a different rule, and are not at this moment entirely 
 under the old sailing rules: 
 
 " But we do not carry out the analogy to the state of things previous to 
 1840 which we have shoM-n to be desirable, for one principal part of that 
 state of things, was a single set of rules for all classes of ships, while we 
 here introduce a double set of rules, neither of which can be properly 
 obeyed until each ship has ascertained the class of the other. 
 
 "On the other hand, if we made one rule of universal application, we 
 must consider that although the old rule for sailing vessels was super- 
 seded by statute in 1851, and by subsequent acts; in point of fact it stiU 
 regulates passing ships to a considerable extent, the statute not being 
 .powerful enough to override the ideas which had been traditional for 
 centuries. 
 
 " We may possibly also, by including sailing ships under the steam rule, 
 impose duties on them wliich from the nature of things they cannot fulfil. 
 
 " Lastly, there is the general objection to change what has so recently 
 been made the law, and been accepted as such by so many maritime 
 states. 
 
 " Examining both sides of this question as carefully as we can, we are 
 led to conclude that the weight of argument lies in favor of making the 
 rule universal, with the exception of those cases (which must equally 
 apply to aU rules whatever) when following the rule would plainly lead 
 to danger. 
 
 " For, in. reply to the three last objections, it may justly be urged that 
 if at the present moment statute and tradition are at variance, and jointly 
 11 
 
162 
 
 govern ships, there can be no reason for the preservation of a statute 
 which has so far failed. Nor can there be any objection to the intro- 
 • duction of another statute, supposing it is not more at variance with 
 tradition than the present one. 
 
 " If, however, the new rule is actually inapplicable to sailing vessels, the 
 weight of argument is against us ; but we shall endeavor presently to 
 show that the new rule is plainly apphcable to such ships, and moreover 
 does not interfere with the tradition, except in certain cases. 
 
 " The final objection to change of any kind falls lightly after so many 
 changes in the law since 1840. Nay, it is rather an argument for 
 hastening the change, if it be really a desirable one, for the most recent 
 legislation has hardly had time to have taken root, and may be plucked 
 up with less danger now than hereafter. 
 
 "Let us now consider the efiect of the proposed rule, as regards saihng 
 vessels, and endeavor to ascertain whether its application to them is 
 impracticable. 
 
 "We will refer again to Fig.,1, and say that X and T are sailing 
 vessels. Let X be by the wind on the port tack. Under the old rules 
 she kept her course, and did not give way when T was in the positions 
 a, i, and c, or intermediate ones; but she has each of these ships on her 
 port side, she therefore under the new rule, still keeps her course. 
 While Y at a, b, or c, having X on her starboard side, keeps out of her 
 way exactly as she used to do. 
 
 " The case of Y in the position d, being the rare case, was hardly deter- 
 mined under the old rules, and it is left imdetermined still. X cannot 
 do any harm by starboarding her helm, as such proceeding stops her 
 way, and makes her a fixed mark for Y to avoid. Should she port her 
 helm, Y a,t d must keep clear of her course. So that, by the new rule, 
 a trifle more safety is gained than under the old. 
 
 " Should Y be in the position e, she is close-hauled on the starboard 
 tack; so, under the old rule, X must give way to her. But Y at e is on 
 X's starboard side, X must therefore act under the new rule, exactly as 
 she would have done under the old. No ships can be in the positions/ 
 and g. 
 
 " So that, when a ship is close-hauled on the port tack, the new rule in 
 no way distui bs the laws tradition has laid down for sailing vessels. 
 
 " Let X now be /;lose-hauled on the starboard tack. No ship can be 
 in the positions a and b ; but let Y be in the position c — that is, dose- 
 hauled on the port tack — meeting X under the old. rules, it is her duty 
 to give way, and , X's duty to keep her course. This arrangement is 
 unaltered under the new rule, as Y is on X's port side. Should Y be in 
 the position d, the exceptional case, the same remarks apply as when X 
 
163 
 
 was on the port tack. But we may add the observation here, that a ship 
 close-hauled on either tack is practically stationary, compared with a ship 
 fi-ee or under steam, and if the distance is small between the ships 
 nothing she can do will make a collision much more or much less 
 imminent than it otherwise would have been, so that Y at d, going free 
 and unhampered by compulsory helm, is pretty safe to clear X close- 
 hauled, whatever she does, X's movement to either side being altogether 
 insignificant. 
 
 "Now suppose T in either of the positions e, _/, or g ; under the old 
 rules X would have kept her course, and Y would have got out of her 
 way. But by the new i-ules it is X's duty to keep out of the way of Y, 
 as she is on her starboard side. In this case we have a distinct opposition 
 between the old and new rule, and it is therefore necessary to examine 
 carefully as to the latter's operation. 
 
 "The speed of Y, in the positions e,f, or g, or going free, is so much 
 greater than that of X, who is close-hauled, that if no steps whatever are 
 taken to avoid collision, no collision in the cases before us can possibly 
 occur; to make a. collision possible, X must be nearer the point o than 
 Y is. In other words, the ship close-hauled on the starboard tack runs 
 no risk fi-om a ship free keeping a steady com-se, unless she bears but 
 little on the port bow of the free ship. If she is broad on the bow there 
 is small fear of contact. Should X, therefore, from any cause neglect 
 to obey the rule, and stand on as if to cross the bows of Y at e,f, or g, 
 she must either be safe in doing so, as she is in the diagram, or she must 
 make the danger so plainly imminent to Y, as to relieve her from the 
 necessity of keeping her course. 
 
 "So it appears that the amount of danger likely to occur from a 
 confusion between the old and new rules will not probably be great, and 
 at all events not greater than it is at present. As if Y's position be a 
 little nearer the course of X, that is between e and d, she will be ' nearly 
 end on' to her, and X must throw herself in the wind or tack to avoid 
 her, by Article XI. 
 
 "But suppose that X clearly understands the new rule, and knows 
 that she must keep out of Y's way when in the positions e, /", g. She 
 may either tack or back her main topsail, and remain perfectly safe. Of 
 course it will be objected that a ship going free, and bemg able by a mere 
 movement of the helm to alter her course either to-starboard or to port, 
 without touching her sails, should not compel a ship to undertake a 
 manoeuvre which requires the sails to be worked. 
 
 "But surely the safety of all classes of ships should not be made 
 dependent in the smallest degree upon the convenience of one particular 
 class of ships in one particular position. 
 
164 
 
 "The question may consequently be put thus: whether it is better to 
 have a simple rule whose defect is, that it' obliges a ship to tack, throw 
 herself in the wind, or heave-to under certain circumstances, where 
 formerly she was not called upon to do so? Or to have a compHcated 
 rule, the only merit of whose complication is that it relieves' the ships 
 from acting as before mentioned ? We ourselves have no hesitation in 
 deciding in favor of the former course. 
 
 "Let us now suppose X to be free, say with the wind on either 
 quarter. She keeps her course when Y is in the positions a, b, or c. 
 If the wind is on the port quarter, Y is free in the positions a and b, as 
 well as X, so that we do not interfere with the old rule, c is, however, close- 
 hauled on the starboard tack, which makes the case that which we have 
 just disposed of. If the wind is on the starboard quarter there can be no 
 ship in the position c, and Y at J is then close-hauled on the starboard 
 tack as c was before. In neither direction of the wind can there be a 
 ship in the position d. 
 
 " If Y be in the position e, f, or g, X gets out of her way by the rule, 
 which is for Y, at e andy, simply carrying out the old law, for they are 
 the close-hauled positions when the wind is on X's starboard or port 
 quarter; and for g, which is a free position, the rule is an additional 
 guarantee for the security of both ships in passing. 
 
 " From this examination we gather that the new rule, as relates to sailing 
 ships, is by no means impossible of application, for that, in point of fact, 
 it follows out the traditional rule, except in one particular, that the 
 tendency of the new rule in this one particular is to encourage — as a 
 close-hauled ship will seldom bear up — checldng a ship's way through 
 the water to avoid fouling ia preference to using the helm, which will 
 be admitted on all hands to be desirable for every class of ships. That, 
 therefore, whatever ideas may be formed of the convenience of applying 
 such a rule, there can be no question of its safety. 
 
 " We have, lastly, to examine the bearing of the rule when applied to 
 two ships, one of which is a steam and the other a sailing slaip. 
 
 " First, let X be a saiUng vessel close-hauled on the port tack, and Y a 
 steamer in the positions a, b, or c. The steamer keeps out of the way of 
 the sailing vessel X by the present law, and by the proposed rule does so 
 also. If Y is at d, X's progress is so slow in comparison that, whatever 
 he does, Y should have no difficulty in avoiding him. But the inference 
 will be that X will do nothing — there being no law calling on him to 
 _ act, and to do notliing is the best course for him under the circumstances. 
 
 "If Y is in the position e, X will act towards him under the proposed 
 rule, as she would have acted under the old rule, had Y been a saihng 
 vessel, which is a manifest simplification. 
 
165 
 
 "It is only when Y is in the positions ^^ or g^ that the saihng vessel on 
 the port tack is imperatively called upon to take steps to do what she has 
 hitherto been excused from. But here again, from the difference of speed, 
 the probability is that X must be v«ry little on the bow of Y at/ or g — 
 or very much nearer the point o — to call for any change in X's move- 
 ments. Such a position is so plainly dangerous that whether X tacks, 
 heaves-to, or bears up, Y will be reheved of the necessity to keep her 
 course, and she will, by a touch of her helm, pass on either side of an 
 object which, before she reaches it, is very nearly right ahead. And 
 after all it does not entail any very severe labor on X, to call on her to 
 back her main topsail, so as to allow her neighbor to cross her bows. 
 
 "If X is on the starboard tack close-hauled, the old rules are unaltered 
 for all steamers on her port side, it is now their business to keep clear of 
 X's course, and the proposed rule leaves such arrangements untouched. 
 
 " If Y is in the position d, the circimastances are the same as when X 
 was close-hauled on the port tack, and the same remarks apply. 
 
 " The existing rules are interfered with by the action of those proposed, 
 when Y is at e, f, or g, but as the case is exactly similar to that where 
 both ships are saihng vessels, and as the rules are interfered with in 
 precisely the same manner, we need not here repeat what was then said. 
 
 " Lastly, let X be going free. The existing rules are not interfered with 
 for any steamer on the port side. If Y be in the position «?, they are 
 altered to the extent that X would keep her course imder the present 
 rules, whereas by those proposed she may be called on to alter it. Were 
 this not such an exceptional position as it is, there might be a loss of 
 security by the action of the proposed rules; being so, however, the 
 amount of security withdrawn is infinitesimal. The present law, again, 
 would be altered by the action of the proposed rule, for every steamship 
 on X's starboard side. But on this it may fairly be argued if X, under 
 the old state of things, may be called on to give way to close-hauled ships 
 on either tack, of whom she meets many, why shoiild she not, when great 
 general simphcity is gained, give way to steamers on her starboard side, 
 of whom she meets few? 
 
 "We have thus concluded an examination of the action of the rule 
 proposed, for aU classes of ships in all positions where there is actually 
 risk of colhsion if no rules were established. 
 
 " Let us now examine its effects where this risk of collision is only 
 supposed, and does not really exist. 
 
 " There we may at once see we have gained a great step in advance. 
 We have withdrawn all idea of risk of collision from the minds of those 
 on whom our first rule is to act, and we simply say : ' You may pass all 
 ships in a certain direction, but you must allow all ships in a certain 
 
166 
 
 other direction to pass you.' Again, risk of collision can only arise to 
 any great extent on the starboard side, so that the field of possible error 
 is only half as large as it is under existing rules. 
 
 " But suppose the person in chargp of X, in Fig. 3, sees a ship T, at 
 or near the points d, e, f, or g, but cannot make out her course, under 
 the existing rule he does not feel the obligation of distinctly making out 
 Y's course before he alters his helm. It is quite sufficient for him to 
 believe it possible that Y Tnay be steering as she, is in Fig. 1, to enable 
 him to port his helm, as he considers that in any case it is Y's business 
 to port also. And he may, and does in fact, constantly run into danger 
 when there was previously none. 
 
 "But under the action of the proposed rule he is bound ./^rai of all to 
 ascertain Y's course, because, until he has done so, he cannot act under 
 the rule. Should he fail in ascertaining this he can only act on Rule 
 III, which is in all cases a safe one, and can lead no ship wrong. 
 
 "There is, therefore, no temptation held out to ships to run into 
 danger, as there is more or less at present, and so far the action of the 
 proposed law will generally be acknowledged valuable. 
 
 " There are stiU some general considerations which appear to us to tell 
 very strongly in favor of making the rule we suggest universal. 
 
 " It has always been held that ships under steam are to be treated 
 alike, whether they have sail set or not. As the basis of the original rule 
 of steamers getting out of the way of sailing vessels was the great facihty 
 for doing so, supposed to be possessed by the former, it must have been 
 imagined that having sail set made no practical difierence in a steamer's 
 handiness. 
 
 "But every seaman knows that heavily rigged steamers with square 
 sails set act practically as sailing vessels, and the power their steam 
 possesses over their sails is but slight in strong winds. Few steamers can 
 steer with their square sails aback. The larger and newer classes of 
 men-of-war, when acting with fleets, are commonly found with sails set 
 and very low steam, enough to put them under command, but certainly 
 not enough to give them greater manceuvering facihties than the most 
 ordinary sailing merchant ship. So that a steamer may find herself 
 credited with facility of manceuvering which she practically has not, and 
 the action of a rule based on this false supposition may turn to evil. 
 
 "Again, many screw steamers, with square sails set, are in no degree 
 difierent in appearance from sailing vessels. If, in the day tune, the 
 smoke is not visible, which it often is not, there is sometimes little to 
 show an approaching vessel to be under steam. In men-of-war there is 
 nothing, as they become steam and sailing vessels alternately two or three 
 times in the same 24 hours. Nor is the smoke with them any guide, as 
 
167 
 
 nothing is more common than to l^eep the fires alight while the screw is 
 out of the water. 
 
 "Now it should be clear enough that if the rules are framed in such a 
 manner as to make it imperative for X to get out of Y's way if she is a 
 steamer, but equally imperative for Y to get out of X's way if she is a 
 sailing vessel, each must have the clearest possible indications of the 
 other's class. This clear indication we have shown does not always exist 
 in the day time. At night, however, steamers are specially distinguished 
 by the masthead light. But it is not a little strengthening to our argument 
 for doing away with the difference between rules for sailing and steam- 
 ships, to reflect that, just at the very time when*, steamer is most likely to 
 be mistaken for a sailing vessel, her special distinguishing mark is most 
 likely to be hid by her sails. 
 
 " On the whole, then, we think the convenience and safety of shipping 
 will be best consulted by making one 'Kule of, the Eoad' at sea, for all 
 classes of ships. 
 
 " Before quitting the subject of our first rule, we must not omit to state, 
 and meet, the strongest objection to its terms we have yet found. It is 
 contained in an address of Dr. Lushington to the Elder Brethren in the 
 case of the Josephine Willis v. the Mangerton, (1856,) and is in the 
 following words:* 
 
 " ' You are not to scan too nicely how the ships bear from each other, 
 but if there is any probability of a risk of collision, the statute' (porting 
 the helm) ' ought to be obeyed. I am sure that all our experience teaches 
 us that this was a very wise rule and regulation, because we constantly have 
 conflicting evidence as to whether a vessel was on one bow or the other, 
 or two points on one bow or the other.' • 
 
 "I^ow the utterance of so distinct a condemnation of any attempt to 
 make what we have chosen, the basis of a law, by the learned Judge of 
 the Admiralty Court demands at our hands the gravest and most careful 
 consideration. Having given it such consideration, we think that great 
 authority himself would not be slow to admit, on a review of his dictum, 
 that he has stated in the first sentences of the passage that which fully 
 explains the last. 
 
 " If the law at that time directed seamen ' not to scan too nicely how 
 the ships bore from each other,' how could there be anything but 'con- 
 flicting evidence' on that particular point? And have we thereon the 
 smallest ground for doubting that, if the law enjoined attention to that 
 point, 'conflicting evidence' would only exist so far as interest or care- 
 lessness produced it? 
 
 '' See Appendix I. 
 
168 
 
 " But the question is one for seamen alone, which, with all due respect, 
 we should withdraw from the decision of the Admiralty Court. We do 
 not care to determine what difficulties may exist in the production of 
 conclusive evidence; but it is most necessary to know distinctly what 
 difficulties exist in the determination of which bow a ship appears when 
 first sighted. This question we leave to practical seamen to answer; we 
 ourselves believing that the bearing of any object from a ship either by 
 night or day, in reference to the line of keel, can be ascertained at a 
 glance, with sufficient accuracy by any seaman of ordinary intelligence. 
 
 " Up to this point we have dealt solely with what appeared to us the 
 reason of the thing, and •have founded our arguments entirely on what 
 might be supposed from a consideration of the circumstances attending 
 maritime traffic. "We should not establish our position completely xmless 
 we showed that, according to the evidence of impartial witnesses, exist- 
 ing facts, and the reported circumstances under which ships meet, pass, 
 or come into collision, were in harmony with our deductions from a 
 different set of data. If an examination of reliable evidence should 
 show our views to be incorrect, there is an end to the question so far as 
 we are concerned. If, however, such an examination shows an agree- 
 ment between our suppositions and reported facts, our case for .an 
 alteration of the law becomes so strong, that there remains no excuse for 
 the retention of a statute so faulty and dangerous. Should, however, 
 the only evidence obtainable exhibit such discrepancies as to justify any 
 doubts respecting the side towards which it leans, we should claim the 
 benefit of that doubt in our own favor on the score of our previous 
 reasoning. 
 
 "Acting on these, views, we have been at the pains to examine the 
 whole of the colhsion cases tried in the Admiralty Court which occurred 
 between 1854 and 1864, and we submit an abstract of those which are 
 relevant to the points at issue in the Appendix. 
 
 "We should premise that the evidence supplied by the Admiralty 
 Court records requires the most careful sifting before its lessons can be 
 extracted and applied. In many of those cases where a casual glance 
 would lead to the supposition that valuable data might be gleaned, there 
 is found an absolute opposition of evidence on the primary elements for 
 determining the facts of the case. The learned Judge of the Admiralty 
 Court has constantly remarked on this point, both in his judgments and 
 his addresses to the Elder Brethren, and we regret to add our fear that 
 conflicting evidence is the rule rather than the exception in that ancient 
 court of law. Om- table has been compiled from the Preliminary Acts 
 of the opposing parties, checked by an examination of the evidence and 
 the judgment of the court whenever important discrepancies appear in 
 the two docvunents. 
 
169 
 
 "A slight scrutiny into the data furnished by the table will sufficiently 
 Confirm what we have stated above. There are, according to our table, 
 51 cases, or 25 per cent, of the whole (which we classify as 'doubtful') 
 where either the courses steered are irreconcilable with the relative 
 positions stated to be held by the ships, and therefore no reliable hypo- 
 thesis can be framed, as in Case 11; or "where, as in Case 89, the ships 
 might have met as stated, but could not by any possibility have come 
 into collision had they afterwards acted as described. We are not con- 
 cerned here to investigate the causes which produce these irreconcilable 
 discrepancies; the remarks of Dr. Lushington show them to be various; 
 we om'selves believe that much is due to the divergent ideas respecting 
 what constitutes 'risk of collision,' and to the fact that, whilst the 
 court requires for its decisions specific information on certain niceties in 
 the situation of the ships and their bearings from each other, no hint of 
 such requirements occurs in the statute. So that we are not necessarily 
 compelled to place the contradictions exhibited, except, perhaps, a small 
 minority, down to wilful misstatement. 
 
 " But, on the other hand, our table contains a large number of cases 
 where no material discrepancies exist, where the positions of the ships 
 are well ascertained and where the steps taken by each clearly brought 
 about the collision. 
 
 "Before proceeding to separate the doubtful cases from the rest, the 
 table may be dealt with as a whole in respect of- the courses stated to 
 have been steered by the diiferent sliips on sighting each other. 
 
 "There are so many checks on any considerable error here, and so few 
 circumstances tending to misstatement, that, the columns containing this 
 matter may be assumed correct. 
 
 " Turning, therefore, to the summary given at the end of the table, we 
 find that omitting exactly opposite courses, to be mentioned presently, 
 there are Y9 cases of colHsion where the paths of the two ships crossed 
 at an angle of two points and under, against 78 cases where the angle 
 was greater than two points. The important lesson to draw from this 
 fact is, that allowing the first class to include all those cases covered by 
 the terms 'meeting nearly end on,' in Articles XI and XIII of the 
 existing law, and the second, those covered by the terms 'crossing,' in 
 Articles XII and XIV; then it appears that the importance of the two, 
 laws is equal, relatively to the number of cases they each govern. 
 
 " Consequently (supposing that each law is equally good for its own 
 cases) compulsory port helm cannot be supported on the groimd of its 
 applicability to a majority of circumstances. 
 
 "The eases where ships meet 'end on' steering exactly opposite 
 courses, might possibly be found numerous enough to swell the 79 cases 
 
170 
 
 of 'nearly end on' to something like a majority; but it appears on 
 examination not possible to assert distinctly that even one such case 
 occurred out of the 202 tabulated, and there seem to be only about thi-ee 
 out of the 27 cases of opposite com-ses where it was even probable the 
 ships met ' end on.' These are most valuable conclusions to establisli 
 by statistics, for they confirm "the truth of our earlier reasoning, and 
 show that at least no more injurious results can flow from making the 
 rule given in Article XIV universal, than have already flowed from the 
 practically universal application of the rule in Article XIII. 
 
 " To proceed with the examination of the table, the summary shows 
 that there are 61 cases so doubtful as to render them useless for our 
 purposes. 
 
 "This leaves 151 cases for such classiflcation as may appear most 
 suitable. 
 
 "To bring about risk of collision between two moving ships, they 
 must either approach one another on the same line from opposite direc- 
 tions, or their respective courses must cross at some point ahead of both. 
 In the former case time has nothing to do with establishing the risk, as, 
 no matter what their relative speed may be, their courses, if unaltered, 
 sooner or later lead to collision. In the latter case, the element of time 
 is an important one, as, unless the two ships be equally distant, in respect 
 of time,- from the point of intersection of their courses, they cannot 
 come into collision. This consideration shows that unless the bearing 
 and distance apart of the ships, their relative speeds, and the exact 
 moments at which they respectively altered their helms, can be accurately 
 stated, th^'e must remain a .considerable number of cases where neither 
 the amount of risk, nor the propriety or otherwise of the steps taken to 
 avoid it, can be determined. There are, again, many cases where, either 
 from fog; or bad look-out, the ships do not sight one another at all, until 
 too late for any steps to be available. In point of fact, these classes, 
 with some minor ones, form a group of 65 cases, which it is necessary 
 to extract from our table under the head of 'Oases not classified.' An 
 examination of any single case, such as 22, 35, or 38, will suflBciently 
 disclose the nature of these cases, and the impossibility of deriving from 
 them any data of value relative to the effect of the law. 
 
 "It is not, however, without a certain significance that in these non- 
 classified collisions the use of port helm is claimed in 92 instances, 
 whilst starboard helm is claimed in only 23. 
 
 "An examination of the remaining 86 cases, reveals the startling fact 
 
 Note.— The Admiralty Court having decided by its judgment of February 1, 1867, that 
 the Osprey was justified in the course she pursued, and that the collision was entirely due to 
 the Amazon, we can only add that if anything were wanted to arouse the community to a 
 sense of the dangerous state of the law, this decision should do it. 
 
171 
 
 that there was no original risk of collision in 31 of them, and that while 
 starboard helm can only be said to have brought about first the risk and 
 then the colHsion in 2 of these cases, port helm, is left responsible for 25. 
 
 "The inference here, as against the law, is strongly in favor of the 
 supposition that port helm was used in doubt, to be on the 'legally safe 
 side. . 
 
 "It appears again that while starboard helm can only be called impro- 
 per in 13 cases, port helm appears to have been improper in 53. 
 
 "It must be understood that in speaking of a movement being 
 improper, we refer in no degree to the legal aspect of the case, and 
 consequently it will in many instances be found that the Admiralty 
 Court rightly condemn the one ship, while we, from our point of view, 
 as justly condemn the other. What we understand by an improper 
 movement is when a ship takes any steps leading her across the bows of 
 another. 
 
 "Legally this is often the right step, because of the assumption that 
 the other ship will talce a similar one. But in speaking of what is 
 proper to be done by one ship when there is risk of collision with 
 another, the only sure ground is to assume no change in the other's 
 com'se. In our summary, therefore, we have set down port or starboard 
 helm as improper, (1) when there was no original risk, and (2) where 
 there is risk and the helm used increases it. Comment on the fact that 
 out of 86 cases of collision, obedience to the law of port helm assisted to 
 bring about 54, while disobedience to it only acted injuriously in 13, is 
 perhaps • needless. Explanation may be offered rendering the plain 
 inference less valid, but as we have been unable to discover any, we are 
 bound to assume the facts to be altogether confirmatory of our views. 
 
 "It is, perhaps, a more deheate task to appeal to those collisions of 
 recent occurrence which have been the proximate cause of our publishing 
 this treatise, and which, while they have been made the subject of " 
 special inquiry, may yet come for decision before the Admiralty Court. 
 But we do not tliink we should omit these eases from our review, more 
 especially as some of them form such excellent illustrations of the action 
 of the law. 
 
 "Let us take first the case of the Amazon and Osprey. The long and 
 patient inquiry by court martial elicited perfectly intelligible and, with a 
 small exception, consistent statements of facts from both sides, which 
 leave little to be desired for our pui-poses. 
 
 "The two ships sighted one another several miles apart on a clear, 
 fine night, at least twelve minutes before the collision. The Osprey 
 first sighted the Amazon's masthead light a little on her port bow, and 
 soon afterwards the Amazon sighted the Osprey's masthead light a little 
 
172 
 
 on h(r starboard bow. The Osprey was steering E. by S., and the 
 Amazon W. ^ S., so that the two paths would intersect at some pcint 
 south of both ships and 'between them. Whether there was risk of 
 collision at this point of intersection depended on the distance apart of 
 the ships and their relative speeds, considered with reference to their 
 bearing from each other. As only the last of these necessary elements 
 could be accurately obtained, it was, strictly speaking, open to either 
 party to assume or repudiate the binding action of the law, while at the 
 same time we must remark that the chances were many thousands to one 
 against a risk of collision in such a case, were no change of course made 
 by either party. 
 
 " The Amazon starboarded her helm for reasons beyond the scope of 
 the statute, and brought the Osprey broad on her starboard bow. The 
 latter, having previously ported a little, distinctly saw the change in the 
 Amazon's course, and knew she was on her starboard bow; then, in 
 compliance with the common interpretation of the statute, and in a fancied 
 security engendered by the supposed legality of the proceeding, she 
 continued to make with small port helm a long sweep across the Amazon's 
 bows ! At length the inevitable catastrophe, which the conduct of both 
 ships had led up to, occurred, and resulted in the destruction of two 
 valuable ships and several lives. 
 
 " "We are happily spared the necessity of balancing the- blame in this 
 case; that to be borne by the man-of-war has been decided by a competent 
 tribunal, and that to be borne by the merchant ship will doubtless be 
 apportioned by the Admiralty Court. What we are concerned with is 
 the action of the law, and the determination of whether it be not a 
 particeps criminis in the matter. For the sake of argument we may 
 allow that there was risk of collision in the first instance, and that the 
 law was therefore broken by the Amazon. 
 
 "Would a perfect law leave a ship in the Osprey's position without 
 distinct guidance in such a very ordinary contingency ? The Amazon 
 we saw put her helm to starboard for reasons out of the view of the 
 law. These reasons may have been good or bad, we are only concerned 
 to point out that the change of the Amazon's course noticed by the 
 Osprey might have been unavoidable without any reference to the Osprey 
 herself — for instance, to clear a group of fishing boats. If, therefore, the 
 law obliged the Osprey to keep her helm to port, it forced her to do that 
 which led in the surest possible way to danger, and its action was altogether 
 evil, being a main cause of the collision. 
 
 " If, on the other hand, it did not so call upon her to keep her helm 
 to port, what other guidance did it furnish? It gave her the option, if 
 she objected to the dangerous performance of running across the Amazon's 
 
173 
 
 bows, of considering herself under Article XIY of the Steering Rules, and 
 as ' crossing' instead of being ' nearly end on' to her. 
 
 "Under this Article she might have maintained a steady course and 
 left it to the Amazon to clear her. But she had no certainty whatever 
 that the Amazon would feel herself also under Article XIV. It was 
 quite possible that she might at any moment put her helm to port, in a 
 late obedience to Article XIII ; then, if the very probable contact between 
 the ships occurred while the Osprey was under starboard helm coming 
 up to her course, and the Amazon under port helm, turning to starboard, 
 there was the very justifiable fear of condemnation in the Admiralty 
 Court.* So that, practically, the law left the unfortunate Osprey with a 
 choice of risks. The single risk of being run dowTi under port helm, or 
 the double risk of being run down first and afterwards condemned in the 
 Admiralty Court. 
 
 "We leave out of consideration, for obvious reasons, the action of 
 Article XYI in this case, the more so as we propose to retain it. 
 
 " On the other hand, the Amazon was placed in the same predicament 
 until the risk of collision became too imminent for any steps to avert it. 
 Should she at any moment reverse the error we supposed she had 
 committed, and port her helm in obedience to Article XIII, there was 
 the obvious consideration that she had already given her approaching 
 neighbor every reason for putting herself iinder Article XIY, and that 
 persistence, in even a wrong course to the end, would probably be a clearer 
 guide to her than a display of wavering intentions. 
 
 "We may fairly ask whether, on a dispassionate review of the action 
 of the present law, on this single case, it is not found wanting in the 
 cliief elements which should render it valuable ? 
 
 "If we apply our proposed rule to its case, we shall see a very different 
 state of things revealed, leaving the fair inference that no collision would 
 have occurred under a similar law. We may suppose the Amazon star- 
 boarding her helm in this instance also, for we assume the law had nothing 
 to say to that movement on her part. The Osprey, it is evident, would 
 never have altered her course at aU, for she sighted the Amazon on her 
 port bow. But even had she, in disobedience to the law, ported her helm 
 at first, she would certainly have come back to her old course, or steadied 
 her helm on seeing the Amazon's green light, for the danger of collision 
 and of condemnation by the Admiralty Court were both incurred by the 
 use of port helm, in either case the ships must have passed miles clear of 
 
 * Captain Key. — "When, from your losing eight of the red light of the Amazon, and the 
 green coming into view, it was evident the Amazon's head was turning to port, do you consider 
 it right to keep the Osprey's helm a-port?" Captain BartHdge. — "Certainly, for if I had 
 shifted my helm a-starboard I should have been considered to blame and very justly." — 
 Proceedings of Amazon's Covrt-martial, 
 
174 
 
 each other. Nor, it is important to observe, could there have been the 
 smallest hesitation consequent on a doubt of the other ship's action. The 
 law prescribed a perfectly distinct rale for each ship, about which it was 
 impossible there could be a difference of opinion. 
 
 " The next case we have to remark on is that of the Haswell and 
 Bruiser. Here again the Board of Trade inquiry furnishes us with a 
 fairly reliable statement of the circumstances leading to the collision. 
 
 " The Haswell was steering- N.E -J^ N. on a clear night. She sighted, 
 on the port bow, the masthead light of the Bruiser which was then steering 
 S.S.W. ^ W., probably exposing her green light, although it was invisible 
 to the Haswell from the distance. Abont the same time a faster steamer 
 than the Haswell (the Grrenadier) passed, her, and drawing near the 
 Brtuser caused her to port her helm, thereby exposing her bed light to 
 the Haswell, which the latter saw and, in presumed obedience to the 
 ' Rule of the Koad,' ported her helm, bringing the Bruiser a couple oi 
 points on her port bow. The Grenadier having passed, the Bruiser was 
 brought back to her old course, thus bringing the Haswell a little on her 
 starboard bow, where she was immediately seen by the person in charge 
 of the Bruiser. For reasons unconnected with the steering rules, the 
 Bruiser's helm was put more to starboard, so that the two sliips were 
 running directly into danger, each bearing two points on opposite bows. 
 The danger was observed by the master of the Haswell, there was 
 imminent 'risk of colhsion' and he put her helm hard a-port, striking the 
 Bruiser amidships and sinking her with many passengers. The Bruiser 
 had also discovered the danger and had, in opposition to the law, put her 
 helm hard a-starboard. Regarding these final movements there is this 
 to be said : The ofiicer of the Haswell was made fully aware that a steamer 
 on his port bow was turning to port so as to cross his path. Clearly the 
 proper method of avoiding collision was either to stop dead, or to turn to 
 port also, but this latter involved a direct contravention of the statute. As 
 it seems certain the Haswell was on the Bruiser's starboard bow previous 
 to the change of helm, turning to starboard was the most dangerous step 
 which could be taken, biit the event proved it was in accordance with the 
 law. It is, howevSr, quite possible that, where the danger is so very 
 imminent, the power of the law becomes small, and action is taken on an 
 estimate of present circumstances only, so that, although we cannot omit 
 to notice that obedience to the law did in this case ultimately act destruct- 
 ively, it is more important to observe whether the law had any share in 
 bringing about a state of things which made danger so imminent. Our 
 case, viewed in this light, is not so strong as in that of the Amazon, and 
 rests on the' probabihty that, had the Haswell not ported in the first 
 instance, the change of course of the Bruiser, noticed by the Haswell, 
 
175 
 
 would have taken place either ahead or on the starboard bow of the latter 
 ship. In neither case would there have been risk of collision, nor perhaps 
 even dangerous proximity of the ships. In any case the law was clearly 
 wrong in suggesting port helm on seeing a steamer's red light only, on 
 the port bow, because it was an unnecessary movement, an attempt to 
 avoid a danger which did not exist, and, therefore, liable to lead to further 
 campHcations, especially amongst crowded shipping. 
 
 "Applying now the proposed rule to the circumstances of this case, we 
 may observe that if the proximate cause of colUsion was the first change 
 of course by the Haswell, and the ultimate cause, the last porting of 
 the helm, acting in combination with a dangerous and illegal movement 
 on the part of the Bruiser, then, under the proposed rule, the Haswell 
 would have been bound to avoid the first error as well as the second, and 
 would have been restricted to the stoppage and reversal of her engines 
 alone, which could by no possibility have increased the danger, and might 
 have avoided it altogether. 
 
 "The next cas& worthy of remark is the sinking of the schooner East 
 Cornwall by the steamer Cobden, which also resulted in loss of life, and 
 which, if there be any virtue in evidence, or any truth in legal decisions, 
 is as distinctly due. to the action of the law of port helm as its greatest 
 opposers could wish. The value of this case is, that there is on neither 
 si3e a controverted point, the facts are clearly established, and, moveover, 
 a competent tribunal has decided that the steering rules were obeyed. 
 
 "The facts are simple, and may be stated in few words: The East 
 Cornwall was hove-to and, therefore, motionless. She had her port side 
 turned towards the Cobden, and was seen on the latters starboard bow 
 three or four minutes before the collision. Under such circumstances 
 the Cobden put her helm hard a-port and ran over the unfortunate victim 
 in obedience to the law. We say in obedience to the law, for the 
 verdict of the legal tribunal which tried the case is, that 'the mate 
 of the Cobden acted promptly by putting his helm a-port and hard 
 a-port,' and credit is given him for such promptitude. Now, under the 
 circumstances of these two ships, it is plain that as a change of course to 
 starboard brought about a collision with a stationary object, either no 
 change of course, or a change to port, would have avoided the danger. 
 Tlie law, therefore, is alone to blame for this catastrophe, in that it 
 justified the officer of the Cobden in himself creating the danger. 
 
 " The safety of our rule when tested by this case is very plain. The 
 Cobden could not have legally altered her helm until she had ascertained 
 the situation of the object sighted on her starboard bow. If in any 
 doubt, her only legal method of avoiding danger was stopping and 
 reversing the engines. If she acted free of the law, the use of starboard 
 
176 
 
 helm — as in the case of the Amazon and Bruiser — was the natural means 
 to give a wide berth to a doubtful object on the starboard bow. In no 
 case would any man in his senses turn towards a ship whose situation 
 was undetermined, unless the law suggested such a course. 
 
 "It is clear, therefore, that a collision would have been a very remote 
 contingency had the Cobden and the East Cornwall been subject to our 
 first rule. 
 
 "The last case to which we have to advert is the most serious in loss 
 of life, but which, happening in the Ked Sea, did not attract so much 
 attention as similar disasters at home. This is the case of the Nada and 
 the Bhima steamers, which resulted in the total loss of the latter, with 
 79 lives. 
 
 "Not having the detail of the evidence produced before the court of 
 inquiry at Aden, we are constrained to take the published judgment of 
 the court as determining the facts of the case. We must quote this 
 document at length, as it contains an extraordinary though unwitting 
 condemnation of the law of port helm, and an equally .decisive testimony 
 to the value of a law such as we advocate. 
 
 " 'After a careful consideratipn of the evidence produced, it appears to 
 the Court that the master of the Nada, on sighting the Bhima's hght, 
 paid due attention to the orders in force on the subject of steam vessels 
 meeting at sea, in that he at once ported his helm on ascertaining that a 
 steamer was in fight, and brought her to bear about two points on his 
 port bow, and then steadied the helm, and that, further, upon a nearer 
 approach, when the steamers were nearly end on to each other, and about 
 600 yards apart, he put his helm hard a-port, and naturally expected that 
 the other vessel would have done the same, but she, on the contrary, 
 appears from the evidence to have kept steadily on her course, and at 
 this juncture suddenly to have put her helm hard a-starboard, thereby 
 rendering a collision inevitable. 
 
 " ' Seeing the Bhima attempting to cross his bows, Captain Hanscom 
 would appear to be justiiied in having put the Nada's helm hard a-star- 
 board also, as being his only apparent chance of clearing the ship; and, 
 consequently, the Court is of opinion, that the cause of the collision is 
 entirely attributable to the Bhima not having been steered according to 
 the Eules of the Road.' 
 
 "From this judgment it appears that there was originally no real risk 
 of collision, because the Bhima did not alter her course at all itntil a 
 dangerous proximity had been brought about by the Nada's change of 
 course to starboard, and, therefore, had this change not taken place no 
 danger could have arisen. If, as is beheved, the courses of the two ships 
 were originally nearly parallel, then they were well clear, on one another's 
 
177 
 
 starboard bow in the first instance. It also appears that there was legal 
 warrant for assuming a risk of collision sufficient to put the law of port 
 helm in force. Had there been no law, it is not possible to conceive the 
 Wada acting as she did, running into needless danger on the remote 
 supposition that the other ship would avoid it. If, therefore, as we are 
 bound to assume, the movement of the Nada was in accordance with the 
 law, and would have been an unreasonable movement had there been no 
 law, there is no escape from the conclusion, that the law is responsible 
 for the disaster which befeU the Bhima. 
 
 "Had the Nada been bound by oiu* proposed rule she could not legally 
 have made the change of course at all. It was a change across the path 
 of a ship, only to be justified by the understanding that the latter would 
 not pursue it. The understanding established by our rule is that the ship 
 to be avoided will pursue whatever path she may be following at the 
 moment. No use of the helm whatever by the Nada could be justified 
 until the Bhhna's course and situation had been ascertained, and had 
 they been so ascertained the absence of necessity for any change of course 
 would have been disclosed. 
 
 "We have now closed our examination of the actuaV effects of the law 
 of port helm on reported cases, together with the probable effect on the 
 same of that law which we propose as a substitute, and we think that we 
 may claim that fact as well as argument lies in our favor. There is, 
 however, a large class of practical men, for whose opinions we have the 
 highest i-espect, but who, if they honor us with their attention, will object 
 to most of our argument on the score of its minuteness, and also because 
 we have dealt so largely in probabilities. Our answer to such objectors 
 is that in so complex a matter, a right judgment cannot be arrived at 
 except by a rigid analysis of details; that we have only dealt with proba- 
 bilities where firmer ground was denied us ; however, we may assert our 
 conviction that had the question been fully argued out twenty years ago,, 
 we should have had a rule of the road commanding the respect, as well' 
 as the obedience of the maritime world, and not requiring five alterations- 
 to produce final dissatisfaction. 
 
 " We shall be also met by the objection that, admitting the rule of 
 compulsory helm assisted to bring about collision in certain quoted cases, 
 these may be exceptions, and the fact may be that the law averts collisions 
 in a large majority of cases not produced. To this we reply that ViO facts 
 are available on either side of the argument.' We must trust to an 
 examination of probabilities, which we assert and have attempted to 
 prove. He against such a supposition. 
 
 "It only remains to touch lightly on those necessary additions to the 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 leading rule,* which must always be attached to whatever laws are 
 established. 
 
 "As rules originally drawn up for the guidance of steamers in rivers 
 and narrow channels are inapplicable to the open sea, so rules which are 
 framed in view of the circumstances of the open sea, are inapplicable to 
 rivers and channels. 
 
 " We discover a violation of the first of these principles and an admis- 
 sion of the second in the steam rules of 1846 ; we also observe a neglect 
 of the second or converse axiom in the latest statute. The former steering 
 rules supposed that ships ordinarily met in the open sea, under circum- 
 stances similar to their meeting in rivers, the latter seem to infer that 
 ships meet in rivers under circumstances so analogous to those of the 
 open sea that no special guidance is necessary. 
 
 "A very few reflections will convince us of the impropriety of this 
 idea. The elements available to guide a ship meeting another in the 
 open sea, are only her own position and a more or less accurate estimate 
 of that held by the other. In rivers and narrow channels, there is a third 
 fixed and common element capable of accurate estimate by both parties, 
 in the shores which bound the belt of water. If no account be taken of 
 the presence of these shores by the law, it will become in many cases 
 impossible to obey it, and its force by so much wiU be weakened. 
 Again, if the shores must in any case be taken into account, it is evidently 
 preferable to frame the rules in terms only involving their position which 
 is known, and that of the ships to be guided by them which is also 
 known ; and to neglect any mention of the ship to be avoided, seeing that 
 she is at the best but an uncertain guide. These considerations lead us 
 naturally to the establishment of our second rule.* We may further observe 
 that the establishment of such a rule does not abrogate the action of the 
 first rule in cases where, from neglect or other causes, the second rule 
 has not been obeyed; it is a special guide prepared on the supposition 
 that sliips' com-ses in rivers are usually parallel, as far as possible to 
 prevent ships in confined spaces placing themselves in positions where 
 obedience to the first rule is expedient, but difficult to carry out. 
 
 " Om- third rule embraces all cases of doubt, and prescribes the course 
 which is at least the most desirable to encourage under such circumstances. 
 Such a rule has not yet been binding, except on steamers, but it is 
 evidently quite as necessary for saihng vessels. 
 
 " The fourth rule is a modification of Article XIX of the present law. 
 It is a necessary adjunct to any rules which may be fi-amed, in order to 
 provide against the dangers arising from negligence on the part of one 
 ship, and also for the dangers arising from rocks or shoals. Such a rule 
 
 * See Appendix H. 
 
179 
 
 is more than ever important when one ship of two meeting is bound, 
 under ordinary circumstances, to maintain a straight course. It may be 
 legally right to run over Y which is attempting wrongfully to cross X's 
 bows, from port to starboard, but it would be morally wrong. 
 
 " Rule I would certainly clear X in the Admiralty Court, but Rule 
 IV would keep him out of the Court altogether. 
 
 "Rule V is a simple transcript of the saving clause inserted in Article 
 XX of the present rules. 
 
 " In taking leave for the present of this subject, we must acknowledge 
 our consciousness of many defects in our treatment of it. We can only 
 claim to have made an honest endeavor to fiirnish something like a distinct 
 basis for the consideration of the rule of the road at sea in its various 
 aspects. We began to study the question with perfectly unprejudiced 
 minds, and if it be now true that we are committed to certain clearly 
 defined ideas on the whole matter, we trust it may be conceded that those 
 ideas are not altogether unreasonable. 
 
 "But on those to whom it properly belongs to act, or decline to act 
 for a change in the law so recently made binding in almost every 
 quarter of the globe, we would urge our conviction that the rules regu- 
 lating traffic on the high seas require immediate attention. The mass of 
 the maritime population are dissatisfied with them, and have been so for 
 years, and if it be true that the law of compulsory helm is a mistake, the 
 sooner that mistake is rectified the better for the commerce of the world, 
 and the safety of Hfe at sea." 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 '■^Report of the Royal OoTnmissioners appointed to inquire into the 
 Laws and Regulations relating to Pilotage, 25th February, 1836. 
 
 "Another subject which has engaged our attention has been the 
 frequent accidents that have of late occurred from steam vessels coming 
 into collision with other vessels, and it appears that from the recent 
 introduction of this mode of navigation no defined rules have been 
 adopted to guard against such occurrences. 
 
 "A select committee of the House of Commons was appointed in the 
 year 1831, to consider the question of steam navigation, and the numer- 
 ous accidents arising from the employment of steam vessels. This branch 
 of the subject came under their consideration, and in the report which 
 they laid before the House they expressed their opinion of the necessity 
 of establishing some regulations, which they briefiy suggested; these, 
 however, have never been adopted, and the evil continues to increase. 
 
180 
 
 " With sailing vessels, the rule which has been laid down and admitted 
 in courts of law, viz: that when two vessels meet upon contrary tacks, 
 the one on the larboard tack shall bear up, and that upon the starboard 
 tack shall keep her wind, has been attended vrith the best effects. 
 
 ""We are aware that the same rule is not strictly applicable to steam 
 vessels, and that there exists great difficulty in treating a subject involving 
 the varying nature of the circumstances in which steam vessels are 
 placed in a river, as regards the state of the tide, the depth of water in 
 the river, the draught of water of the steam vessels, and particularly 
 the more or less crowded state of the river, from the number of other 
 vessels in motion, and their relative positions. But rules upon this 
 subject have been laid down and are enforced in the Frith and River of 
 Clyde; and we consider it of the highest importance that some 'rule of 
 the road' should be established, to be acted upon whenever circum- 
 stances will admit. We therefore annex to our report (Appendix B,) a 
 set of rules which have been laid before us, and which, we think, may 
 be adopted with advantage." 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 "I. In the Thames and in all rivers and channels of the United 
 Kingdom, and in all cases of wind, weather, and tide, steam vessels are 
 to endeavor to keep on that side of the river or channel which lies on 
 their starboard hand. 
 
 "II. When two steam vessels are standing on contrary or nearly con- 
 trary directions, if their courses should lead them near each other, each 
 vessel shall keep towards the starboard side of the river or channel, and 
 thus leave each other on the larboard hand. 
 
 "III. Whenever a steam vessel may have to meet or cross the course 
 of a sailing vessel or of a rowing boat, the steamer shall in all cases yield 
 to the sailing or rowing vessel, whatever may be state of the wind, 
 weather, or tide. 
 
 "IV. In passing any small rowing or sailing boat, every steam vessel 
 shall, if necessary, slacken or stop her paddles, so as not only to prevent 
 the danger of a too near approach, but even so as to avoid giving them 
 any just cause of alarm. 
 
 "V.. Although a vessel propelled by steam, in any of the above cases, 
 may also have had recourse to the assistance of her sails, this circum- 
 stance shaU in nowise alter the foregoing restrictions; for otherwise she 
 would only have to hoist some small sail to evade them. 
 
 "VI. All these regulations shall be equally in force at night as well as 
 
181 
 
 by daj. And for their more effective execution at night every steam 
 vessel, when in pilotage water, shall carry, between sunset and sunrise, 
 three sufBciently strong lights in lanterns, so as to be seen ia all directions, 
 and attached to a yard which must be kept square, and raised at least 
 six feet above the tops of the paddle boxes. This yard may be attached 
 to the mast, or otherwise raised to the requisite height above the vessel's 
 bow for that purpose. 
 
 "VII. These three lights shall be arranged in the following manner: 
 One light on each yard-arm, at the distance of six feet from the mast, 
 that is twelve feet apart : and on the larboard yard-arm one additional 
 light, which shall be placed horizontally with respect to the other light, 
 or vertically under it, according to the following conditions : 
 
 "1. All steam vessels which may be coming up any river or channel 
 shall show the additional light three feet directly under the light at the 
 larboard yard-arm. 
 
 " 2. All steam vessels which may be going down any river or channel 
 shall show the additional light at the same height as the two other lights, 
 and at the distance of three feet iuside of the larboard hght, or half way 
 between it and the mast. 
 
 "VIII. For any infraction of the foregoing regulations a fine, varying 
 according -to the culpability of the offender, but not exceeding five 
 pounds, should be summarily levied upon the party; and, as the only 
 means of making these regulations effectual, one-half of the fine should 
 be payable to the common informer." 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 "Act for the Regulation of Steam Navigation, 9° and 10° Victoria, 
 cap. 100, 28tk August, 1846. 
 
 "IX. And be it enacted, that every steam vessel, when meeting or 
 passing any other steam vessel, shall pass as far as may be safe on the 
 port side of such other vessel; and every steam vessel navigating any 
 river or narrow channel shall keep as far as is practicable to that side of 
 the fairway or mid-channel of such river or channel which lies on the 
 starboard side of such vessel, due regard being had to the tide, and to 
 the position of each vessel in such tide; and the master or other person 
 having charge of any such steam vessel, and neglecting to observe these 
 regulations, or either of them, shall, for each and every instance of 
 neglect forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding fifty pounds." 
 
182 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 "■An act amending the Laws for the Regulation of Steam Navigation 
 of 28i!A August, 1846, 14° and 15° Victoria, cap. 79, 1th August, 
 1851. 
 
 "XXYII. "Whenever any vessel proceeding in one direction meets a 
 vessel proceeding in another direction, and the master or other person 
 having charge of either such vessel perceives that if both vessels con- 
 tinue their respective courses they vpill pass so near as to involve any 
 risk of collision, he shall put the helm of his vessel to port, so as to pass 
 on the port side of the other vessel, due regard being had to the tide 
 and to the position of each vessel with respect to the dangers of the 
 channel, and, as regards sailing vessels, to the keeping each vessel under 
 command; and the master of any steam vessel navigating any river or 
 narrow channel shall keep as far as is practicable to that side of the fairway 
 or mid-channel thereof which lies on the starboard side of such vessel; 
 and if the master or other person having charge of any steam vessel 
 neglect to observe these regulations, or either of them, he shall for every 
 such oifence be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50." 
 
 APPENDIX E. 
 
 "TAe Merchant Shipping Act, 17° and 18° Victoria, cap. 104, V)th 
 
 August, 1854. 
 
 "296. Whenever any ship, whether a steam or a sailing ship, pro 
 ceeding in one direction, meets another ship, whether a steam or a sailing 
 ship, proceeding in another direction, so that, if both ships were to 
 continue their respective courses, they would pass so near as to involve 
 any risk of a collision, the helms of both ships shall be put to port, so 
 as to pass on the port side of each other; and this rule shall be obeyed 
 by all steamships and by all sailing ships, whether on the port or star- 
 board tacks, and whether close-hauled or not, unless the circumstances 
 of the case are such as ro render a departure from the rule necessary 
 in order to avoid immediate danger, and subject also to the proviso that 
 due regard shall be had to the dangers of navigation, and, as regards 
 sailing ships on the starboard tack close-hauled, to keeping such ships 
 under command. 
 
 "297. Every steamship, when navigating any narrow channel, shall, 
 whenever it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or 
 mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such steamship." 
 
183 
 
 APPEI^TDIX F. 
 
 ^^Heport of Select Corrvmittee of the House of Commons on Merchant 
 Shipping, 7th August, 1860. Page 28. 
 
 " 'Rule op the Road.' 
 
 "The question of the 'Rule of the Road,' and of an international 
 system of lights at sea, when vessels meet each other, deserves, however, 
 particular attention. 
 
 " This section in the act as it stands at present, is most unsatisfactory, 
 however the decision of our Courts of Admiralty may have modified its 
 dangerous tendency. The evidence given is conclusive that some change 
 in the existing regulation is necessary; and your committee expresses a 
 hope that the Board of Trade will take steps to move the Foreign 
 Powers, with a view to the adoption of some common system, founded 
 upon general practice and professional experience ; and that our law may 
 be altered accordingly." 
 
 APPENDIX G. 
 
 "The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 25° and 26° Victoria, 
 cap. 63, 29^A July, 1862," Section 25, Table O, and Regulations for 
 Preventing Collisions at Sea, issued in pursuance of an Order in 
 CounciL dated 9th January, 1863. 
 
 "Peeliminart. 
 
 "Art. 1. In the following rules every steamship which is under sail, 
 and not under steam, is to be considered a sailing ship ; and every steam- 
 ship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considereji 
 a ship under steam. 
 
 "Steering and Sailing Rules. 
 
 "Art. 11. If two sailing ships are meeting end on, or nearly si,j7^|etta| 
 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. 
 
 "Art. 12. When two sailing ships are crossing so as to involve b1u> crossilTI 
 risk of collision, then, if they have the wind on different sides, 
 the ship with the wind on the port side shall keep out of the 
 
184 
 
 way of the ship with the wind on the starboard side, except in 
 the case in which the ship with the wind on the port side is 
 close hauled and the other ship free, in which case the latter 
 ship shall keep out of the way; but if they have the wind on 
 the same side, or if one of them has the wind aft, the ship 
 which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship 
 which is to leeward. 
 Two ships "Art. 13. If two ships under steam are meetine end on, or 
 
 under steam ^ ^ . i i i 
 
 meeting. 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. 
 
 under^steim "-^-rt. 14. If two sMps undcr steam are crossing so as to 
 
 crossing. jnvolve rfsk of collision, the ship which has the other on her 
 
 own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other. 
 
 Sailing ship "Art. 15. If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship, and the 
 
 and ship under '■ ' _ _ . . 
 
 steam. other a steamship, are proceeding in such directions as to 
 
 involve risk of collision, the steamship shall keep out of the 
 way of the sailing ship. 
 Ships under "Art. 16. Evcry stcamship, wheu approaching another SO as 
 en speed. to iuvolve rfsk of coUision, shaU slacken her speed or, if neces- 
 sary, stop and reverse ; and every steamship shall, when in a 
 fog, go at a moderate speed. 
 takfn°*'° otter ""^^t- ^^ • Evcry vesscl overtaking any other vessel shall keep 
 Teasels. out of the Way of the said last-mentioned vessel. 
 
 Construction " A.rt. 18. "Where, by the above rules, one of two ships is to 
 14, 15,'and 17. keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course, subject 
 to the qualifications contained in the following article. 
 Proviso to "Art. 19. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard 
 
 save special itIj ni,. 
 
 cases. must be had to all dangers of navigation; and due regard must 
 
 also be had to any special circumstances which may exist in 
 
 any particular case rendering a departure from the above rules 
 
 necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. 
 
 My^'^iireum' "■^^*^" ^^- Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, 
 
 negiMt propw °^ *^® owpcr, or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences 
 
 precautions, of any ncglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to 
 
 keep a proper lookout, or of the neglect of any precaution 
 
 which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or 
 
 by the special circumstances of the case." 
 
185 
 
 APPENDIX H. 
 
 '■'■Proposed Rules. — December, 1866. 
 
 "I. When any two ships intend to pass or cross near each other, that 
 one which has the other on her own starboard side, shall keep out of the 
 way of that other; and that ship which has or brings the other on her 
 port side, shall keep a steady course until all danger of colhsion is past. 
 
 " II. Every steam vessel, and every sailing vessel with the wind free, 
 navigating any river or narrow channel, shall keep, as far as is practi- 
 cable, on that side of such river or channel which lies on the starboard 
 side of such vessel. 
 
 " III. Every ship, when approachiag another ship so as to involve risk 
 of collision, shall check her way through the water, or, if a steamer, and 
 it is necessary, stop and reverse; and every ship shall, when in a fog, go 
 at a moderate speed. 
 
 " IV. Nothing in these rules is to be construed as binding ships to obey 
 them, when such obedience will plainly lead to immediate danger. 
 
 "Y. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship," or the owner, or 
 master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry 
 lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, or of the 
 neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice 
 of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 ^^ Extract from Address of Dr. Lushing ton to Elder Brethren, in the 
 case of the ^Josephine Willis^ v. the '■Mangerton^ 
 
 " ' I am under the necessity •• * of * * * stating to you 
 # « * « * ^ijat I believe to be the true interpretation of the 296th 
 section (of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) This statute is more 
 comprehensive, and proposes to impose more restriction than any previous 
 Act of Parliament. "Whenever any ship, whether a steam or a sailing 
 ship, proceeding in one direction, meets another ship, whether a steam or 
 a sailing ship, proceeding in another direction, go that if both ships were 
 to continue their respective courses, they would pass so near as to involve 
 any risk of a collision." Now here we must pause. It was utterly impos- 
 sible for the Legislature to have defined what would have been, or 
 constituted r^k of collision; it is only those who are experienced in these 
 matters who can form anything like an accurate opinion upon the subject. 
 
186 
 
 You are not to attempt to scan nicely how the ships bear from each 
 other; but if there is any probabihty of a risk of collision the statute 
 ought to be obeyed. I am sure that all our experience teaches us that 
 this was a very wise rule and regulation, because we constantly have 
 conflicting evidence as to whether a vessel was on one bow or the other, 
 or two points on one bow or the other. ***** The statute 
 goes on — "The helms of both ships shall be put to port, so as to pass on 
 the port side of each other." Now • * * * the question has been 
 raised whether the moment one vessel descries the other, and they are 
 so approaching, at whatever distance, that if they pursue their courses a 
 coUision will arise, they are immediately, without consideration, to port 
 the helm ? That is a very material construction to put on the statute, and 
 there is not a word in it which imposes that duly. Common sense is, that 
 when you see a vessel approaching at a considerable distance, whether a 
 steamer or a sailing vessel, especially when you are unable to ascertain 
 which it is, that reasonable time is to be taken in determimng what 
 course you should pursue, and reasonable time for forming a proper 
 determination, and that can never be construed into delay. The statute 
 means that you shall exercise your discretion, and then obey the necessity 
 indicated by the previous words of the statute, when the necessity has 
 
^ ^ 
 
 % 2. 
 
 A 
 
 Fiq. 3. 
 
 X 
 
 E ^^i" 
 
 F^.4. 
 
APPENDIX J. 
 
 ^BSTR^CT 
 
 PRINCIPAL COLLISION CASES 
 
 WHICH HAVE BEEN 
 
 TRIED IN THE ADMIRALTY COURT 
 
 FBOM 
 
 1854 to 1864. 
 
188 
 
 Abstract of the Principal Collision Cases which have 
 
 The names of ships condemned are printed in Italics. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Ships' Names. 
 
 DarlEness 
 
 or 
 Daylight, 
 D. or L. 
 
 Wind and "Weather. 
 
 Course of A. 
 
 1854. 
 April 27 
 
 Sept. 31 
 
 1655. 
 Jan. 6 
 
 July 8 
 
 July 34 
 Aug. la 
 Aug. 14 
 
 Aug. 17 
 
 Aug. 19 
 
 Nor. 5 
 
 Nov. 10 
 
 Nov. 12 
 
 Nov. 14 
 
 Nov. 14 
 
 Nov. 30 
 
 Dec. 3 
 
 Dec. 11 
 
 Deo. 14 
 
 Dec. 17 
 
 Dec. 18 
 
 1856. 
 Jan. 10 
 
 Jan. 28 
 
 Feb. 3 
 
 Feb. 4 
 
 Feb. 28 
 
 Feb. 29 
 
 Mar. 3 
 
 Har. 9 
 
 April 3 
 
 April 5 
 
 April 28 
 
 Mary 
 
 Lady Ann 
 
 Erin's Queen, *S 
 
 Elbe, S 
 
 Emerald Isle... 
 
 Pioneer 
 
 Simla, S 
 
 John Benyon 
 
 Fenix , 
 
 Christina and 
 
 Maria. 
 Petrel 
 
 Pet 
 
 Ceres, S.. 
 
 Glide 
 
 Flying Fish 
 
 Robert Burrell. . . 
 
 Albatross 
 
 AUrt 
 
 James , 
 
 Walter Hood .. . 
 
 Squirrel , 
 
 Mary Ann 
 
 Mangerton, S 
 
 Friends Increase. 
 
 Falconer. 
 
 Leith, S 
 
 Effort. 
 
 Fortunatus 
 
 Stirlingshire. 
 
 Blackiriars 
 
 Glanmire 
 
 Cyrus 
 
 Shannon, S.. 
 
 Sulima, 3 .. 
 Dragon, S.. 
 
 Red Jacket . . . 
 
 Arundel 
 
 Cleopatra, S.. 
 
 Imperatriz, S.. 
 
 Mobile 
 
 Dumfries 
 
 Robinson 
 
 Zolherein 
 
 Despatch, S--- 
 
 Aerolite 
 
 Telegraph, S. . 
 
 Osprey 
 
 Teresita 
 
 William and 
 
 Sarah Ann. 
 Emigrant. 
 
 Wyke Regis 
 
 Admiral Colling- 
 
 wood. 
 Josephine Willis 
 
 Queen Dowager.. 
 
 Conqueror, S.... 
 
 Beehive 
 
 Berhice 
 
 Coquette. '., 
 
 Aftika , 
 
 Rumena 
 
 Joseph Sonus..... 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 L. 
 
 L. 
 
 L. 
 
 Li. 
 
 D. 
 
 L. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 L. 
 L. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 L. 
 I/. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 W.N.W., ftesh, dark. 
 
 W.N. W., fresh, dark, and 
 clear. 
 
 N.N.W., to W.N.W., 
 light wind, hazy. 
 
 Foggy. 
 
 W., fine, moderate 
 
 W.N.W., light, foggy.. 
 E.N.E., very light, fine. 
 
 E.N.E., moderate 
 
 S.W., fine 
 
 S.W., thick andshowery 
 
 W.S.W., strong, dark... 
 
 S.W. to S.S.W., fresh, 
 
 thick weather. 
 W.N.W., fine 
 
 S.E., cloudy 
 
 N.E., little hazy. 
 
 W.8.W., strong breeze, 
 dark and hazy. 
 
 N.W., fine, but occasion- 
 ally hazy. 
 
 W.N.W., fresh, hazy... 
 
 E. by N., fine 
 
 E.S.E., fine but hazy. . . 
 
 Northeasterly, windlight 
 
 N., clear 
 
 S.S.E,, clear '. 
 
 S.W., dark and hazy. . . 
 W.N. W., fresh, fine-... 
 
 N.E., (bg 
 
 E.S.E., fine, hazy 
 
 E.S.E., dark, nrin 
 
 S.S.W., gale, thick.... 
 
 S.S.W. to S. b. E., rata, 
 
 overcast, 
 N, b. W., moderate, fine, 
 
 but dark. 
 
 Hove-to star- 
 board tack. 
 S.W.iS 
 
 Up the Bristol 
 channel. 
 
 Up and down 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 S.E 
 
 W. JS 
 
 w 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 N 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 W 
 
 N.E 
 
 S.S.W 
 
 E.b.S 
 
 N. b. W. i W 
 
 H.N.E 
 
 E.b. N 
 
 S.E. b. E..-. 
 W. 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N.W. b. W.- 
 E. b. N. i N. 
 S.S.E 
 
 s 
 
 N. b. W 
 
 N.E. (1) 
 
 N.E 
 
 Hove.to W - . 
 
 W 
 
 W.iN 
 
189 
 
 been tried in the Admiralty Court from 1854 to 1864. 
 
 Those cases to wliich attention is specially drawn liave an asterisk a£9xed in the fifth column. 
 
 Course of B. 
 
 A sighted B. 
 
 B sighted A. 
 
 Steps taken to avoid Collision, 
 
 By A. 
 
 ByB. 
 
 No. 
 
 N 
 
 N.E.h.N.. 
 
 Down the Bristol 
 channel. 
 
 the Elbe. 
 
 N.E.b.E 
 
 B.8.E 
 
 E. JN 
 
 E. 
 
 N.E.b.N 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 N.W 
 
 N.E 
 
 S.W 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 W.b.N 
 
 S.S.E. JE 
 
 w.s.w 
 
 N.b.W 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 N.E. b. E.JE. 
 
 N. b. W 
 
 N.E.1»,E 
 
 W.S.W. 
 
 N.W 
 
 S.W. b. W 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.W.iS 
 
 W.b. S 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 E. b. N 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 Ahead, 1 mile 
 
 SpointsOn starboard 
 bow, f mile. 
 
 Nearly ahead, 1 mile. 
 
 Right ahead, 400 
 yards. 
 
 Port bow, 1 point . . . 
 
 Starboard bow, 500 
 
 yards. 
 Rightahead, Smiles, 
 
 wliite light first. 
 
 Right ahead, 3 miles. 
 
 Broad on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 On port bow,3 cables, 
 
 Little before port 
 beam, 1 cable. 
 
 4 points on starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 4 point on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 Starboard beam, 1 
 
 mile. 
 1^ point on starboard 
 
 bow, J mile. 
 4 point on port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 Starboard bow, J 
 
 mile. 
 2 points starboard 
 
 bow, 400 yards. 
 On port bow, i mile . 
 
 2 to 3 points before 
 port beam, 2 miles. 
 
 Broad on port bow, 
 
 300 yards. 
 On port bow, ^ mile. 
 
 1^ points port bow, 
 1^ mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 ^ mile. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, 200 yards. 
 
 On port bow, 100 
 yards. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 X\ mile. 
 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 i mile. 
 On starboard bow, 
 
 200 yards. 
 On port bow, J mile. 
 
 1 point on port bow, 
 nearly 3 miles. 
 
 Ahead, 1 mile 
 
 On starboard bow, 
 i mile, (?) 
 
 3 points on star- 
 board bow, 2 ships' 
 lengths. 
 
 Bight ahead, 400 
 yards. 
 
 7 points starboard 
 
 bow, 3 mile. 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 200 yards. 
 3 points starboard 
 
 bow, 3 to 4 miles, 
 
 green light seen. 
 Right abead, 3 miles. 
 
 On port bow 
 
 2 or 3 points on star- 
 board bow. 
 
 1 J point on starboard 
 
 bow. 
 On starboard bow, 
 
 2 ships' lengths. 
 
 3 points on starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 ^ mile. 
 1 point on port bow^ 
 
 i mile. 
 3 points on starboard 
 
 how, 100 yards. 
 Broad on port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 On port bow, 1 mile. 
 
 On port bow, i to i 
 a mile. 
 
 Close to, on star- 
 board bow. 
 
 None. 
 None. 
 
 The helm put hard 
 
 a-port. 
 Ported , 
 
 4 points on starboard 
 
 bow. 
 
 3 points on starboard 
 
 bow, I mile. 
 \ point starboard 
 
 bow, IJ mile. 
 2 points starboard 
 
 bow, 50 yards. 
 On port bow, 300 
 
 yards. 
 On starboard bow, 
 
 100 yards. 
 Portbow, imile(?) 
 
 Close to on port bow. 
 
 On port bow, 400 
 
 yards. 
 2 points starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 1^ point on starboard 
 bow, nearly 2 miles. 
 
 Helm put to port, 
 then hard a-port. 
 
 Ported, narrow 
 channel. * 
 
 Kept course, and at 
 last moment ported. 
 None.. 
 
 Starboard, stopped 
 and reversed. 
 
 Starboarded, then 
 ported; took op- 
 ponent for ship at 
 anchor. 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported . 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 Luffed, starboarded, 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded {X) ... 
 
 Ported, stopped, re- 
 versed, and star- 
 boarded. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Helm put down, 
 (starboarded.) 
 
 Ported, and then 
 starboarded. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported and squared 
 
 main yard. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 None , 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . . . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported , . . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Luffed, ported . 
 Starboarded . . . 
 
 None, at last helm 
 put down, ported. 
 
 None, but tacked to 
 avoid shoal. 
 
 Kept a close luff . . . 
 
 None , 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 Ported 
 
 Stopped and re- 
 versed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 Ported 
 
190 
 
 Abstract of the Principal Collision Cases which ham 
 
 Ships* Names. 
 
 Darkness 
 
 or 
 
 Daylight, 
 
 D..orIi. 
 
 Wind and Weather. 
 
 Course of A. 
 
 1856. 
 May . . 5 
 
 May 5 
 
 May 27 
 
 June 5 
 
 Aug. 11 
 
 Aug. 33 
 
 gept; 3 
 
 Sept. 6 
 
 Sept.' 21 
 
 Sept. 24 
 
 Sept. 2S 
 Sept. 30 
 Oet. 2 
 
 Oct. 3 
 Oct. 3 
 
 Nov. 17 
 Not. 30 
 
 Not. 20 
 
 Dee. 5 
 
 1857. 
 Jan. 3 
 
 Jan. 18 
 
 Feb. 18 
 
 Mar. 1 
 
 Mar. 7 
 
 Mar. 22 
 
 April 28 
 
 May 1 
 
 May 18 
 
 June 17 
 
 June 31 
 
 June 28 
 
 July 13 
 
 James and Ann. 
 MetaHerminia.. 
 
 Oeorgina 
 
 Henr iette 
 
 Viking 
 
 Camilla 
 
 Mistley 
 
 Falcon, S. . . 
 Shannon, S- 
 
 Yeoman 
 
 Sillott, S... 
 Alert 
 
 Loftus 
 
 Herefordshire. . . 
 James Gibh, 8.. 
 
 Linda 
 
 CUmtar/. 
 
 Jarrbes Holmes. . 
 
 Christiana 
 
 Daqwiise 
 
 Imogene 
 
 Scotland, S 
 
 Helen Heilgets. . 
 Admiral Boxer . 
 Activ 
 
 Auspicious.. 
 Harburg..-. 
 
 Undine, S ... 
 Linda Flor.. 
 
 Harmony. 
 
 Ceres, S.. 
 
 Ardina . 
 
 Norral . . . 
 Ss/lph, S. . 
 
 Mary Russell. . . 
 May. 1 
 
 SeaRoTer — 
 Hong Hakon. . 
 
 65 Aug. IS 
 
 Celerity 
 
 Asp 
 
 Midlothian 
 
 Jason 
 
 Smuggler. 
 
 Emily 
 
 Andrew Porater. 
 Imperial Prince. 
 
 Fotleri 
 
 GeTwva, S 
 
 Atalanta 
 
 Park 
 
 Grazia & Dia 
 
 City of London. 
 
 Alexander 
 
 Urania, S 
 
 Bertie Eileonore. 
 
 Jhtchesse de Bra- 
 bant. 
 TeuUmia, S 
 
 Sovereign, S . . 
 
 ITuscarora 
 
 Peninsula, S. 
 
 Neptunus 
 
 Queen of the 
 
 South, S. 
 Minesota 
 
 Carlyle. . 
 
 Britamnta, S.. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D.* 
 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 
 L.* 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D.* 
 
 D.* 
 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 
 S.E., fine, clear, light. . 
 
 S. to S.B. b. S., fresh, 
 
 dark. 
 W., foggy 
 
 N.B., cloudy 
 
 S.E., dark, hazy. 
 
 N.N.B. to N.N.W., clear, 
 
 light. 
 Northerly, fine, light 
 
 B. b. S., misty, light 
 
 rain. 
 W.S.W., fine, clear 
 
 N.N.W., squally, rain... 
 
 Northerly, fresh, thick, 
 
 showery. 
 N.B., fresh, dark, but 
 
 clear. 
 S., dark and showery — 
 
 N.E., thick, raining 
 
 S. to S.S.E., cloudy and 
 thick. 
 
 N., light, dark, with driz- 
 zling rain. 
 
 W., fresh, dark . . . , 
 N.W., fresh, dark. 
 
 N. b. B. to N. b. W. 
 
 moderate, slight haze. 
 
 W.S.W., light hazy 
 
 S. W. b. S., strong, clear. 
 
 Westerly, fine, clear.. .. 
 
 S. W. b. S., fine, dark.. 
 
 E.S.E., hazy 
 
 S.E., light, cloudy 
 
 E. b. N., fine and clear . . 
 
 S.E.b.E.toS.S.E.,dark 
 
 and raining. 
 N.E., fine 
 
 W.S.W., light, clear... 
 
 N.E., variable, clear . . . 
 
 W.N.W., light, fine, a 
 
 little cloudy. 
 W.S.W., fine, dear 
 
 S.W., fresh, clear 
 
 N.N.E., fresh, fine . 
 
 N.E.b. N 
 
 B.b.N 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 B.S.E 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 W.b.N..... 
 
 S. b. E 
 
 N.E. b. E. 4 I 
 N.N.B 
 
 W. b. N 
 
 N.W.b, N... 
 E.S.E 
 
 E. b. S.JS.. 
 E.S.E 
 
 S.E.b. S.... 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 B.b. S 
 
 E.b.N 
 
 N.W 
 
 Hove-to headj 
 
 S. b. B. 
 N.N.W 
 
 S.E.b. S 
 
 N.E 
 
 S.W.b. S.... 
 
 S.E.b. S 
 
 N.E.b. E 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 E.JN 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 N.W 
 
 W.N.W 
 
191 
 
 been tried in the Admiralty Court from 1854 to 1864. 
 
 Course of B. 
 
 A sighted B. 
 
 B sigMed A. 
 
 Steps taken to avoid CoUisioD. 
 
 By A. 
 
 ByB. 
 
 No. 
 
 S.W.b. W 
 
 W 
 
 E. iN 
 
 S.W. b. S 
 
 S.W.b. S 
 
 E 
 
 E.1>.N 
 
 N 
 
 N.W 
 
 E.b.S 
 
 S.E 
 
 N.b. w. iw... 
 
 w 
 
 S.W. i w. 
 
 N.W., but altering' 
 to southward. 
 
 N.N.W.. 
 W.N.W. 
 
 W. b. S - 
 
 N.E. 
 
 N. b. W - 
 
 N.E.b.E 
 
 N.b. W 
 
 S.W-iW 
 
 W.JN 
 
 N.b.W.JW. 
 
 W 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 E.b. S 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 1 point on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 3 points on starboard 
 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 On port bow, i mile . 
 
 6 points on port bow, 
 
 3 miles. 
 
 On port bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 4 miles. 
 
 Little on port bow. 
 
 1 mile. 
 Ahead, aboutfmile. 
 
 6 points on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 Ahead, 4 miles, 
 
 white light seen. 
 
 Spointson starboard 
 
 bow, 2i miles. 
 Ahead, Smiles.. 
 
 W.b, S.i S. 
 
 Little before star- 
 board beam, IJ 
 mile. 
 
 On port bow, 2 to 3 
 miles. 
 
 4 to 5 points on port 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Broad on port bow, 
 1 mile. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 3 to 4 points on star- 
 board bow, li 
 mile. 
 
 1 to 2 points on port 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 On starboard bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 1^ point starboard 
 
 bow, J mile. 
 
 4 points nn starboard 
 bow. 3 miles {%) 
 
 2 points on port bow . 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 
 Little on starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 2 points on starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 1 point on port bow, 
 
 3 miles. 
 Ahead, Imile 
 
 A little on starboard, 
 bow, 5 mile. 
 
 3 points on port bo w, 
 200 yards. 
 
 4 pointfi on starboard 
 bow, 50 yards. 
 
 Little on starboard 
 bow, 200 yards. 
 
 1 point on starboard 
 bow, 100 yards. 
 
 ^ points on star- 
 board bow, 4 mile. 
 
 1 point on starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 4 points on stra:- 
 traard bow, close. 
 
 On port beam, 3 or 
 4 miles. 
 
 2 points on starboard 
 bow, 1 mile, white 
 light seen. 
 
 Right ahead, % mile . 
 
 A little on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 200 yards. 
 
 3^ points starboard 
 
 bow, 100 yards. 
 On lee (starboard) 
 
 side, close, SOO 
 
 yards. 
 Right ahead, 200 
 
 feet. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 Ported 
 
 None, kept a close 
 
 luff. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Ported, stopped, 
 and reversed. 
 
 None, kept a close 
 
 luff. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Ported 
 
 None. 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 None, until seeing 
 green light, then 
 ported. 
 
 1^ point port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 Nearly ahead, 2 
 
 miles. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 40 yards. 
 
 2 or 3 points star- 
 board bow, 3 or 4 
 miles. 
 
 Right ahead,2miles. 
 
 Ahead, ^mile 
 
 1 point on port bow, 
 \ mile. 
 
 Bight ahead, 2 miles. 
 
 Nearly ahead, 1 
 mile. 
 
 Nearly ahead, 30 
 
 yards. 
 On port bow, \ mile . 
 
 2 points on port bow, 
 200 yards. 
 
 Ahead, 2 ships' 
 
 lengths. 
 Ahead, 200 yards. . . 
 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 Imile. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 4 mile. 
 
 1 point on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 how, 2 miles. 
 
 A little on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 ^ point starboard 
 
 bow, \ mile. 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 2 or 3 miles. 
 
 2i points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Seeing green light 
 starboarded, see- 
 ing red ported. 
 
 Ported, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported to luff 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, kept away. 
 
 Ported, kept away. 
 
 Starboarded, then 
 
 ported. 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . . 
 None, no time. 
 
 Helm being a-star- 
 board, seeing A 
 put hard a-star- 
 board. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 reversed. 
 
 Kept a close luff, 
 
 then ported. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, then star- 
 boarded. 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 reversed. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded, stop- 
 ped, and reversed. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, luffed- 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 33 
 34 
 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 41 
 
 42 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 50 
 51 
 
 52 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 64 
 
 65 
 
192 
 
 Abstract of the Principal Collision Cases which haw 
 
 Date. 
 
 1857. 
 Aug. 16 
 
 Aug. 36 
 
 Sept. 2 
 
 Sept. 11 
 
 Sept. 14 
 
 Sept. 16 
 
 Sept. 17 
 
 Sept. S3 
 
 Oct. 18 
 
 Oct. 31 
 
 Oct. 21 
 
 Oct. 21 
 
 Oct. 22 
 
 Oct. 23 
 
 Oct. 24 
 
 Not. 23 
 
 Nov. 26 
 
 Dec. 24 
 
 1858. 
 Jan. 14 
 
 Feb. 11 
 
 Feb. 12 
 Mar. 7 
 
 Mar. 8 
 Mar. 18 
 April 3 
 April 15 
 April 29 
 June 29 
 Aug. 15 
 Aug. 25 
 Aug. 31 
 
 Sept. 1 
 
 Sept. 5 
 
 Sept. 15 
 
 Got. 14 
 
 Ships' Names. 
 
 A. 
 
 Carl August 
 
 Ahna, S 
 
 Hellena 
 
 Sophie, S 
 
 Murray 
 
 Lady Sale 
 
 Williajn 
 
 Fanny 
 
 Lord Hacre 
 
 Kowley 
 
 St. Catherine 
 
 Violet...; 
 
 SwaUma 
 
 Charles 
 
 Fama. 
 
 Tanfleld 
 
 Castregnano 
 
 Wyke Regis 
 
 Balfour 
 
 Leander 
 
 Rouen, S 
 
 Tarsa 
 
 Tecla Carnun 
 
 Eva : 
 
 Jeannette 
 
 Emettine, S 
 
 Yorkshire 
 
 Tweed 
 
 Erik Baker 
 
 Fortitude 
 
 Etna 
 
 Anglesea 
 
 George Robinson 
 Sophia and Maria 
 Christina 
 
 B. 
 
 /Scandinavian, S. 
 
 Moscow, S 
 
 Flavio Geojia 
 
 Willittm Hutt, S. 
 
 Kate Swanton, . . . 
 
 H.M.S. Pembroke, 
 
 S. 
 European, S 
 
 Bemhardina 
 
 Sovereign 
 
 Grejion 
 
 Altert, S 
 
 Sir C. Napier.. 
 
 Gladiator. 
 
 Progress. 
 
 Tea 
 
 FigliaJenney . . 
 
 Aberfoyle 
 
 James 
 
 Bien . 
 
 iV. American, S. 
 
 Jugen Bahlff . . . 
 Iron Master, 3. . 
 
 N, American 
 
 Gaffer E. Men- 
 
 singa. 
 SwalUnu, S 
 
 Thomas. 
 
 Ruby. 
 
 Magnet 
 
 Juno 
 
 Caesar 
 
 H.M.S. Valorous, 
 S. 
 
 Soang-Wo 
 
 Gemini, . . 
 
 Lady Jocelyn, S. . 
 Livingstont. . . 
 
 Daylight, 
 D.orL. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 Twilight. 
 D. 
 L. 
 D. 
 L. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 
 D.» 
 
 D. 
 
 li. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 Wind and Weather. 
 
 N.,flne 
 
 Southerly, light, clear. . . 
 
 W.8.W., fresh, hazy 
 
 N.W., fresh", rain 
 
 E.b. S., clear. 
 
 S.S.W., moderate, fine, 
 
 starlight. 
 S. W.b. S., clear 
 
 E., fresh, fine 
 
 S. E. b. S., fresh, dark. . . 
 
 N.b.E., dark 
 
 N.E., fresh, dark 
 
 N.N.W., moderate, dark. 
 
 N. b. E. to N.N.E., fresh, 
 
 rain. 
 S.W. to S.S.W., fresh. . . 
 
 S.E., fresh, hazy 
 
 S.W. b. S., dark, fresh.. 
 
 N.N.E. to N.E., fresh, 
 
 clear. 
 W.b. S., fine, clear 
 
 E. toB.S.E., moderate.. 
 
 S.E. to S.S.E., light, 
 hazy. 
 
 E.S.E., clear 
 
 S.W., dark, snow 
 
 N.N.W., strong, dark 
 
 W., moderate, hazy 
 
 S.S.W., cloudy 
 
 S. b. E.'fine 
 
 W.S.W. to N.W., gale.. 
 
 W., fresh, fine 
 
 S.W. b. W., dark, clear. 
 S.W.b. W., fresh, fine.. 
 W., moderate, fine, clear. 
 
 W. b. S., fresh, squally. 
 
 W., fresh, squally 
 
 E.N.E., light, fine 
 
 E.S.E,, gale, dear 
 
 Course of A, 
 
 E. b. N 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 W 
 
 N.iE 
 
 S.E 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 S.W.b. S 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.b. E 
 
 W.b.N.iN.. 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 s.s.w 
 
 S.E. b. S 
 
 W.b. N 
 
 Both in stays . 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 S.W. JW.... 
 
 N.B. b. N 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 W 
 
 S. b. W... 
 W 
 
 S.b.E.... 
 N.b.E.... 
 S.W. b. S . 
 W.N.W... 
 S.b.E.... 
 In stays — 
 
 S. b. W . 
 S.S.W... 
 N.iW.. 
 N.W.... 
 
193 
 
 been tried in the Admiralty Court from, \^^^to 1864. 
 
 Course of B. 
 
 A sighted B. 
 
 B sighted A. 
 
 Steps taken to avoid Collision. 
 
 By A. 
 
 ByB. 
 
 N.W. 4 N 
 
 W.l). N...... 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 S.JW 
 
 N.N.W.- 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 S 
 
 N 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 N.E 
 
 E.b. S 
 
 S.E.b. E 
 
 N.E.b. E 
 
 N.W 
 
 S.W.b. S. i S- 
 
 Broad on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 1 point port bow, 2 
 
 miles. 
 On port bow, 1 mile . 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 Starboard bow, \ 
 
 mile. 
 Little on port, bow, 
 
 % mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 y\ mile. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 2J^ points port bow, 
 
 2 miles, all 3 
 lights. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 250 yards. 
 
 \ point starboard 
 bow, IJ mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 1 or 2 points port 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 On starboard quar- 
 ter, 200 yards. 
 
 Ahead, 200 yards.. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bon-, \ mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 150 yards. 
 
 If point starboard 
 
 bow, % mile. 
 1 point on port bow, 
 
 1 cable. 
 
 Port bow, 2J miles.. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, J mile. 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, \ mile. 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 \ mile. 
 Starboard bow, J 
 
 mile. 
 
 4 points port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 Ahead, very close.. 
 
 Rightahead, 1 mile. 
 
 Starboard bow, \ 
 
 mile (?) 
 Broad on port bow, 
 
 \ mile. 
 
 None 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported , 
 
 None 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 None 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 None , 
 
 Ported , 
 
 Starboarded, stop- 
 ped, & reversed. 
 
 Starboarded and 
 stopped. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 starboarded. 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 None... 
 None - . . 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 None... 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Ported 
 
 N.E. b. E. JE. 
 
 S.b. W 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 N.E. b. N 
 
 N.E 
 
 S.E 
 
 N.b.E 
 
 w.s.w 
 
 N.E..b. N 
 
 E.b.N 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 S. W. b. W ... 
 
 N.b.E 
 
 N.E. JE....... 
 
 S.W.fW 
 
 S 
 
 2 to 3 points port 
 boiv, 1 mile. 
 
 2 to 3 points star- 
 board bow, 3 or 4 
 
 miles. 
 1^ point port' bow, 
 
 % mile. 
 Green light seen 4 
 
 points starboard 
 
 bow, \ mile. 
 4 points port bow, 1 
 
 mile. 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, % mile. 
 Broad on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 2^ points starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 IJ point starboard 
 
 bow, \ mile. 
 1 point port bow, 2 
 
 miles. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 \ mile. 
 
 On starboard beam, 
 ^ mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles, 
 
 i point starboard 
 
 ' bow;, 1 mile. 
 
 Broad on starboard 
 bow, 4 miles. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 cable. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 4 ships* 
 lengths. 
 
 Bight ahead, 2 
 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 Starboard bow, J 
 mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 400 yards. 
 
 Starboard bow, \ 
 mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 i mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 4 
 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 "DOW, 1 mile. 
 
 Ahead 4 ships' 
 
 lengths. 
 Starboard bow, i 
 
 mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 
 1 mile i?) 
 
 2 points on port 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 Ahead, 2 miles 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 None. 
 
 Tried to port, no 
 time. 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 Tacked 
 
 Stopped, A sunk . . . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Luffed head to wind. 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Stopped, reversed, 
 
 and ported. 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported , 
 Ported . 
 
 2^ points port bow, 
 6 ships' lengths. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 IJ mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 1^ mile. 
 
 Kept a close luff . 
 Kept a close luff . 
 
 None 
 
 Ported 
 
 Stopped, reversed, 
 starboarded and 
 stopped. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 Abstract of the Princvpal' Collisiort Cases which have 
 
 No. 
 
 
 
 Ships' 
 
 Names. 
 
 Darkness 
 
 
 Course of A. 
 
 
 A. 
 
 B. 
 
 Daylight, 
 D.orL. 
 
 
 101 
 
 1858. 
 Oct. 29 
 
 AdaLetitia...... 
 
 Jallaciel Ban 
 
 D. 
 
 N. to N.E. b. N., light... 
 
 E.b. S 
 
 10'^ 
 
 Not. 
 Nov. 
 
 6 
 
 
 Magnet, S 
 
 Sea Nymph ... 
 
 Baro Way 
 
 tD.* 
 D. 
 
 N. by E., dusk, clear, in 
 
 the Thames. 
 S.E. b. S clear 
 
 S.E.b.B 
 
 In stays 
 
 N.N.B 
 
 im 
 
 
 104 
 
 Dec. 
 
 7 
 
 Temora, S 
 
 D. 
 
 E.N.E., moderate, fine. - . 
 
 105 
 
 Deo. 11 
 
 1859. 
 Jan. 9 
 
 Jan. 27 
 
 Veracity, (colored 
 lights.) 
 
 Circassian, 
 (white light 
 only.) 
 
 Schwalbe, S 
 
 Calla 
 
 D.* 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 •S. b. W., cloudy 
 
 W.S. W., fine and clear. . 
 W.N.W., gale, cloudy... 
 S.S.W., fresh, squally. . . 
 S. b. E., fresh, clear 
 
 W 
 
 10R 
 
 N.E 
 
 107 
 
 
 N 
 
 lOR 
 
 Feb. 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 W. 
 
 109 
 
 Feb. 
 
 P. 
 
 Elfin 
 
 Prince Patrick, 
 
 D. 
 
 E.b. S 
 
 no 
 
 Feb. 
 
 9 
 
 Jamea 
 
 S. 
 Richard Cdbden. 
 
 L. 
 
 S.W., squally, hazy 
 
 W.N.W., moderate, dilz- 
 
 zle. 
 E. b. S., light, fine 
 
 S.S.W., moderate, fine . . 
 
 S.S.B 
 
 111 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 S.W 
 
 119 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 Vortigem. 
 
 Ondine, S, 
 
 
 In stays 
 
 W 
 
 113 
 
 
 7 
 
 Robert Garden... 
 
 D. 
 
 114 
 
 Oct.' 
 
 ^^ 
 
 Josephine 
 
 
 L. 
 
 S.E , clear. 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 ll"! 
 
 Oct. 
 Not. 
 
 21 
 
 ifi 
 
 E.Lothian 
 
 Foyle, S .. 
 
 D.* 
 
 
 W.b. S 
 
 S.S.W 
 
 llfi 
 
 Campbell 
 
 Jane, Anne, and 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 N.B. b E. clear 
 
 117 
 
 Not. 
 
 18 
 
 Empress Euge- 
 nia, S. 
 
 D. 
 
 S., dark, clear, (narrow 
 channel.) 
 
 E.S.E...^ : 
 
 118 
 
 Not. 
 
 27 
 
 Vrede 
 
 Victor 
 
 D. 
 
 N N W clear 
 
 W.S.W 
 
 S.E. b. E.iE.. 
 
 S E 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 S.S.W., fresh, rain 
 
 S.S. W., fresh, showery. . 
 Westerly, fresh, clear... - 
 N.N.W., clear. 
 
 100 
 
 1860. 
 Jan. Qfi 
 
 Ellen... , 
 
 ShealUel 
 
 D * 
 
 lai 
 
 Feb. 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 S. b. W 
 
 122 
 
 Feb. 
 
 15 
 
 London, S 
 
 In the 
 
 Wearmouth, S. . . 
 Thames. 
 
 D.* 
 
 S.b.W 
 
 19,3 
 
 Feb. 
 Mar. 
 
 24 
 6 
 
 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 
 S.b.W., fresh, clear.... 
 W., moderate, clear 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 124 
 
 Arthur Gprdon... 
 
 Independence, S.. 
 
 125 
 
 May 
 
 26 
 
 JohnRomilly 
 
 Maria Mathilda.. 
 
 L. 
 
 W. b. S., fresh, clear 
 
 S.b. W 
 
 ISfi 
 
 June 
 
 10 
 
 Mobert Ingham. . . 
 
 Aurora 
 
 D. 
 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 127 
 
 Sept. 
 
 5 
 
 Egyptian 
 
 Chancellor 
 
 D, • 
 
 S.W., moderate, drizzle.. 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 1W 
 
 Sept. 
 Sept. 
 
 90 
 
 Ellen 
 
 
 
 N.N.E., moderate, clear.. 
 
 W.JN 
 
 E. JN .- 
 
 189 
 
 25 
 
 
 Cornelia Gips 
 
 Merck 
 
 
 130 
 
 Sept. 
 
 25 
 
 Acme 
 
 D 
 
 
 B.JN 
 
 131 
 
 Oct. 
 
 25 
 
 Jos6 Maria 
 
 Palm 
 
 L 
 
 S.S.W., moderate, fine . . 
 Variable, light, cloudy . . 
 
 w 
 
 13?, 
 
 Not. 
 
 8 
 
 Black Prince, S. . 
 
 Araxes, S 
 
 D.* 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 t This was a cross action. 
 
 'Magnet" had brohght one, and was condemned: appealed, and was found not 
 Brethren, different from those who tried first, found for the ' ' MagTiet " : it was 
 
195 
 
 been tried in the Admiralty Court from 1854 to 1864. 
 
 Course of B. A sighted B, 
 
 W. b. N. JN 
 
 N.W.b. "W 
 
 E 
 
 S. W. b. S. iS.... 
 E.N.E 
 
 S.W 
 
 s.w 
 
 E.b. S 
 
 N.W.b. "W 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 N.b.E.^E 
 
 N.E.b. N 
 
 N.E. b. E. ^E 
 
 s.s.w 
 
 N.E.b. E.4 E.... 
 N.E. JN 
 
 N.E.b. E... 
 W 
 
 W.S.W.. 
 
 N.b. W- 
 "W.N.W . 
 
 Have-to W - - - 
 ■W.N.W 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 S.S.W 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.E. b. S 
 
 "W. b. N. JN.. 
 
 W.4S 
 
 S.E.b.S 
 
 S.JW 
 
 2J points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 Ahead, 4 mile , 
 
 1 point port bow, 
 1 mile. 
 
 2 points port'bow, 
 3 miles. 
 
 Three lights, ^ point 
 
 port bow, l| mile. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 3J points starboard 
 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 Broad on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 IJ point port bow, 
 
 i mile. 
 On starboard beam, 
 
 ^ mile. 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 3 miles. 
 Port bow, 1 mile . . . 
 
 Starboard bow, 300 
 
 yards. 
 Ahead, 4 miles 
 
 B sighted A. 
 
 Starboard bow, 1 
 mile, the bright 
 light. 
 
 1 mile(?) 
 
 Green light 2 points 
 starboard bow, IJ 
 mile. 
 Green light, 2points 
 port bow, 2 miles- 
 Right ahead, J mile. 
 
 White, then green 
 light, 2 points port 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 7 ^ints starboard 
 bmv, 500 yards. 
 
 5 points stfurboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 
 bow, 1 milfe. 
 2 points starboard 
 
 bow, 2 cables. 
 Right ahead, 1 mile 
 
 Ahead, 2 or 3 miles. 
 
 ^ point port bow, i 
 
 mile (?) 
 Nearly 'ahead J 
 
 mile (?) 
 4 points starboard 
 
 bow, IJ mile. 
 White light, 3 or 4 
 
 points starboard 
 
 bow, 4 miles, 
 
 shortly after a 
 
 green light. ' 
 
 2^ points port bow, 
 
 i mile (!) 
 Starboard bow, 1 
 
 mile (?) 
 Ahead, 10 minutes. . 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 Starboard bow, 200 
 yards. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, ^ mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 2 miles. 
 
 It point port bow, 
 "i mile. 
 
 2 or 3 points port 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 Ahead, 2 ships' 
 lengths. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow. 
 
 2 to 3 points port 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Starboard bow, J 
 
 mile. 
 Port bow, 4 ™il6 - - . 
 
 Port bow, 2 miles. . . 
 
 Port bow, 200 yards. 
 
 2 miles (?) 
 
 Steps taken to avoid Collision. 
 
 By A. 
 
 No. 
 
 ByB. 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported . 
 None.- - 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 ^ point starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Red light, then 
 
 green, then red. 
 2J points starboard 
 
 bow, IJ mile. 
 White and red 
 
 lights starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 Portbeam, Imile (?) 
 Port beam, 4 miles. - 
 
 2 to 3 points star- 
 board bow, 4 miles. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 2J points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 3 points starboard. 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 ^ point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 White light,* point 
 starboard bow, 4 
 miles, shortly 
 after a green light. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported . 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded (?) 
 
 Kept course 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported 
 
 Poi-ted, after cross- 
 ing A's bows. 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last port€d. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Starboarded, ported, 
 and starboarded. 
 
 Kept course, and 
 
 then ported. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported and eased, 
 on green light ap- 
 pearing, hard a- 
 port. 
 
 None 
 
 None.. 
 
 None 
 
 Ported, bore up . - 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded a little, 
 seeing B port, 
 then hard a-star- 
 board. 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported (?) . 
 
 Ported, stopped; & 
 reversed. 
 
 Kept course, then 
 
 starboarded. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported . 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Ported 
 
 None.. 
 
 When hailed, star- 
 boarded and stop- 
 ped. 
 
 Ported : 
 
 None. 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Starboarded 
 
 None 
 
 Starboarded. . 
 Ported 
 
 Ported a little, then 
 hard a-port, and 
 stopped. 
 
 101 
 
 102 
 103 
 104 
 105 
 
 106 
 107 
 108 
 109 
 110 
 111 
 112 
 113 
 114 
 115 
 116 
 117 
 
 118 
 119 
 
 120 
 121 
 122 
 
 123 
 
 124 
 
 125 
 126 
 127 
 128 
 129 
 130 
 131 
 132 
 
 to blame, but condemned on technical grounds. "Ann" then brought the action as above. Two Trinity 
 referred to two fresh Brethren, who found both ships to blame for not porting m time. 
 
196 
 
 Ahstraci, of the Principal Collision Cases which have 
 
 Date. 
 
 1860. 
 Nov. 15 
 
 Nov. 
 
 17 
 
 Dec. 
 
 2 
 
 Dec. 
 
 8 
 
 Dec. 
 
 21 
 
 1861. 
 Jan. 22 
 
 Jan. 
 
 26 
 
 Feb. 
 
 13 
 
 Mar. 
 
 10 
 
 Mar. 
 
 15 
 
 Mar. 
 
 16 
 
 April 
 
 14 
 
 April 
 
 15 
 
 April 
 
 19 
 
 May 
 
 11 
 
 May 
 
 14 
 
 June 
 
 15 
 
 July 
 
 6 
 
 July 
 
 13 
 
 July 
 
 18 
 
 July 
 
 24 
 
 July 
 
 28 
 
 Aug; 
 
 11 
 
 Aug. 
 
 12 
 
 Aug. 
 
 14 
 
 Aug. 
 
 15 
 
 Sept. 
 
 14 
 
 Sept. 
 
 28 
 
 Sept. 
 
 28 
 
 Sept. 
 
 29 
 
 Nov. 
 
 6 
 
 Nov. 
 
 16 
 
 Nov. 
 
 30 
 
 Dec. 
 
 3 
 
 Deo. 
 
 11 
 
 Ships' Names. 
 
 John avd Mary. 
 Hydra 
 
 Mariamme Notte- 
 
 bohm. 
 Ann 
 
 Mary Wylie . 
 
 AnnabeUe . 
 
 Kate..... 
 
 Theodore 
 
 JRestless 
 
 Tliamas Bcghie.. 
 
 Flavio Gioio 
 
 Gipsy 
 
 James 
 
 Lindisfarne . 
 
 Swallow 
 
 lola^WyUie... 
 
 Fatchett 
 
 Opgaende Sol 
 
 Anns 
 
 Mary Ann Duffris. 
 
 CJiandos 
 
 Angora 
 
 Conquest 
 
 William 
 
 City of Norwich, 
 S. 
 
 Constance 
 
 Safe Return , 
 
 Martha Miles 
 
 Crocus 
 
 Taxiarchis 
 
 WillemEduard.. 
 
 Eclipse 
 
 Ettje Berg> 
 
 Aneurin 
 
 Imogen 
 
 M. L. Franlc 
 
 Ouse 
 
 The West Indian. 
 
 Canterhury 
 
 Rouen, S 
 
 Novo Elisio 
 
 Henry Morton, S. 
 
 Cameo 
 
 S. Van Heel 
 
 Union' 
 
 Merit 
 
 Beschid, S 
 
 Ada, S 
 
 Milan, S. 
 
 Lord Raglan, S. . 
 
 Beaver, S 
 
 Highbury 
 
 Tiger, S 
 
 C.S.M 
 
 W. V. Moses 
 
 Severn 
 
 Adelgunde 
 
 Eugenie 
 
 Harpswell 
 
 Amity, S 
 
 Samson 
 
 Olivia 
 
 Corinthian, S 
 
 Amy Louisa 
 
 Danube, S 
 
 H. M. S. Flying 
 
 Fish, S. 
 Ceres, S 
 
 Die Sonne 
 
 Darkness 
 
 or 
 
 Daylight, 
 
 D.orL. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D.' 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 i).* 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 D. 
 L. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 L. 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 D. 
 L. 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 D. 
 
 Wind and Weather. 
 
 Southerly, fresh, hazy. . 
 N.N.W., fresh, rain, sleet 
 
 S.E., drizzly, hazy 
 
 S.E., fresh, cloudy 
 
 N.N.E., fresh and cloudy 
 
 W.toW.b.N., light, fog, 
 
 W. to W.S.W., squally, 
 
 clear. 
 Southerly, fresh, dark... 
 
 W.S.W., moderate, cleai'. 
 
 W.toS.W.b.S., strong, 
 
 cloudy. 
 W. b. S., moderate, 
 
 cloudy. 
 N.E., moderate, fine 
 
 E. b. S. to E.S.B., mode- 
 rate. 
 E.S.E., fresh, clear 
 
 E., light, clear 
 
 S.W., light, fog 
 
 E.N.E., light, thick 
 
 S. by E., fresh, squally. - 
 
 Southerly, moderate, 
 
 clear. 
 W.S.W., strong, clear.. - 
 
 S.W., fresh, cloudy 
 
 N.W. b. W. to W., fresh 
 rain. 
 
 S.W. to W.S.W.,^e8h, 
 
 fine. * 
 S. W., fi'esh, clear 
 
 S. to S.S.W., moderate.. 
 
 S.W. b. W. to W.S.W., 
 
 strong, cloudy. 
 W.S.W., strong, cloudy. 
 
 S. by W. to S.S.W., 
 
 moderate, hazy. 
 S. b. W., strong, cloudy. 
 
 W.N.W., fresh, clear 
 
 W.N.W., moderate, 
 
 cloudj'. 
 Northerly, light, fine 
 
 W. b. N., cloudy, squally. 
 
 N.N.E., strong, clear. . . . 
 
 S.W. to W.S.W., fresh, 
 clear. 
 
 Course of A. 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 W.S.W..., 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 S.S.W.... 
 E 
 
 S.S.W .-.. 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 B. b. S...,. 
 S.JE 
 
 n.n;w---. 
 
 In stays 
 
 W.b. N... 
 
 S.E 
 
 S.W 
 
 N.N.B 
 
 E 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 E.N.E 
 
 W. b. S.... 
 S 
 
 HeadW... 
 S.W. b. W 
 
 N.W 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 s 
 
 S.W-iS.. 
 
 S.E 
 
 S.E 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N 
 
 S 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N.W 
 
 W.N.W... 
 
197 
 
 been tHed in the Admiralty Court from 1864 to 1864. 
 
 -Course of B. 
 
 N.W.b.N 
 
 N.E.b.E 
 
 S.S.W 
 
 E.b. N 
 
 W.b. S 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 W.l). N 
 
 N.W.b.W. 4"W. 
 
 S.b.E 
 
 S.b.W 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 N.E 
 
 N.E.b.E 
 
 S.W.b. S 
 
 N.W.b. W. JW. 
 
 N.W.b.N 
 
 W.b.S 
 
 E.JN 
 
 N. b. W. t W. . . . 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 In stays 
 
 W 
 
 N.W.b. W 
 
 N.E 
 
 W.b. S 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 N.W. iW 
 
 S. b. W. JW..-. 
 
 Eounding a point, 
 helm a-starboard. 
 
 W.iS 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 S 
 
 A sighted B. 
 
 5 points starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 Nearly ahead, J mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 IJ mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 4 points port bow, 
 2 cables. 
 
 1 point port bow, 2 
 
 miles. 
 ^ point port bow, 1^ 
 
 mile. 
 Ahead, 4 or 5 miles 
 
 2J- points starboard 
 
 bow, i mile. 
 Starboard beam, 1 
 
 mile. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Broad on starboard 
 bow, 300 yards. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 ships' 
 
 lengths. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 ships' 
 
 lengths. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 2 miles. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 IJ point port bow, 
 ^ mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 I mile. 
 
 4 points port bow, 
 1 mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1^ mile. 
 
 1 to 2 points port 
 bow, t mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 5 miles. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 On port quarter, 3 
 
 or 4 miles. 
 
 4 or 5 points on port 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 
 6 points port bow, 5 
 
 miles. 
 4 points starboard 
 
 bow, 2 cables. ■ 
 
 B sighted A. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 1^ cable. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 ship's 
 
 length. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 f mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 k mile (?) 
 
 Rightahead, 4ships' 
 lengths. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, i mile (?) 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 1 mile. 
 
 IJ points on star- 
 board bow, 1 mile. 
 
 1 or 2 points port 
 bow, £ mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 I mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 J 
 
 mile. 
 Ahead, 2 ships' 
 
 lengths. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow,.lJ mile. 
 
 J point port bow, 
 
 1§ mile. 
 ^ point port bow, 2J 
 
 cables. 
 
 Ahead, 300 yards. - . 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 ^ mile. 
 1 point port bow, 1^ 
 
 mile. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 ^ point starboard 
 bow, 2 ships' 
 lengths. 
 
 1 pomt port bow, 
 If mile. 
 
 2 points abaft star- 
 board beam. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 150 yards. 
 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, i mile. 
 
 Ahead, i mile 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 IJ miles on port 
 bow, then on star- 
 board bow. 
 
 Close-to, on star- 
 board bow,lpoint. 
 
 4 points starboard 
 bow, 4 miles, 
 
 2 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 Steps taken to avoid Collision. 
 
 By A. 
 
 None . - . 
 Ported . 
 
 None, at last ported 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, then star- 
 boarded. 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Starboai'ded, then 
 
 ported. 
 None 
 
 Ported . 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported, seeing red 
 
 light. 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 None. 
 
 Seeing red light, 
 
 ported. 
 None 
 
 Ported, when with- 
 in 200 yards. 
 
 Poi-ted 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported 
 None, at last ported 
 
 Starboarded, ported, 
 stopped, and re- 
 versed. 
 
 None, at last ported, 
 
 None 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 Ported . 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 
 ByB. 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported, seeing light 
 None, at last ported. 
 Ported, luffed... 
 
 Ported, and squared 
 
 mairiyard. 
 Ported and stopped . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded and 
 
 stopped. 
 Ported, luffed , 
 
 None, at last ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported : 
 
 Ported : 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 reversed. 
 
 Ported and stopped, 
 
 Ported and stopped 
 Luffed, ported 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Starboarded, bore 
 
 up. 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported . 
 
 Tried to get way 
 
 on ship. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, bore up 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Starboarded, stop- 
 ped, & reversed. 
 
 Starboarded, stop- 
 ped, &■ reversed. 
 Stopped 
 
 None. 
 
 No. 
 
 133 
 134 
 
 135 
 136 
 137 
 
 136 
 139 
 140 
 141 
 142 
 143 
 144 
 145 
 146 
 147 
 148 
 
 150 
 151 
 152 
 153 
 154 
 
 155 
 156 
 157 
 158 
 159 
 
 160 
 161 
 162 
 163 
 164 
 
 165 
 166 
 167 
 
198 
 
 Abstract of the Principal Collision Cases wJiich have 
 
 No. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Ships' 
 
 Names. 
 
 Darkness 
 
 Wind and Weather. 
 
 Course of A. 
 
 A. 
 
 B. 
 
 Daylight, 
 
 168 
 
 1861. 
 Deo. 19 
 
 Ellen and Mary. . 
 
 Clementina 
 
 D. 
 
 N.N.E., strong, fine 
 
 N.W. b.W.... 
 
 ifiq 
 
 1862. 
 Jan. 3 
 
 Jan. 27 
 
 Coleroon 
 
 Elise Many l 
 
 Wild Sanger 
 
 Cornwall 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 E. b. N., moderate, 
 
 cloudy. 
 S. to S.S.Wj, ftesh, cloudy. 
 
 S.E 
 
 170 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 171 
 
 Jan. 29 
 
 Etna, S 
 
 Cheviot 
 
 D. 
 
 W.S.W., fresh, clear.... 
 
 S.W.b.W.iW. 
 S.E.b. S.JS.. 
 E.b.S 
 
 E. b. N 
 
 17" 
 
 Feb. 3 
 
 Eliza 
 
 
 D. 
 
 W.S.W., fresh, hazy.... 
 
 N.W. to N.b.W., fresh, 
 
 clear. 
 S.S.E, to S.E. b. S., fresh 
 
 17S 
 
 Feb. 9 
 Feb. 17 
 
 Pursuit., 
 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 17'! 
 
 Mabel 
 
 175 
 
 Mar. 5 
 April 18 
 
 CortAdlcr 
 
 Cle-reland 
 
 Milan S, 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 hazy. 
 
 Head, W.S.W. 
 S.b. E 
 
 17fi 
 
 Amazone 
 
 W.toS.S.W., fresh, clear. 
 
 177 
 
 June 30 
 
 Thomas Snooks. . . 
 
 City of Carilsle.. 
 
 D. 
 
 W., ftesh, cloudy 
 
 S.S.W. 
 
 17R 
 
 Aug. 7 
 Sept, 18 
 
 
 
 D. 
 
 S. to S.W., strong, rain. . 
 N.N.E. to N.B., fresh 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 179 
 
 Deesse 
 
 Moderation 
 
 D. 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 IRO 
 
 Not. 29 
 Deo. 5 
 
 Matchless 
 
 ■William France, S 
 
 
 D. 
 D. 
 
 S.E.b.E.toE.S.E., fresh, 
 
 cloudy. 
 Southerly, light, fine 
 
 S.b.W 
 
 W.b. N 
 
 181 
 
 Albert, S 
 
 18!? 
 
 Deo. 18 
 
 Natal Star 
 
 Lucerne, S 
 
 D. 
 
 W.S.W., fiesh, cloudy... 
 N.N.W., fresh, showery.. 
 
 S.S.W., fresh, clear 
 
 N.W. to W.N.W., clear. 
 
 S.i E 
 
 1R,1 
 
 Deo. 22 
 
 
 D. 
 
 W.JS 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 1R4 
 
 1863. 
 Jan. 4 
 
 1 
 Jan. 21 
 
 Maid of Kent.... 
 
 
 D. 
 L. 
 
 IR.") 
 
 Alster 
 
 186 
 
 Feb. 6 
 
 Navigator 
 
 Falkland 
 
 D. 
 
 W., strong, hazy 
 
 Wearing head 
 
 S.E. 
 W.b. S 
 
 187 
 
 Feb. 12 
 
 John Mowlem 
 
 Lloyds, S 
 
 D. 
 
 N.W.b.N., light, clear.. 
 
 188 
 
 Feb. 13 
 
 Governor Lang- 
 
 Kangaroo, S 
 
 D. 
 
 Calm 
 
 S.W. b.W 
 
 1HP 
 
 April 19 
 
 den. 
 Newburgh 
 
 Oscar, S 
 
 D. 
 
 N.W. to W.N.W., fresh, 
 clear. 
 
 N.N.E 
 
 
 
 190 
 
 May 15 
 
 Maria de Brabant, 
 
 Amalia, S 
 
 D.* 
 
 Calm, clear 
 
 S.E.b. E 
 
 191 
 
 May 19 
 
 S. 
 Cheshire Witch. . 
 
 Sosa 
 
 D 
 
 E., gale, cloudy 
 
 N.N.E. to N.E. b. B., 
 
 strong. 
 S.W. b. W., light 
 
 N.W.b.W.toW.b.N., 
 
 light. 
 W.S.W., fresh, rain 
 
 N.W. b. W., moderate, 
 
 hazy. 
 S.S.E., moderate 
 
 S S E 
 
 192 
 
 May 19 
 July 25 
 
 The Brothers.... 
 Witbam . . . 
 
 Colleen Baun 
 
 D. 
 J) 
 
 S.E 
 
 IPS 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S;W.b. W.... 
 N.W 
 
 N E h N 
 
 194 
 
 Sept. 13 
 
 
 
 
 19.") 
 
 Sept. 18 
 
 
 Great Eastern, S. 
 Karla 
 
 D. 
 D 
 
 196 
 
 Sept. 26 
 
 Joseph StraJcer, S. 
 
 197 
 198 
 
 Sept. 30 
 Deo. 6 
 
 N'ewcastle, S 
 
 Test 
 
 Graaf van Rech- 
 
 teren, S. 
 Lm-d Cardigan, 
 
 S. 
 
 Hibernia 
 
 D.* 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 S.b.E 
 
 199 
 
 1864. 
 Jan. 6 
 
 Starbrmh 
 
 D. 
 
 E.S.E. to E.b.N., fresh. 
 
 snn 
 
 Jan. 28 
 
 Kezia 
 
 Eliza 
 
 L 
 
 W.N.W., moderate, clear. 
 N.E., moderate, clear.... 
 
 N.iW 
 
 E.S.E 
 
 201 
 
 Feb. 5 
 
 y 
 
 Mary Ann 
 
 Delaware 
 
 D. 
 
 203 
 
 Feb. 11 
 
 George Dean. 
 
 Constitution 
 
 D. 
 
 S.W., gale, hazy 
 
 W.N.W 
 
199 
 
 been tried in the_ Admiralty Court from 1854 to 1864. 
 
 Course of B. 
 
 S.E. b. E . 
 
 W.b. N 
 
 W 
 
 N.E.b, N. 
 
 N.W 
 
 w.s.w 
 
 s.w 
 
 N.W. i W 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 ■W.b. S 
 
 W. b. N. JN.... 
 
 N.E 
 
 E.iS 
 
 K.W. b. N. i N . 
 E.b.S 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.W 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 E.K.E 
 
 N.E. b. E. J E . 
 N.b.W. aw.. 
 
 W. b. N- 
 
 S.S.E 
 
 S.E. JE 
 
 N.b. W 
 
 N.b. W 
 
 E.b.S.iS.... 
 S.W.b. W..-. 
 
 N.N.W 
 
 E, b. S. i^S.-.- 
 N.b.E 
 
 S.W.b.S 
 
 W.N.W 
 
 S.E.b.S 
 
 A sighted B. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 % mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 ^ mile. 
 % points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 1 point port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 Right ahead, J mile, 
 
 1 point port bow, J 
 
 mile. 
 2J points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 On port beam, 2 
 
 miles. 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 1^ mile. 
 
 On port bow, 1 cable 
 
 % point starboard 
 
 bow, 4 mile. 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, 1^ mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 3 
 miles. 
 
 Nearly ahead 3 to 
 
 4 miles (?) 
 IJ point starboard 
 
 bow, 3 miles. 
 
 ^ point starboard 
 bow, 1^ mile. 
 
 2 pointd port bow, 
 i mile. 
 
 Ahead, ^ a mile 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 4 miles. 
 
 2 or 3 points star- 
 boardbow, 3miles. 
 
 4 to 6 points star- 
 board quarter, 2^ 
 miles. 
 
 White light, Spoints 
 port bow, 4 miles. 
 
 Right astern, ^ mile . 
 
 ,2 points starboard 
 quarter, ^ mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 1^ mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 1 
 mile. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 Little on starboard 
 bow, IJ miles. 
 
 2 points abait star- 
 board beam, 2 
 cables. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 On starboard bow, 
 
 2 or 3 miles. 
 
 1 point port bow, 2 
 
 2 miles. 
 3 points starboard 
 
 bow, % mile. 
 
 B sighted A. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 4 mile (?) 
 
 Not seen till close . . 
 
 Ahead, 200 yards. . . 
 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 Little on starboard 
 
 bow, J mile. 
 
 1 point starboard 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, f mile. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 
 bow, \ mile. 
 2^ points starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 cable. 
 
 3 points starboard 
 bow, 1 cable. 
 
 On port bow, J mile. 
 
 2 points starboard 
 bow, 1 cable. 
 
 12 l>oint starboard 
 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 Kightahead, IJ mile. 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 200 yards. 
 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 
 2 points port bow, 2 
 
 cables. 
 IJ point port bow, 
 
 it mile. 
 ^ point starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 J point port bow, 
 
 1^ mile. 
 
 1 point port bow, 2^ 
 miles. 
 
 White light, 3 
 points starboard 
 bow, 4 miles. 
 
 2 points port bow, 
 
 2 cables. 
 
 Right ahead, J mile - 
 
 1^ points port bow, 
 
 2 miles. 
 Broad on starboard 
 
 bow, close. 
 2J points starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 Little on port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 Broad on starboard 
 
 bow, 2 miles. 
 Ahead, 200 yards . . 
 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 £ mile. 
 3 points port bow, 
 
 1 mile. 
 1 point starboard 
 
 bow, 1 mile. 
 1^ point port bow, 
 
 atagreatdistance. 
 
 Steps taken to ayoid Collision. 
 
 By A. 
 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported 
 
 Kept a close luff. . . , 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported and braced 
 
 up. 
 Ported 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 None 
 
 Kept a close luff. . . . 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Kept a close luff. . . . 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Ported, bore up... 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 None 
 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 None. .. 
 None... 
 None . - . 
 
 Ported, starboarded, 
 then seeing green 
 light ported. 
 
 None 
 
 None . . - 
 None... 
 None... 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 None 
 
 Starboarded . 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 None 
 
 ByB. 
 
 Ported . 
 
 None, no time. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Tacked.'. 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported, kept away. . 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 None 
 
 Luffed up in the 
 
 wind. 
 Starboarded 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported 
 
 Ported . 
 Ported . 
 
 None, at last star- 
 boarded. 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Ported and stopped. 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 reversed. 
 
 Seeing red light, 
 ported, stopped, 
 and reversed. 
 
 Ported, kept away. , 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 None, keptcloseluff. 
 
 No. 
 
 Starboarded, stop- 
 ped, andreversed. 
 None 
 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 reversed. 
 Ported, stopped, & 
 
 revepsed. 
 
 None, at last ported. 
 None, at last ported. 
 
 Ported 
 
 Ported 
 
 169 
 170 
 171 
 172 
 173 
 174 
 175 
 176 
 177 
 178 
 179 
 180 
 181 
 182 
 183 
 
 184 
 185 
 186 
 187 
 188 
 
 191 
 
 192 
 193 
 194 
 195 
 196 
 197 
 198 
 
 199 
 200 
 201 
 202 
 
201 
 
 SUMMARY OP THE FOREGOING TABLES. 
 
 Whole numbei- of cases 202 
 
 Cases occurring in daylight 34 
 
 Cases occurring in darkness. 168 
 
 Where the courses were exactly opposite. . 27 
 
 Where the paths of the two sliips, if produced, would intersect at 
 
 an angle of 1 point or less 39 
 
 Where they intersect between 1 and 2 points 40 
 
 « 79 
 
 Between 2 and 3 points 26 
 
 Between 3 and 4 points 16 
 
 More than 4 points 36 
 
 78 
 
 Doubtful cases ; 51 
 
 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 56, 59, 60, 61, 
 68, 70, 72, 76, 78, 80, 89, 92, 95, 97, 101, 104, 106, 112, 
 115, 123," 127, 129, 138, 139, 147, 150, 151, 152, 156, 161, 
 168, 183, 184, 185, 188, 191, 192, 193, 198, 201. 
 
 Cases not classified 65 
 
 5, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 
 46, 51, 52, 55, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 77, 83, 84, 86, 88, 
 98, 100, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 130, 131, 135, 
 136, 142, 144, 145, 148, 154, 155, 167, 158, 159, 160, 162, 
 163, 166, 166, 171, 172, 174, 177, 179, 181, 186, 195. 
 
 Narrow channel 5 
 
 3, 4, 102, 117, 122. 
 
 Parallel courses - ^^ 
 
 7, 13, 42, 48, 75, 87, 102, 132, 140, 197. 
 
 Where port helm was improper 54: 
 
 1 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 32, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 
 54, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 75, 81, 82, 85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 99, 
 102 105, 109, 115, 120, 121, 1,22, 132, 133, 134, 137, 143, 
 146^ 169, 173, 175, 180, 182, 187, 189, 190, 197, 202. 
 
202 
 
 Where starboard helm was improper 13 
 
 17, 43, 45, 47, 60, 93, 96, 103, 124, 128, 140, 141, 178. 
 
 Where one ship did nothing and the other ported 38 
 
 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 29, 37, 42, 44, 46, 53, 54, 57, 71, 81, 82, 
 85, 91, 94, 99, 111, 117, 125, 126, 133, 143, 149, 167, 169, 
 170, 175, 187, 189, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202. 
 
 Where one ship did nothing and the other starboarded 8 
 
 17, 96, 103, 124, 141, 153, 164, 178. 
 
 Where one ship was stationary 5 
 
 1, 29, 103, 143, 175. 
 
 No stpps taken on either side ,4 
 
 25, 79, 176, 194. 
 
 Where no original risk 31 
 
 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 32, 41, 42, 43, 49, 58, 63, 65, 75, 81, 82, 
 85, 87, 94, 96, 119, 132, 134, 137, 140, 146, 180, 182, 187, 
 197, 201. 
 
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 Since the Second Edition of tliis Pamphlet was printed it has received 
 the official approval of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Trinity 
 House, as well as of the French Government; and the cons^uction of 
 Articles 11 and 13 which it advocates has been made positive and binding 
 by Order in Council, an extract from which will be found in Appendix 111. 
 
 THOMAS GEAT. 
 Board of Teade, Sept. 1868. 
 
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Before the reader turns over this leaf it is necessary that he should 
 impress on his mind this fact : 
 
 That in one case only is any reference made in the Regulations to the 
 use of the Port Helm by Steamers, and in one only by Sailing Ships, 
 viz., in Articles 11 and 13, wliicli direct that when two ships. Steam or 
 Saihng, are meeting end on, or nearly end on, each is to port. 
 
 It may be often proper and necessary to port in cases not mentioned 
 in Articles 11 and 13 of the Regulations. But recollect that if you get 
 into collision by porting, in cases in which the Regulations do not 
 expressly direct the use of the Port Helm, the collision is not the result 
 of any injunction to Port to be found in the Regulations. 
 
 The reckless use of Port Helm leads to coUision. 
 
 T. GRAY. 
 
A PEW REMARKS 
 
 EKSPECTING 
 
 THE RULE OF THE ROAD FOR STEAMSHIPS. 
 
 1. The object of the following remarks is to show that the present 
 rule is simple, sufficient, and intelligible. 
 
 The rule is — 
 
 a. If two ships 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. (Article 13.) 
 
 b. If two ships 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. (Article 14.) 
 
 2. The rule contained in these two articles is the universal and inter- 
 national rule of the road for steamers. It has been fully discussed, 
 considered, and approved by competent naval men and competent lawyers 
 belonging to the countries and states named below, viz : 
 
 Austria. Mecklenburg-Schwerin. 
 
 Argentine Kepublic. Morocco. 
 
 . Belgium. • Netherlands. 
 
 Brazil. Norway. 
 
 Bremen. Oldenbiu-g. . 
 
 Chile. Peru. 
 
 Denmark Proper. Portugal. 
 
 Equator, Republic of the. Prussia. 
 
 Prance. Roman States. 
 
 Great Britain. Russia. 
 
 Greece. Schleswig. 
 
 Hamburg. * . Spain. 
 
 Hanover. Sweden. 
 
 Hawaiian Islands. Turkey. 
 
 jjayti. • United States, for sea-going ships. 
 
 j^g^jy_ United States, for Inland Waters. 
 
 Lubeck. Uruguay. 
 
208 
 
 APPLICATION dF THE EULE. 
 
 3. It must be remarked that the rule only applies — 
 
 a. To ships meeting; 
 
 b. To ships crossing; 
 
 And, further, that it then applies — 
 
 c. Only when there is risk of collision. 
 
 4. There are only two positions of danger: 
 
 a. Ships meeting (end on, or nearly end on,) and — 
 
 b. Ships crossing. 
 
 5. The rule does not apply when there is no risk of collision. 
 
 6. Every one is unanimous in agreeing that no two ships can come 
 into collision so long as they show each other the same colored light, 
 green to green, or red to red. 
 
 7. The rule cannot therefore apply — 
 
 a. When a green light is seen anywhere on the starboard side; 
 
 b. "When a red light is seen anywhere on the port side; 
 
 c. Nor can it apply when a red or a green light is seen ahead. 
 
 8. There is not the remotest chance ■of collision in either of the cases 
 above put. It would, therefore, be idle to make rules to deiine what the 
 ships so situated are to do to j^revent collision; and yet the Government 
 have been asked to make such rules. 
 
 9. We may ask — 
 
 a. Should any rules be made to tell ships what they are to do to keep 
 apart when there is no risk of collision? 
 
 The answer is "No;" and the reason is, that there is, no use in making 
 unnecessary rules. 
 
 b. Should general rules have been made to tell meeting or crossing 
 ships what to do when there is risk of collision? 
 
 10. The answer is ."Yes;" and the reason is, that ships meeting or 
 crossing on the highway of nations, as well as people and vehicles meeting 
 and crossing on the highways of the country, should know on which 
 side they are to be ordinarily expected to pass each other for mutual 
 convenience and safety. 
 
 11. Assuming then — 
 
 a. That it is idle to make rules for ships that cannot possibly come 
 into colhsion if they both keep on their course. 
 
 b. That rules for ships that are meeting or crossing so as to involve 
 risk of collision should be made, and should be simple.- 
 
 12. Are not the existing rules (13 and 14) sufficient? 
 The answer is "Yes;" the reasons are: 
 
 a. That the rules apply only to oases involving risk of collision; 
 
209 
 
 i. That, if attended to, they apply as effectually to those cases as any 
 rales can; and — 
 
 c. That they are as simple as they can be. 
 
 13. Of course the reader will at once agree that if any rules had to 
 be made for passing ships they should be as follows, viz : 
 
 a. Port, if necessary, to a red light ahead, or nearly ahead, or any- 
 where on your port side. 
 
 b. Stai-board, if necessary, to a green light ahead, or nearly ahead, or 
 anywhere on your starboard side. 
 
 14. But then it has not been thought necessary to put these rules into 
 a legislative enactment, because passing ships do not cross the path of 
 each other, and therefore while they are passing ships they cannot come 
 into collision. 
 
 15. And besides, it must be patent to the merest tyro that if A, in 
 Diagram 2, were to port with B 1, 3, or 3, going in the direction indi- 
 cated by^ the arrow marked (X,) she must inevitably run to collision tod 
 probably to destruction. 
 
 16. The following words should be impressed on the mind of every 
 sailor, viz: 
 
 So long as you keep a green light opposed to a green light, or a red 
 light opposed to a red light, no collision can happen between passing 
 ships. 
 
 STEAMSHIPS MEETING. 
 
 17. The existing rule (Article 13) provides that if two steamships 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. See Diagram 1. 
 
 18. There would be only one other way to provide for the difficulty, 
 and to prevent colhsion between ships meeting ; and that would be to 
 provide that each shall pass on the starboard side of the other. This 
 would certainly be different from the present rule, but it would be 
 neither more simple nor more effectual. Where is, then, the objection 
 to the existing rule? 
 
 19. There is none. As regards ships meeting "end on" no alteration 
 is required. 
 
 20. But those who want alteration say that the words " nearly end 
 on " should be omitted from this rule. 
 
 Why? 
 
 21. If two ships are meeting (each approaching the other) "eud on,"' 
 that is to say, if both are running towards each other from opposite; 
 ends of one straight hne, they must meet each other full in the face like' 
 
 14 
 
210, 
 
 two railway trains meeting on one line of rails. But, to prevent tliis, 
 eacli is to port. If they are hoth meeting nearly end on, i. e., nearly on 
 the same straight line, but just off it, why should they not port also ? 
 
 22. But because two steamships meeting are both required by the rule 
 to port, it does not follow that a steamship is to port whenever she sees 
 any hght ahead or nearly ahead, i. e., nearly " end on " with her own 
 keel. 
 
 23. The rule applies only when two ships are meeting each other, 
 and not when a light is end on with a ship. 
 
 24. Some decisions in the Admiralty Court have led to the conclusion 
 that a hght is to be considered as being ahead or nearly ahead (a) if it 
 is seen ahead; or (5) if it is seen anywhere from one to two points on 
 either bow; and there is' an impression amongst seafaring men that if a 
 light is seen nearly ahead, the ship showing that light is to be treated as 
 meeting the ship seeing it end on or nearly end on. But this impression 
 cannot be in accordance with the real state of the case. 
 
 25. Take as an instance the vessel A, Diagram 2, seeing the green 
 light B'j B ", or B % ahead or nearly ahead. It will be seen on reference 
 to the Diagram that the steamer showing either of these green hghts 
 cannot be meeting A at all; and that, therefore,, the ships A and B 
 cannot be meeting end on or nearly end on. B 1, 2, 3, may be going in 
 any of the directions indicated by the arrows, and in any of those direc- 
 tions she must be diverging from the path of A. 
 
 26. Now, if the helm of A is ported, instead of avoiding a collision 
 she will court it by running directly across the path of B 1, 2, or 3, as 
 denoted by the direction of some of the arrows. If the' helm of A is 
 ported, the ships immediately become crossing ships, and the position of 
 security which is maintained as long as A and B keep their courses, and 
 show to each other their green lights only, is immediately converted 
 into the position of the greatest danger. This is not the intention of the 
 framers of the rules, whatever may be the deductions from some of the 
 legal decisions. 
 
 27. Seamen are to be found who port at every light seen ahead, or 
 nearly ahead ; but if they port when they should not, for example, with 
 a green light, say two points on their starboard bow, and say they do it 
 because the light is nearly ahead or nearly end on with them, that is no 
 fault ^f the rule, and has no reference to the rule, for the rule does not 
 apply in a case where there is no risk of collision, and there is no risk 
 of collision, as has already been admitted, if a green Hght is seen ahead 
 or anywhere 'on- the starboard side. 
 
 28. The light, it is true, (as will be seen on reference to Diagram 2,) 
 may be end on, or nearly end on, to A ; but the ship A and the ship 
 
211 
 
 carrying the light B 1, 2, or 3, cannot be nearly end on with each other, 
 and cannot be meeting. This is the whole point. People who port in 
 such a case overlook the fact, pointed out above, that by the rule of the 
 road it is not a light end on, or nearly end on, that justifies them in 
 porting; and they also forget that not only the ship carrying the light 
 must be end on, but that the ship carrying it as well as the ship seeing 
 it (that is to say, both ships) must be meeting each other end on or 
 nearly end on. 
 
 29. It would be admitted on all hands that the officer in command of 
 C (Diagram 3) who would put his helm a-starboard if he saw a steamer's 
 red light D on his port bow (1, 2, 3), or nearly ahead on the port side, 
 would be doing wrong. There can be no doubt of it. But the rule of 
 the road would not be in fault. 
 
 30. If, then, it is wrong for the officer in command of a ship to star- 
 board when he sees a red light in such a position on his port side, is it, 
 as a rule, not equally wrong to port if he sees a green light in such a 
 position on his starboard side? 
 
 31. There can be no doubt that it is equally wrong. It would be a 
 grave error to do so, but it would not have the remotest connection with 
 the rule of the road; for the rule does not apply to such a case. The 
 officer in command of the ship, and not the rule, must be blamed in such 
 a case if a collision happens. 
 
 STEAMSHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 32. In the following observations about crossing ships, it is assumed, for 
 the sake of argument, that the speed of each ship is equal or nearly equal. 
 
 33. Steamships crossing so as to involve risk of colhsion always show 
 to each other a different colored light; green to red, and red to green. 
 Unless, therefore, a steamer sees another steamer's green Kght on her 
 own port side, or another steamer's red light on her own starboard side,, 
 there is no danger so far as steamers crossing are concerned. 
 
 34. If a steamer E (Diagram 4) see another steamer's red light, F, G, 
 H or I anywhere on her own starboard side, the steamer E must know- 
 that she may bo crossing the path of the steamer carrying the light F, 
 G H or I; and if a steamer K (Diagram 5) see a steamer's green 
 light, L, M, N, or O, anywhere on her own port side, the steamer E 
 must know that she may be crossing the path of the steamer carrying 
 the light L, M, N, or O. 
 
 35. The light F, G, H, or I, may be on a steam vessel going in any 
 of the directions indicated by the arrows, or in any intermediate 
 direction. If E and F, or E and G, or E and H, or E and I, are both 
 making to one point (crossing), something must be done by the vessel 
 
212 
 
 seeing the red light, or by the vessel seeing the green light, or by both, 
 to prevent collision. One of them must give way. The law meets the 
 case by requiring that "the ship which has the other on her own star- 
 board side shall keep out of the way of the other." 
 
 36. The rule is then— 
 
 a. If E (Diagram 4) see a red light anywhere on her own starboard 
 side, say at F, G, H, or I, she (E) will know that she and the ship 
 carrying the red light F, G, H, or I, may be crossing. She (E) must 
 keep out of the way of the ship that carries that red light, and let her 
 pass, because, in the words of the rule, the red light is on E's "own 
 starboard side." 
 
 i. If K (Diagram 5) see a green light on her own port side, L, M, N, 
 or O, the ship carrying that green light may be crossing K's path; and L, 
 M, I^, or O, having K on her own starboard side, must get out of K's way. 
 
 37. E and K must also, of course, take any necessary precautions as 
 well, and not come in colHsion with the other vessel if they can help it. 
 
 38. But some persons have suggested that the law should be altered 
 and made to say how, in every conceivable case, one crossing vessel shall 
 get out of the way of the other; and those persons find fault because this 
 information is not provided in the existing rules. 
 
 39. It has been further suggested that the ship (E, Diagram 4) that is 
 to get out of the way of the other should always be required to starboard, 
 or always be required to port. The answer to this is, that she can 
 starboard under the existing rules, if it is proper to do so, and if star- 
 boarding will take her out of the way of the other vessel; but that in 
 some cases she will get in the way, and be wrong if she does not port. 
 If E, who is to keep out of the way of I, were to starboard when I is 
 going in the direction indicated by the arrow 1 1, then she, E, would 
 cross the course of I. In the same way, if E were to starboard with the 
 other ships going in the direction of H 1 or G 1, &c., she would probably 
 run them down. 
 
 40. On the other hand, E would probably come into collision if she 
 were to port, if the vessel carrying the red light were going in the 
 direction of G 2 or F 2 or F 1. 
 
 41. The way for E to avoid collision with 13 is for E to go on straight 
 or to port. To avoid collision with H 3, it is snificient for E to go ahead 
 straight; and vdth G 2, certainly not to port. To avoid collision with 
 F 1, E must stop, starboard, and reverse if necessary. 
 
 42. The elements of uncertainty are — 
 
 (a.) That the lights F, G, H, and I present the same appearance to E 
 whether the head of vessel is in the direction indicated by the arrows 
 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4; and, therefore-*- 
 
213 
 
 h- That E can never know, although she may estimate, the direction 
 of the head of F, G,H, or I. 
 
 c. That E can never know the distance of F, G, H, or I. If the lights 
 are unusually dim they will appear to be further off than they really are. 
 K they are unusually bright, or the atmosphere is clear, they will appear 
 to be nearer than they really are. 
 
 d. E can never know, although she may estimate, the speed of F, G, 
 H, or I. 
 
 43. In short, the elements of direction, distance, and speed, all 
 unknown, and therefore uncertain to E, must be allowed for by E in 
 determining the course she is to take. 
 
 44. It is clear that the action in each case must depend upon the 
 necessities of the case, and that the legislature cannot make a rule to say 
 that E shall always go one way or always do one thing. It must be left 
 to the officer in command to do the best under the circumstances of each 
 case; to recollect thait his green light opposed to the red light of another 
 vessel is the one position of danger; and, above all, to observe due 
 caution. 
 
 WHITE MASTHEAD LIGHT. 
 
 45. The masthead or "white" light is not mentioned in the aforegoing 
 remarks. It is, of course, implied throughout that the white hght is 
 visible as well as the colored lights. 
 
 46. It must be borne in mind that the Regulations require this bright 
 white light to be carried at the masthead of all steamships under weigh, 
 as well as by vessels at anchor. 
 
 It must also be borne in mind that the Regulations require the white 
 masthead steamer's light to be of such size and description as to be seen 
 ioT five miles in a clear atmosphere, and that the colored side lights are 
 required to show for two miles only. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the white light being carried at the masthead 
 is visible above the horizon sooner than the colored lights which are 
 carried on the sides of the ship, far below the white light, and that, con- 
 sequently, a white light seen alone may probably not be the white hght 
 of a vessel at anchor, but the masthead white light of a steamer in 
 motion, hull down. 
 
 It is the duty of the seaman to assume that any light he sees is in the 
 position, or is of the character, likely to be most dangerous to him. It. 
 is therefore, his duty on first seeing a white hght alone, not to assume 
 that it is the hght of a vessel at anchor, but to act as if it were the mast- 
 head light of a steamer in motion, and to keep a good lookout. 
 
214 
 
 GENERAL RULE FOR STEAMSHIPS MEETING, AND PARTICULAR RULE FOE 
 STEAMSHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 47. The general rule of the road for steamers is precisely the same as 
 the general rale of the pavement for foot passengers in London, and in 
 all our large towns, viz., that in all ordinary cases two steamships, like 
 two pedestrians, meeting face to face, or "end on, or nearly end on," so 
 as to involve risk of colhsion shall port, that is to say, shall keep to the 
 right, so that each may pass on the port (left) side of the other. Nothing 
 can be more simple than this; but the man who will persist in crossing 
 right over the pavement if, when proceeding along the left-hand side, he 
 see another man coming along to his own right on the other side, cannot 
 justify his proceeding by the rule. He will obviously get in the way of 
 the other. 
 
 48. The particular rale of the road for steamers is, that if they are 
 crossing, then the steamer E, that has another steamer F, G, H, or I, on 
 her own right-hand side, shall get out of the way of F, G, H, or T. E is 
 to get out of the way of F, G, H, or I. This, one would think, is plain. 
 It would not do to say E is always to go one way, for E would often 
 actually get into the way of F, G, H, and I, by going always to the left, 
 or always to the right. The Diagram 4 shows, as has already been 
 explained, that E can sometimes only get out of the way by going to the 
 right, sometimes only by going to the left, sometimes by going straight 
 on, and sometimes only by stopping and reversing. 
 
 49. This, as has already been shown, the present rule provides for, by 
 saying that E shall get out of the way of F, G, H, and I, leaving it to E 
 to do it in the easiest and best way she can under the special circum- 
 stances of each case. What more is possible where a positive rule, 
 although it might possibly prevent collisions between vessels crossing in 
 certain positions, would inevitably cause collisions in other positions? 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 50. The very great majority of colUsions happen through bad lookout, 
 and neglect to show Hghts. No rule of the road can meet these cases. 
 
 61. Many collisions are caused through the fixed behef of some sailors 
 that it is right, under the present rule of the road, to port under all 
 circumstances. This is, as has been shown above, an entire misappre- 
 hension of the rule. The rule is not to blame for these collisions. 
 
 52. Many colUsions are caused through neglect, misappHcation, and 
 utter ignorance of the rule of the road. 
 
 No rules, however perfect, can meet these cases. 
 
 53. The rules are good, but some seamen have failed to make them- 
 iselves acquainted with them, or have not acted on them when they 
 ought, or as they ought. The legislature cannot make careless people 
 
215 
 
 careful, nervous people strong, ignorant people wise, duU people bright, 
 or sleeply people wakeful. Let them enact rules forever, colHsions will 
 continue to happen through ignorance, bad lookout, and carelessness, just 
 in the same way that ships will continue to be wrecked and stranded from 
 the same causes, and from neglect of the lead, and other omissions. 
 
 54. The legislature have done their part. They have made plain, 
 simple, effective rules. The se,aman must now do his part in carrying 
 these rules into practice, in the manner and in the spirit intended by the 
 framers ; and the advocate and jurist must do his part by investigating 
 and understanding them. It is wise to leave the rules afe they are, and 
 to explain the meaning of the framers of the rules by suitable and proper 
 diagrams if necessary, rather than on the one hand, to add to them, and 
 make them so refined as even to puzzle those who do understand them 
 now; or, on the other hand, to aim at uniformity by requiring ships to 
 port or starboard, without any necessity, under all circumstances, and at 
 aU risks. 
 
217 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Tables 15 and 16 of the Wreck Register for 1865 give the following 
 results as regards the causes of collisions for seven years. 
 
 Number of collisions from the following preventible causes: 
 
 Bad lookout, neglecting to carry proper lights, neglect or 
 misapplication of rules, error of pilot, want of seamanship, 
 general negligence and want of caution, and error in 
 judgment 1^566 
 
 Number of collisions from accident : 
 
 Parting cables, &c.j missing stays, anchoring in foul berth, 
 want of sea room, thick and foggy weather, inevitable 
 accident 702 
 
 Number of collisions from causes unknown ' 76 
 
 Total coUisions in seven years 2,344: 
 
 Table 18 of the Wreck Register for 1865 gives the following result 
 for seven years, showing the state of the weather when collisions 
 happened. 
 
 With an atmosphere more or less thick or unfavorable, viz : 
 
 (1) dark, (2) very dark, (3) hazy, (4) thick and foggy 665 
 
 With a good atmosphere, viz : 
 
 (1) clear and 'fine (936,) (2) dark and clear, (3) cloudy (284) 1,220 
 
 Unknown or squally 459 
 
 Total collisions in seven years 2,344 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 ESTTEENATIONAL STEERING AND SAILING EULES. 
 Reprinted from the Order in Council of the ^th January, 1863. 
 
 REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, ETC. 
 
 PEELIMINAEY. 
 
 Akticle 1. In the following rules, every steamship which is under saU, 
 and not under steam, is to be considered a sailing ship ; and every steam- 
 ship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered 
 a ship under steam. 
 
218 
 
 EULES CONCEENING LIGHTS. 
 
 Ajbt. 2. The lights mentioned in the following articles, numbered 3, 
 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and no others, shall be carried in all weathers, from 
 sunset to sunrise. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE STEAMSHIPg. 
 
 Aet. 3. Sea-going steamships when under weigh shall carry — 
 
 {a.) At the Foremast Head, a bright white light, so fixed as to show 
 an uniform and unbroken Hght over an arc of the horizon of 20 points 
 of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light 10 points on each side of 
 the ship, viz., from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on either 
 side; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark pight, with a 
 clear atmosphere, a,t a distance of at least five miles: 
 
 (5.) On the Starboard Side, a green Hght, so constructed as to show 
 an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of 
 the compass; so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points 
 abaft the beam on the starboard side ; and of such a character as to be 
 visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least 
 two miles. 
 
 (c.) On the Port Side, a red light, so constructed as to show an uniform 
 and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the compass; 
 so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam on the port side; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark 
 night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 {d.) The said green and red side lights shall be fitted with inboard 
 screens, projecting at least three feet forward from the Hght, so as to 
 prevent these Hghts from being seen across the bow. , 
 
 LIGHTS FOB STEAM TUGS. 
 
 Aet. 4. Steamships, when towing other ships, shaU carry two bright 
 white masthead Hghts verticaUy, in addition to their side Hghts, so as to 
 distinguish them from other steamships. Each of these masthead Hghts 
 shaU be of the same construction and character as the masthead Hghts 
 which other steamships are required to carry. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE SAILING SHIPS. 
 
 Aet. 6. Sailing ships under weigh or being towed, shall carry the 
 same lights as steamships under weigh, with the exception of the white 
 masthead Hghts, which they shaU never carry. 
 
 EXCEPTIONAL LIGHTS FOE SMALL SAILING VESSELS. 
 
 Art. 6. Whenever, as in the case of small vessels during bad weather, 
 the green and red lights cannot be fixed, these Hghts shall be kept on 
 
219 
 
 deck, on their respective sides of the vessel, ready for instant exhibition; 
 and shall, on the approach of or to other vessels, be exhibited on their 
 respective sides in sufficient time to prevent collisipn, in such manner as 
 to make them most visible, and so that the green light shall not be seen 
 on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. 
 
 To make the use of these portable lights more certain and easy, the 
 lanterns containing them shall each be painted outside with the color of 
 the light they respectively contain, and shall be provided with suitable 
 screens. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE SHIPS AT ANCHOE. 
 Aet. 7. Ships, whether steamships or sailing ships, when at anchor in 
 roadsteads or fairways, shall exhibit, where it can best be seen, but at a 
 height not exceeding 20 feet above the hull, a white light, in a globular 
 lantern of eight inches in diameter, and so constructed as to show a clear, 
 uniform, tod unbroken light visible all round the horizon, and at a distance 
 of at least one mile. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE PILOT VESSELS. 
 
 Aet, 8. Sailing pilot vessels shall not carry the lights required for 
 other sailing vessels, but shall carry a white light at the mastheadj visible 
 all round the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare-up light every 15 
 minutes. 
 
 LIGHTS FOE FISHING VESSELS AND BOATS. 
 
 Aet. 9. Open fishing boats and other open boats shall not be required 
 to carry the side lights required for other vessels; but shall, if they do 
 not carry such Hghts, carry a lantern having a green shde on the one 
 side and a red slide on the other side; and, on the approach of or to 
 other vessels, such lantern shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent 
 collision, so that the gi-een light shall not be seen on the port side, nor 
 the red light on the starboard side. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats when at anchor, or attached to their- 
 nets and stationary, shall exhibit a bright white light. 
 
 Fishing vessels and open boats shall, however, not be prevented from 
 using a flare-up in addition, if considered expedient. 
 
 EULES CONCEENING FOG-SIGNALS. 
 
 Aet. 10. Whenever there is fog, whether by day or night, the fog- 
 signals described below shall be carried and used, and shall be sounded 
 at least every five minutes, viz: 
 
 {a.) Steamships under weigh shall use a steam whistle placed before 
 the funnel not less than eight feet from the deck. 
 
220 
 
 (6.) Sailing ships under weigh shall use a fog horn. 
 
 (c.) Steamships and sailing ships when not under weigh shall use a bell. 
 
 TWO SAILING SHIPS MEETING. 
 
 Aet. 11. If two sailing ships 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. 
 
 TWO SAILING SHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 Aet. 12. When two sailing ships are crossing so as to involve risk of 
 collision, then, if they have the wind on different sides, the ship with the 
 wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the ship with the 
 wind on the starboard side; except in the case in which the ship with 
 the wind on the port side is close-hauled and the other ship free, in which 
 case the latter ship shall keep out of the way; but if they have the wind 
 on the same side, or if one of them has the wind aft, the ship which is 
 to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to leeward. 
 
 TWO SHIPS UNDER STEAM MEETING. 
 
 Aet. 13. If two ships 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. 
 
 TWO SHIPS UNDER STEAM CROSSING. 
 
 Art. 14. If two ships 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 wd,y of the other. 
 
 SAILING SHIP AND SHIP UNDER STEAM. 
 
 Aet. 15. If two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other a 
 steamship, are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, 
 "the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship. 
 
 SHIPS UNDER STEAM TO SLACKEN SPEED. 
 
 Aet. 16. Every steamdiip when approaching another ship so as to 
 involve risk of collision shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop and 
 reverse; and every steamship shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate 
 Bpeed. 
 
 VESSELS OVERTAKING OTHER VESSELS. 
 
 Aet. 11. Evety vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of 
 the way of the said last-mentioned vessel. 
 
221 
 
 CONSTEUCTION OF ARTICLES 12, 14, 15, AND 17. 
 
 Aet. 18. Where by tlie above rules one of two ships is to keep out 
 of the way, the other shall keep her course subject to the qualifications 
 contained in the following article. 
 
 PROVISO TO SAVE SPECIAL CASES. 
 
 Aet. 19. In obeying and construing these rules due regard must be 
 \ad to all dangers of navigation; and due regard must also be had to 
 any special circumstances which may exist in any particular case rendering 
 a departure Irom the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate 
 danger. 
 
 NO SHIP, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, TO NEGLECT PROPER 
 PRECAUTIONS. 
 
 Aet. 20. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the 
 owner or master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect 
 to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, or 
 of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary 
 practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 Extract from Order in Council of SOth July, 1868, containing 
 explanation of Articles 11 and 13. 
 
 The said two articles, numbered 11 and 13 respectively, only apply to 
 cases where ships are meeting end on, or nearly end on, in such a man- 
 ner as to involve risk of collision. They, consequently, do not apply 
 to two ships which must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass 
 clear of each other. 
 
 The only cases in which the said two articles apply are when each of 
 the two ships is end on, or nearly end on, to the other — in other words, 
 to cases in which, by day, each ship sees the masts of the other in a line, 
 or nearly in a Hne, with her own; and, by night, to cases in which each 
 ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other. 
 
 The said two articles do not apply, by day, to cases in which a ship 
 sees another ahead crossing her own course; or, by night, to cases where 
 the red light of one ship is opposed to the red Hght of the other; or 
 where the green light of one ship is opposed to the green light of tlie 
 other; or where a red light without a green Hght, or a green light with- 
 out a red light, is seen ahead; or where both green and red lights are 
 seen anywhere but ahead. 
 
222 
 
 APPENDIX lY. 
 
 Provisions respecting Lights, Fog-signals, and Sailing Rules contained 
 in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862. 
 
 ENACTMENT OF EEGULATIONS CONCEENING LIGHTS, FOG-SIGNALS, AND 
 SAILING RULES IN SCHEDULE, TABLE (C.) 
 
 25. On and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred 
 and sixty-three, or such later day as may be fixed for the purpose by 
 Order in Council, the regulations contained in the table marked (0) in 
 the Schedule hereto shall come into operation, and be of the same force 
 as if they were enacted in the body of this act; but Her Majesty may, 
 from time to time, on the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and 
 the Board of Trade, by Order in Council, annul or modify any of the 
 said regulations, or make new regulations in addition thereto or in sub- 
 stitution therefor; and any alterations in or additions to such regulations 
 made in manner aforesaid shall be of the same force as the regulations 
 in the said Schedule. 
 
 EEGULATIONS TO BE PUBLISHED. 
 
 26. The Board of Trade shall cause the said regulations, and any 
 alterations therein or additions thereto hereafter to be made, to be 
 printed, and shall furnish a copy thereof to any owner or master of a 
 ship who applies for the same ; and production of the Gazette in which 
 any Order in Council containing such regulations, or any alterations 
 therein or additions thereto, is published, or of a copy of such regulations, 
 alterations, or additions, signed or purporting to be signed by one of the 
 secretaries or assistant secretaries of the Board of Trade, or sealed or 
 purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Board of Trade, shall be 
 sufficient evidence of the due making and purport of such regulations, 
 alterations, or additions. 
 
 OWNERS AND MASTERS BOUND TO OBEY THEM. 
 
 27. AH owners and masters of ships shall be boimd to take notice of 
 all such regulations as aforesaid, and shall, so long as the same continue 
 in force; be bound to obey them, and to carry and exliibit no other Hghts 
 and to use no other fog-signals than 8i,ich as are required by the said 
 regulations ; and in case of willful default, the master, or the owner of 
 the ship, if it appear that he was in such fault, shall, for each occasion, 
 upon which such regulations are infringed, be deemed to be guilty of a 
 misdemeanor. 
 
223 
 
 BREACHES OF REGULATIONS TO IMPLY WILLFUL DEFAULT OF PERSON 
 
 IN CHARGE. 
 
 28. In case any damage to person or property arises from the non- 
 observance by any ship of any regulation made by or in pursuance of 
 this act, such damage shall be deemed to have been occasioned by the 
 willful default of the person in charge of the deck of such ship at the 
 time, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the circum- 
 stances of the case made a departure from the regulation necessary. 
 
 IF COLLISION ENSUES PROM BREACH OF THE REGULATIONS, SHIP TO 
 
 BE DEEMED IN FAULT. 
 
 29. If in any case of colhsion it appears to the com-t before which 
 -the case is tried that such collision was occasioned by the non-observance 
 of any regulation made by or in pursuance of this act, the ship by which 
 such regulation has been infringed shall be deemed to be in fault, unless 
 it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances of the 
 case made a departure from the regulation necessary. 
 
 INSPECTION FOR ENFORCING REGULATIONS. 
 
 30. The following steps may be taken in order to enforce compUance 
 with the said regulations; that is to say — 
 
 (1.) The surveyors appointed under the third part of the principal act, 
 or such other persons as the Board of Trade may appoint for the purpose, 
 may inspect any ships for the purpose of seeing that such' ships are 
 properly provided with lights and with the means of making fog-signals 
 in pursuance of the said regulations, and shall for that purpose have the 
 powers given to inspectors by the 14th section of the principal act. 
 
 (2.) If any such surveyor or person finds that any ship is not provided, 
 he shall give to the master or owner notice in writing, pointing out the 
 deficiency, and also what is, in his opinion, requisite in order to remedy 
 the same. 
 
 (3.) Every notice so given shall be communicated in such manner as 
 the Board of Trade may direct to the collector or collectors of customs 
 at any port or ports from which such ship may seek to clear, or at which 
 her transire is to be obtained; and no collector to whom such communi- 
 cation is made shall clear such ship outwards, or grant her a transire, or 
 aUow her to proceed to sea, without a certificate under the hand of one 
 of the said surveyors or other persons appointed by the Board of Trade 
 as aforesaid, to the effect that the said ship is properly provided with 
 lights and with the means of making fog-signals in pursuance of the said 
 regulations. 
 
224 
 
 RULES FOE HAEBOES UNDER LOCAL ACTS TO CONTINUE IN FOECE. 
 
 31. Any rules concerning the lights or signals to be carried by vessels 
 navigating the waters of any harbor, river, or other inland navigation, 
 or concerning the steps for avoiding collision to be taken by such vessels, 
 which have been or are hereafter made by or under the authority of any 
 local act, shall continae and be of full forces and effect, notwithstanding 
 anything in this act or in the schedule thereto contained. 
 
 IN HARBORS AND RIVERS WHERE NO SUCH RULES EXIST THEY MAT 
 
 BE MADE. 
 
 32. In the case of any harbor, river, or other inland navigatioa for 
 which such rules are not and cannot be made by or under the authority 
 of any local act, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council, upon 
 application from the harbor trust or body corporate, if any, owning or 
 exercising jurisdiction upon the waters of such harbor, river, or inland 
 navigation, or, if there is no such harbor trust or body corporate, upon 
 application froln persons interested in the navigation of such waters, to 
 make rules concerning the lights or signals to be carried, and concerning 
 the steps for avoiding collision to be taken by vessels navigating such 
 waters; and such rules, when so made, shall, so far as regards vessels 
 navigating such waters, have the same effect as if they were regulations 
 contained in Table (C) in the schedule to this act, notwithstanding any- 
 thing in this act or in the schedule thereto contained. 
 
 IN CASE OF COLLISION ONE SHIP SHALL ASSIST THE OTHER. 
 
 83. In every case of collision between two ships it shaU be the duty 
 of the person in charge of each ship, if and so far as he can do so with- 
 out danger to his own ship and crew, to render to the other ship, her 
 master, crew, and passengers, (if any,) such assistance as may be practi- 
 cable and as may be necessary in order to save them from any danger 
 caused by the collision. 
 
 In case he fails so to do, and no reasonable excuse for such failure is 
 shown, the collision shall, m the absence of proof to the contrary, be 
 deemed to have been caused by his wrongful act, neglect, or default; and 
 such failure shall also, if proved upon any investigation held under the 
 third or the eighth part of the principal act, be deemed to be an act of 
 misconduct or a default for which his certificate (if any) may be canceled 
 or suspended. 
 
22-5 
 RULE OF THE ROAD FOR STEAMERS. 
 
 IN FOUR VERSES. 
 
 BY THOMAS GEAY. 
 KEPRtNTED BY BUREAU OF NAVIGATION. 
 
 1 . Two Steamships meeting end on, or nearly end on : 
 
 Meeting Steamers do not dread 
 When you see three Lights ahead ! 
 • Port your helm and show your lied. 
 
 2. Two Steamships passing : 
 
 For Steamers passing you should tr>- 
 To keep this maxim in your eye: 
 Green to Green — or, lied to Eed — 
 Perfect safety — go ahead! 
 
 3. Two Steamships crossing : 
 
 This is the real position of danger. 
 
 The Steamship that has the other on her ua-n Starboard i^ide 
 
 shall keep out of the way of the other. 
 'There Is nothing for it but good lookout, caution, and judgment. 
 
 If to Starboard lied appear, 
 'Tis your duty to keep clear: 
 Act as judgment says is proper — 
 Port — or Starboard — back — or, stop her! 
 But when on yom- Port is seen 
 A Steamer with a light of Green, 
 There's not so much for you to do — 
 The Green light must keep clear of you. 
 
 4. All ship.'s iiMst keep a good lookout, and Steamships miii<t stop and. 
 
 go astern, if necessary. 
 
 Both in safety and in doubt 
 Always keep a good lookout; 
 Should there not be room to turn, 
 Stop yonr ship, and go -astern. 
 
 U) 
 
226 
 RXJLE OF THE RO^D; 
 
 BEING 
 
 AIDS TO MEMORY, IN FOUR VERSES. 
 
 BY THOMAS GEAY. 
 
 [These verses are mere aids to memory, and must in no case supersede 
 a careful study of tlie authentic Kegulations.] 
 
 1. Two Steamshvps meeting: 
 
 When both side lights you see ahead — 
 Port your helm, and show your Red. 
 
 2. I'wo Steamshi/ps passing : 
 
 Geeest to Geeen — or, E.ed to Red — 
 Perfect safety — go ahead! 
 
 3. I'wo Uteamshijos crossing: 
 
 Note. — This is the position of greatest danger; there is nothing for it but good 
 lookout, caution, and judgment. 
 
 K to your starboard Red appear, 
 
 It is your duty to keep clear; 
 
 To act as judgment says is proper — 
 
 To Port — or Starboard — Back — or, Stop her ! 
 
 But when upon your Port is seen 
 
 A Steamer's starboard light of Geeen^, 
 
 There's not so much for you to do. 
 
 For Geeen to port keeps clear of you. 
 
 4. jiU Ships must keep a good lookout, and Steamships must stop and 
 
 go astern, if necessary. 
 
 Both in safety and in doubt 
 Always keep a good lookout; 
 In danger, with no room to turn. 
 Ease her ! — Stop her ! — Go ast,eru.!. 
 
 Ootobeb 14, 1867. 
 
227 
 
 ADDENDUM, 
 
 AN ACT to amend tlie act entitled "An act further to provide for the safety of the lives of 
 passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, to regulate the 
 salaries of steamboat inspectors, and for other purposes," approved July [25, 1866] 
 twenty-five, eighteen hundred and sixty-six. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congr^ess assembled, That section nine of 
 the act entitled "An act to amend the act entitled 'An act further to 
 provide for the safety of the lives of passengers on board of vessels 
 propelled in whole or in part by steam, to regulate the salaries of steam- 
 boat inspectors, and for other purposes,'" approved SvXj twenty-fivej 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-six, be, and the same is hereby, amended so 
 as to read as follows: 
 
 Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That all vessels navigating the 
 baqs, [bays,] inlets, rivers, harbors, and other waters of the United 
 States, except vessels subject to the jurisdiction of ^ foreign power and 
 engaged in foreign trade, and not owned in whole or'in part by a citizen 
 of the United States, shall be subject to the navigation laws of the United 
 States; and all vessels propelledjnaJR'liole or in part by steam, and navi- 
 gating as aforesaid, shall also l.te subject to all rules and regulations 
 consistent therewith, established for the government of steam vessels in 
 passing, as provided in the twenty-ninth section of an act relating to 
 steam vessels, approved the thirtieth day of August, eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-two. And every sea-going steam vessel now subject, or hereby 
 made subject, to the navigation laws of the United States, and to the 
 rules and regulations aforesaid, shall, when under way, except upon the 
 high seas, be imder the control and direction of pilots licensed by the 
 inspectors of steam vessels; vessels of other countries and public vessels 
 of the United States only excepted: Provided, however. That nothing 
 in this act, or in the act of which it is amendatory, shall be construed to 
 annul or affect any regulation estabUshed by the existing law of any State 
 requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in such State to take a pilot 
 duly licensed or authorii;ed by the laws of such State, or of a State situate 
 upon the waters of the*same port. 
 
 Approved February 25, 1867. 
 
Hiagram' J . 
 
B I 
 
 DiagTOnv -£ . 
 
 B2 
 
 'B3 
 
 A 
 
Diagramy 3^ 
 
 D / 
 
 BZ 
 
 DS 
 
Diagram 4. 
 
Diagram. 5. 
 
 M 
 
 N 
 
 -« 
 
m:f(^ 
 
 Mum Rkv*n Jnlfei