Pacific, but the masters and crews of both those vessels were naturally and properly giving their attention to their management, preparatory to a temporary mooring, waiting the opening of the lower gate of the canal. While they were thus engaged, the Pacific was rounding the stern of the Pomeroy on her way to Kemp's dock. She passed up on the Pomeroy's port side, and, I am satisfied from the evidence of her crew and of Kemp, Lyons, Hutton, and Thompson,-the two latter being wholly disinterested,-reached Kemp's dock before the Pomeroy had got abreast of it, but after the Colwell and Dobbins had passed it, and had got out their lines to the government pier. This view of the order of events is sustained by the testimony of the master, first and second mates, and two wheelsmen of the Pacific, all of whom were in positions which gave them unobstructed sight of the dock and the Pomeroy. If this conclusion rested upon their testimony alone, it would still be sustainable, because they are consistent with each other, and their opportunities for knowledge of the movements and relative positions of the Pomeroy and Pacific at the time of their arrival at Kemp's dock were at least equal to those of the same number of libelant's witnesses, who saw the collision from the Pomeroy, and the tug Mary Virginia, which had the Pomeroy in charge, yet do not agree with each other as to the manner of the occurrence of the collision, nor with the best evidence of the direction and weight of the wind. The objection that the testimony of the Pacific's crew is inspired by their relation to the steamer is equally forcible against the credit to be given to the libelant, Smith and Barras of the Pomeroy, and Green and Mann of the tug Mary Virginia; the two latter having as much at stake as the crew of the Pomeroy, for, if the defense is established, the fault of the collision might lie with their tug, which was charged with the duty of caring for and handling the Pomeroy while she was awaiting the opportunity to enter the canal. The bias of the witnesses is equally as strong on one side as the other, but, laying out of consideration the testimony of the Pacific's crew, and treating that of Kemp and Lyons as equally biased, because Kemp was the steamer's agent at Sault Ste. Marie, and Lyons was his employe, (though I find nothing impeaching in the least the veracity of either Kemp or Lyons,) there remain two witnesses, Hutton and Thompson, wholly disinterested, who in all things confirm the defense.

It was Thompson's duty, as watchman of the canal, to note the arrival of vessels at that point, and to see that they moored within prescribed limits. In the discharge of that duty he naturally observed the movements of the Colwell, Dobbins, and Poineroy, and likewise the Pacific. He had no apparent motive to falsify, and his credit is unassailed. He testifies positively that the Pomeroy was suffered to sag into the Pacific after the latter had made fast to her dock, the Pomeroy being impelled by the strong northwest wind. Hutton, a reputable butcher of Sault Ste. Marie, had visited the Pacific to sell supplies, and was watching the Pomeroy's approach for the same purpose. He saw her sag into the Pacific, and corroborates fully the claim of the defense and the testimony of Thompson. Aside from the testimony of the witnesses on the George L. Colwell, (which, because of her location and remoteness from the scene of collision, is valueless,) there is no

evidence from any impartial witness which impairs the force of this testimony. It not only comes from a neutral source, uncolored by interest, but it entirely accords with the conditions of navigation at the time of the collision, and equally with the results to the Pomeroy and the Pacific. If, as is claimed by libelant, the Pomeroy had no headway, but lay heading into the dock with her stern projecting into the streain, her whole starboard side was exposed to the full force of the strong northwest wind and the current, while her spars and rigging aided her drift in shore and onto the Pacific. This effect of wind and current were unnoticed by the master of the tug until too late to counteract it or avert its consequences. The whole lateral momentum of the Pomeroy and her cargo of 900 tons of coal was thus thrown upon her rail and bulwarks and the fender of the Pacific. As she moved along before the wind with her stern in the current and her bow in the eddy close to the dock, the effect of this force was to press her rail and bulwarks against the fender of the Pacific, and thus continue the damage until the vessels had separated. The facts that the Pacific suffered no other damage than the splintering of the fender, while the injury to the Pomeroy was confined to her plank-sheer, rail, and bulwarks, are strongly persuasive in themselves that the schooner was the aggressor. There was no breaking or indentation in her planking, nor damage to her standing rigging. There was no mark There was no mark,

of the Pacific's stem anywhere on the schooner. nor even abrasion of paint, on either side of the Pacific. Her fenders on the port side next to the dock were intact. If she struck the dock while moving at the rate of eight miles an hour, as Walters, Barras, and Mann have sworn, or even at half that speed, her hull and fenders on the port side of the dock must have shown some evidence of the contact. Nothing of the kind appears. Libelant Walters testines that the Pomeroy at the time of the collision lay with her bow about 25 feet and her stern about 35 feet from Kemp's dock, and was about abreast of the office on that dock; that is, directly abreast of that part of the dock at which the Pacific landed. In a libel filed August 19, 1891,-about a week before the present libel was verified and filed,-libelant alleged that the Pomeroy was lying about 75 or 80 feet from Kemp's dock when struck, and that there was ample room between the dock and the schooner for the steamer to have made her landing in safety if she had been navigated with proper care and skill, but she was run at such high speed that, striking "the dock or the spring piles forming a part of the same, said Pacific rebounded from said dock, and struck said schooner with great force, and so forth." The testimony is undisputed that there were no spring piles at this dock. Libelant further testifies that the effect of the blow was to force the Pomeroy ahead, and past the dock, until her bow struck a small lighter lying at Kemp's dock, a few feet above the Pacific. All agree that the Pomeroy was heading somewhat onto the dock line before and at the time the vessels collided. She was drawing 12 feet, and laden with about 900 tons of coal. The Pacific had a registered measurement of about 1,000 tons, and is 183 feet long and 35-foot beam. If the Pomeroy's stern, as claimed on the hearing, was about 35 feet from the dock, it is manifest that the effect

of forcing the Pacific between the Pomeroy and the dock would be to drive the schooner still further into the stream, and away from the dock. It is possible, if she struck the Pomeroy near the mizzen rigging, that the impact would swing the schooner's head to port,that is, towards the dock; but, the force necessary to produce that effect on a vessel of the schooner's draft and lading, and to drive her stern against wind and current, would have left unmistakable marks upon the hull of the schooner, or more probably would have crushed her planking. The resistance offered by the schooner's rail and bulwarks to the momentum of a steamer of the size of the Pacific, moving at even four miles an hour, was not enough to effect such a change in her position. Again, if the Pomeroy lay thus close to the dock,-about the width of the Pacific,-it is difficult to believe that Capt. Campbell, a competent master, whose skill is unquestioned, and who had had nine years' experience in the navigation of the Pacific, would have hurled his steamer at this dangerous speed between the dock and the schooner. If we accept the claim of the first libel, that the schooner lay 75 or 80 feet out from the dock, there was ample room for the steamer to land, and the testimony of the libelant is beset with the same inherent improbabilities. Had the Pacific struck and bounded off the dock at a speed of eight miles per hour, as charged, or at half that speed, her momentum would have crushed in the schooner's planking, and sunk her instantly. At any rate of speed whatever, the effect of contact with the dock would not have been to rebuff the steamer laterally into the schooner, as must have been the case if the position of the schooner in relation to the steamer's landing is even approximately correct. With the steamer and the schooner in these relative positions, it would have been im possible for the Pacific, if she had struck and rebounded from the dock, to hit the Pomeroy aft of the fore rigging. In short, both the proba bilties and possibilities of the situation refute the libel. I am satisfied that the Pomeroy, while lying in the stream, with the tug alongside and in reliance upon the vigilance of the latter's crew and her power to take care and adopt seasonable measures to protect the vessel against the dangers of the situation, for which purpose the tug was employed, was suffered to drift, and that the combined force of the wind and current, which co-operated, carried her across the bow of the Pacific, the schooner's rail and bulwarks receiving and yielding to the momentum of the vessel as she rubbed along the fender of the Pacific. The master of the tug admits that he scarcely felt the jar of the contact, and the witnesses for the respondent state that it was slight, and scarcely noticeable on the steamer. This obviously would not have been the case had the steamer run into the schooner in the manner alleged in the libel.

A decree will be entered dismissing the libel, with costs.

THE IRON CHIEF.

THE J. F. CARD.

(District Court, E. D. Michigan. October 17, 1892.)

1. COLLISION BETWEEN STEAM AND SAIL - NARROW CHANNEL FAILURE OF SAILING VESSEL TO HOLD HER COURSE.

A schooner bound down the lakes, with a fresh northwest wind, having failed to obtain a tug to take her into the St. Mary's river, tacked across the broad southern channel, and entered the narrow northern one, rarely used by sailing vessels. A steamer with a barge in tow was at the same time passing up this channel on a course about N. W. The steamer, supposing the schooner was beating up the lake, stopped to let her pass the mouth of the channel, but, when she put her helm up to enter it, started ahead, taking the northern side, in order to pass port to port. The schooner lost her swing, put her helm down, and collided with the steamer and the barge. Held, that the collision was the fault of the schooner, whether caused by her putting her helm down, by previous improper handling, or by failure to obey her port wheel, and that her failure to hold her course excused the steamer from the duty of keeping out of her way.

2. SAME-NEGLIGENCE IN NEEDLESSLY ENTERING A NARROW CHANNEL.

The schooner was in fault in needlessly taking the narrow northern channel after the steamer had entered it. She should have awaited. the steamer's exit, or taken the broad channel.

3. SAME-PROPRIETY OF GOING AHEAD AT FULL SPEED TO AVOID COLLISION. When the schooner lost her swing, it was proper for the steamer to go ahead at full speed,-the only possible way of avoiding the collision.

In Admiralty. Libel against the steamer Iron Chief for collision with the schooner J. F. Card, Dismissed.

H. C. Wisner, for libelant.

Shaw & Wright and H. D. Goulder, for the Iron Chief.

SWAN, District Judge. About 9 o'clock A. M. of July 24, 1891, the weather being clear and the wind fresh from the northwest, the schooner J. F. Card, bound down, came into collision with the steamer Iron Chief, having in tow the barge Iron Cliff, both coal laden and bound to Duluth. The collision occurred a short distance above Round Island, at the head of St. Mary's river, and at its junction with Waiska bay, and on the extreme northerly side of the channel leading between "Middle Ground Buoy," No. 76, (red spar buoy,) and "Opposite Middle Ground Buoy," No. 79, (black spar buoy,) as these are designated and located in the United States official "List of Beacons, Buoys, and Stakes." Buoy No. 76 marks the north side of the channel, and is 250 feet N. N. W. of Opposite Middle Ground Buoy No. 79, which is on the south side of the channel. The course up this channel is N. W. by W. 1-2 W. This is sometimes styled the "Steamboat Channel," because steamboats almost invariably pursue it. About half a mile S. by E. of black spar buoy No. 79 stands Waiska bay buoy, a third-class can buoy, painted red, and marking the north side of a safe and much wider channel than the first, with a depth of 16 feet. With this channel the master of the schooner was not unfamiliar. The J. F. Card was 137 feet long and 25 feet beam. She was laden with a cargo of block stone,

mostly in the hold, and had sailed down from Portage Entry. Passing Point Iroquois five miles to the northward and westward of the place of collision, under foresail, mainsail, and three jibs, she stood in towards the Mission, about two miles to the southward of Point Iroquois, looking for a tug to tow her into the St. Mary. Failing in this quest at the Mission, she came about, and tacked across the bay, and then stood back to Point Extreme, two miles southward and eastward of the Mission. She again came about, and ran on a northeasterly course for the buoys between which the collision occurred. In making these stretches the Card passed at least three times the entrance to the southerly passage marked on the north side by Waiska bay can buoy, into and through which channel she would have carried a fair wind. When first seen by the watch of the Iron Chief, the schooner was to the southward and westward of Waiska bay can buoy, on her tack from Point Extreme, and 2 1-2 or 3 miles away. The steamer was observed by the crew of the schooner about the same time. When the Iron Chief had made the turn be low the buoys, and straightened on her course of N. W. by W. 1-2 W. to pass between them, and was distant from them about a quarter of a mile, the schooner was somewhat nearer, and to the westward and southward of, the black stake, (buoy No. 79.). When about 800 feet from the stake, the schooner took in her mainsail, and put her helm up, to run down between the buoys. The master of the steamer, who was called as a witness by the libelant, testifies that up to this time he thought the schooner was bound up the lake, and had either been at anchor in Waiska bay, or a tug had let go of her there, and she was working out. This impression was confirmed, to his mind, by the fact that, though she had the wind free to enter the river, she was beating across the bay, apparently by the wind, and had crossed the entrance to the southerly channel, and by the further fact that sailing vessels rarely run the northerly channel without the aid of a tug. Acting on this belief, Capt. Dennis, the master of the Iron Chief, before the schooner settled her mainsail, checked and almost immediately stopped the steamer, "intending." as he states, "to let this vessel either go across the channel, or come in stays. I didn't know then whether she was working out the bay or not. I supposed, up to this time, he was working out of the bay." He further said that before then the schooner was not standing over in a proper way to enter the channel, her position being too far to the southward of the buoys to indicate that purpose. The steamer, when thus stopped, was a little to the northward of mid-channel. When the schooner lowered her mainsail, and began paying off and heading down the channel, the steamer's engine was started ahead; one long blast of her whistle was sounded to notify the schooner that her course was understood, and that it was the steamer's intention to take the starboard side of the channel; and the steamer's wheel was ported accordingly. The Card then had her helm hard up, and was swinging to come down the channel. She came around three or four points, but, as her master states, lost her swing before she had got abreast of the red stake,

*

*

*