Opinion of the court. 5. That it was the course of the current, which was unknown to the pilot, that drove the craft to the leeward, and not the wind, as alleged in the answer, and the libellants allege that the pilot, if he had had proper knowledge of the navigation, might have prevented that movement of the craft by the exercise of due skill in steering. 1. Applied exclusively to the number of the steamer's company, the complaint contained in the first assignment of errors would not be well founded, as the crew was sufficient in number, and the proofs show that the steamer had on board two pilots and two master mariners, but the gravamen of the complaint is that neither the master in charge of the deck nor the pilot had any sufficient knowlege of the craft under their command, nor of the dangers of the navigation in passing down the river in such a steamer with three such barges in tow arranged in the nianner before described. Proof of the most satisfactory character is exhibited that they did not even know the width of the craft, as the same was arranged, nor the actual distance between the piers where the disaster occurred. On the contrary it appears that they both over-estimated the width of the space between the piers, and under-estimated the width of the tow, including the steamer, as they were arranged abreast, the distance between the two first-named piers not exceeding one hundred and sixteen feet and the width of the whole craft being at least one hundred and five feet. Nor does the fact that the pier on the starboard side was so far under water that the craft might have passed over it palliate the rashness of the act, as the evidence shows that both the master and the pilot were ignorant of that fact, and that as they approached the place of danger they put the steamer upon a course to cause the whole craft to pass midway between those two piers, which brought the port side of the barge containing the wheat within five and a half or six feet of the pier on that side which was not submerged in the water. 2. Attempt is made to excuse the master and pilot for endeavoring to pass midway between those piers, upon the ground that they did not know that it would be safe to pass Opinion of the court. over the pier on the starboard side, but the sufficiency of that excuse cannot be admitted, for two reasons: (1.) Because they ought to have known both the dangers and the facilities of navigation before undertaking the responsible duties in which they were engaged. (2.) Because it was their duty, if they believed that the pass in question was restricted to the distance between the two piers, to have taken the other pass, which the evidence shows has the width of one hundred and fifty-one feet. Opposed to that is the suggestion that the wider passage was obstructed by a sunken barge, but the evidence satisfies the court that the alleged obstruction did not exist at that time, and that the disaster that caused that barge to sink occurred at a later period. 3. Unobstructed as the wider passage was, it was plainly a rash act to attempt to pass down the narrower passage on a course which brought the port side of the barge containing the wheat within five and a half or six feet of the pier on that side, which act can only be accounted for upon the ground of negligence and inexcusable ignorance of the dangers and facilities of the navigation, as it was evidently a hazardous experiment to attempt to pass between those piers if the craft could not pass over the pier on the starboard side, and it is equally clear that it would have been safe to have steered between the piers forming the wider passage, which it seems never occurred to the master or pilot. 4. Even if such an attempt could be justified at all on a windy day when the water was high, it is quite clear that neither skill nor good judgment was exercised in setting the course of the craft before passing between the piers. Beyond all doubt some allowance, though the margin was small, should have been made for the leeway of the craft, as the evidence is convincing that the course of the current at high water tends somewhat to force the craft towards the pier on the port side. Besides they had met with some difficulty previously during the trip that day, at the bridge higher up the river, aud, therefore, were forewarned that a like difficulty might again occur. Opinion of the court. Ignorance of the danger before them is no sufficient excuse, as the owner appoints the master and is bound to select one of competent skill and knowledge, to transport goods and merchandise shipped on board in safety, which necessarily imposes the obligation to employ a master mariner who knows enough about the route to avoid the known obstructions and to choose the most feasible track for his route. Knowledge of the kind, in river navigation, is peculiarly essential, as the current frequently shifts from one side towards the other, and the track of navigation is often obstructed by snags, sand-bars, and shoals, which no degree of skill would enable the mariner or pilot to avoid without a prior knowledge of their existence. Cross-currents between the piers of bridges which span the river somewhat diagonally are not infrequent, and as they are not always fully appreciable to the casual observer, it is important that master mariners should know of their existence and something of their force, in order that they may be able to steer their steamer or other vessel properly through such a passage. Neither the master nor pilot, in this case, knew that there was any such cross-current between these piers, and consequently took no precaution to guard against its influence. Carriers of merchandise by water, seeking general employment, are to be regarded as common carriers, and like common carriers by land, in the absence of any legislative provision prescribing a different rule, are in general to be held responsible as insurers, and consequently are liable in all events and for every loss or damage to the merchandise, unless it happened by the act of God, the public enemy, or by the act of the shipper, or by some other cause or accident, without any fault or negligence on their part, as expressly excepted in the bill of lading or contract of shipment. Standard authorities show that the first duty of the carrier, and one that is implied by law, is to provide a seaworthy vessel, well furnished with proper motive power, and furuiture necessary for the voyage. Necessary equipment is as requisite as that the hull of the vessel should be stanch and Opinion of the court. strong, and she must also be provided with a crew adequate in number and competent for their duty with reference to all the exigencies of the intended route, and with a competent and skilful master, of sound judgment and discretion, and with sufficient knowledge of the route and experience in navigation to be able to perform in a proper manner all the ordinary duties required of him as master of the vessel. Owners of vessels, employed as such carriers, must see to it that the master is qualified for his situation, as they are responsible for his want of skill and knowledge in that behalf and for his negligence and bad seamanship. In the absence of any special agreement to the contrary or exception in the bill of lading or contract of shipment, his duty extends to all that relates to the loading as well as the safekeeping, due transportation, and right delivery of the goods, and for the faithful performance of all those duties the ship is liable as well as the master and owners.* 5. Differences of opinion may arise as to the merits of the fourth assignment of errors, and inasmuch as enough is alleged in those which precede and follow it to show that the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed, the court here does not find it necessary to determine the question whether the speed of the steamer, in view of the conflicting testimony upon the subject, was or was not greater than the exigencies of the impending peril would justify. 6. Nor is it necessary to express any decided opinion whether the fifth assignment of error is or is not supported by the evidence exhibited in the case, but it is deemed proper to say that there is much reason to conclude that it was the course of the current that forced the craft to the leeward, and not the gust of wind, as was supposed by those in charge of the deck of the steamer at the time the barge was sunk. Enough appears to show that the bridge there does not span the river directly across the current, and that the ten * Abbott on Shipping, 344; Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Exchequer, 166: Clark v. Barnwell, 12 Howard, 272; The Cordes, 21 Id. 27; King v. Shepherd, 3 Story, 349; 3 Kent, 213; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 7th ed. 887; 1 Smith's Mercantile Law, 386. Opinion of the court. dency of the current is to force the vessel passing down the river to the leeward, and the evidence is full to the point that neither the master nor the pilot had any knowledge that they would have to encounter any such difficulty in attempting to effect the passage between those piers. Support to that proposition is found in the fact that they did not think it necessary to adopt any precaution to prevent such a disaster, except to see that the craft headed midway between the piers of the narrow passage and to give the steamer a full head of steam, so as to make the passage as quick as possible, which shows beyond all doubt that little or no use could be made of the helm during the passage, except to steady the craft on the course adopted just before they entered the passage between the piers where the disaster occurred. Reliable means to ascertain with certainty what force it was which caused the craft to make leeway during the pas sage is not exhibited in the record, nor is it necessary to decide that point, as it was plainly a rash act to undertake to steer the craft through that passage on a windy day when the banks of the river were full, in the face of the dangers which the evidence satisfies the court would necessarily be encountered in such an attempt. Neither the state of the water nor of the wind was such as to furnish any just excuse for the master or pilot, as they might have chosen the other passage or have taken proper and seasonable measures to leave back one of the barges for the next trip. Shipowners are responsible for such a disaster if it results from the ignorance, unskilfulness, or negligence of the master or those in charge of the vessel. Where the master, being ignorant of the coast, sailed past the port to which he was destined and ran into another port in the possession of the enemy and was captured, the Court of King's Bench unanimously decided that the implied warranty to provide a master of competent skill was broken by sending out one who was unable to distinguish between the two ports.* * Tait v. Levi, 14 East, 482. |