The Steamer Franconia. then directed the man at the helm to port it, which was done. He called the rest of his crew from below. They came up hurriedly and lowered the schooner's boat, from the davits at her stern, and it had scarcely reached the water before the steamer struck the schooner. The lower part of the steamer near the water was visible first to the master of the schooner, the fog being thicker above. He says, that, before he ordered his helm to be ported, he saw the steamer, and noticed that she was swinging towards his bows, that is, towards the north. That is the way she would have swung, if she had been running, at the time, on a starboard helm. The testimony of the pilot of the steamer is, that the steamer was running at a speed of between seven and eight knots an hour; that the first notice he had of the proximity of the schooner, was hearing something like a man halloing; that right immediately, about two seconds after, he heard something just like a board slap in a sail, which was probably the report of the musket; that the lookout sang out to him, that there was a noise on the starboard bow, something like a whistle, fog horn; that he and a man who was in the pilot house with him immediately hove the wheel of the steamer hard a-starboard; that the steamer's engine was immediately stopped and reversed; and that they then saw the schooner coming out of the fog, across the bow of the steamer, and went into her and sank her. He also says, that, when he first saw the schooner, she was about a point on the starboard bow of the steamer. The pilot of the steamer, and the man who was with him in the pilot house, do not say anything, in their testimony, as to the effect in fact produced on the course of the steamer by putting her wheel hard a-starboard. The latter says, that he and the pilot put it hard a starboard before the collision. For the steamer, from being on a course east, to have hit, at right angles, the schooner on a course north-west by north, would The Steamer Franconia. have required a change in the course of the steamer, by starboarding, of not over three points. That the steamer did starboard is admitted. That she swung to port, by starboarding, I have no doubt. She starboarded because the noise was reported to be on her starboard bow. In fact, the schooner was crossing the bow of the steamer, from the steamer's starboard side, to the steamer's port side. Therefore, porting, and not starboarding, was the proper manœuvre for the steamer, and, if she could have seen the schooner, she would have ported. She starboarded blindly, in ignorance of the true course and position of the schooner, and erroneously, as it turned out, and it was a fault in her to do so. On the evidence, if she had not starboarded at all, but had merely stopped and reversed her engine, the chance is that she would have cleared the schooner, by passing under her stern, or would have struck her a glancing blow, and, probably, with less damage. But there was another and more grievous fault on the part of the steamer. She was running at too great speed. The evidence of her pilot is, that he had been hearing fog horns all along in the morning; that, about two minutes before the collision, a fog horn on his starboard bow had passed him; that he heard another fog horn on his starboard bow, about a minute before the collision; and that, within ten minutes before the collision, he had heard a fog horn on his port bow. He was at the spot where all the coasting vessels coming from the eastward, through the Vineyard Sound, enter Long Island Sound, off Point Judith. Yet he plunged on, at a speed so great, that, as this schooner, after having given all proper warnings of her position, loomed up through the fog, he could not stop or sufficiently diminish the headway of his steamer, to enable him, by the retardation of her onward movement or the The Steamboat Blanche Page. divergence of her course, to avoid crushing against her and sending her to the bottom. The collision was due to the two faults, on the part of the steamer, which have been pointed out, and there must be a decree for the libellant, with costs, with a reference to ascertain the damages. Scudder & Carter, for the libellant. Beebe, Donohue & Cooke, for the claimants. MAY, 1870. THE STEAMBOAT BLANCHE PAGE. TUG AND TOW.-PERIL OF THE SEA.-BURDEN OF PROOF. A steamboat agreed to tow certain canal boats from New Brunswick to New York, by way of the Raritan river and the Kills. On reaching the mouth of the river, inside of which there was good anchorage and a safe harbor, there . was found outside a high wind and a heavy sea. The steamer, however, went out, and, not being able to cross the flats, the tide being ebb, took a circuitous route by the channel, going by South Amboy and down around the buoy at tail of the flats, and so around to Perth Amboy. While making this passage, two of the canal boats were sunk by the violence of the sea and the dashing of the boats against each other: Held, that it showed a want of ordinary care for the steamboat to venture out with such a tow when she did; That, the violence of the sea furnishing an adequate cause for the disaster, and the steamboat being in fault for placing the boats in such circumstances, she must be held to strict proof of any negligent act on the part of the boats, which she claimed to have been contributory. BLATCHFORD, J. The libels in these cases are filed to recover for damages sustained through the alleged neg The Steamboat Blanche Page. ligence of the steamboat Blanche Page, while engaged in towing two canal boats, called Schuylkill boats, loaded with anthracite coal, one, the Cornelius Haggerty, owned by the libellant in the first case, and the other, the John Hays, owned by the libellant in the second case. The Haggerty was sunk with her cargo. She was never raised. For her loss, and that of her pending freight and other property on board belonging to her owner, he claims $2,000 damages. The Hays was also sunk with her cargo, but she was raised and repaired. For the damage, and that sustained by the coal of which he was the carrier, some of which was lost, her owner claims damages to the amount of $1,900. The contract for towage was from New Brunswick to New York, by the way of the Raritan river and the passage between Staten Island and New Jersey. The boats had come through the Delaware and Raritan canal. The steamboat left New Brunswick with them on the morning of the 5th of July, 1867. She passed down the river with two boats on each side of her, and four boats in a hawser tier, at a considerable distance astern. The Haggerty was in the hawser tier, having two boats on her right and one on her left. The boat on her right was a lake boat, considerably larger, higher and heavier than herself and the Hays. The Hays was on the right of the lake boat. The boat on the left of the Haggerty was a Schuylkill boat, about the size of the Haggerty. The steamboat, with her tow, passed out of the mouth of the river, and went by South Amboy, and down around the buoy at the tail of the flats or oyster beds, and so around to Perth Amboy. She drew too much water to go across the flats at the time, the tide being ebb. Hence she took the circuitous route by the channel. Other steamboats, with tows, which went down the river, and reached its mouth before she did that day, went to Perth Amboy across the flats, the tide being higher, and they not drawing so much water as the Blanche Page. The Haggerty sank The Steamboat Blanche Page. a short distance after she had passed by South Amboy. The Hays sank just as she was rounding the buoy, from a half to three quarters of an hour after the Haggerty sank. They came out of the mouth of the river not far from three o'clock in the afternoon. These boats sank in the midst of a violent storm and a heavy sea. The wind was about east, and the sea, as the tow turned the buoy, where the Hays sank, was directly on the starboard side of the Hays, putting her in its trough. The principal disputed question in the case is, as to whether it was negligence in the steamboat, and want of ordinary care, for her to have come out of the mouth of the river, and undertaken the comparatively long and exposed trip she did, at the time she so came out. The weather had been growing bad all through the day, and the wind had been increasing in violence. There was good anchorage and a safe harbor inside of the mouth of the river. Without going in detail through the evidence, which is very voluminous, I think the clear weight of the testimony is, that it showed a want of ordinary care for the steamboat to venture out with such a tow when she did. It was easy to see, from a sufficient distance up the river, the condition of the waters of the bay, the wind was high, and the steamboat knew she could not cross the flats. She was in fault in exposing the boats to the risk, and must abide the consequences. The evidence shows, that those in charge of her did not take care to exercise their own independent judgment on the occasion, but went out because they saw, when they reached the mouth of the river, that the boats which had preceded them had gone out. Those boats went across the flats. The Blanche Page was the only one that came out of the river and went around the buoy. The answers allege negligence on the part of those in charge of the canal boats. The charge is general and not of any specific negligence. On the trial, it was at |