The Columbia

• Decision Date: 17 May 1886
• Citation: 27 F. 704
• Parties: THE COLUMBIA. [1] v. THE ALASKA. THE ALASKA. VAN PELT and others
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

27 F. 704

THE COLUMBIA. ^[1] THE ALASKA. VAN PELT and others v. THE ALASKA.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 17, 1886

Whitehead Parker & Dexter, for libelants. James Parker, advocate.

Wilcox Adams & Macklin, for claimants.

BROWN J.

At a little past 12 o'clock on the night of December 2, 1883 when the steam-ship Alaska, bound for New York, was about 12 miles S.S.E. from Fire Island light, the pilot-boat Columbia in preparing to put a pilot on the Alaska in answer to her signal, was run down and sunk, and all on board perished. The libel and supplemental libel were filed by the representatives of the principal owners of the Columbia, and by the personal representatives of four pilots and the cook, who were on board at the time of the accident, and by the widows of the pilots and of the cook, to recover for the loss of the pilot-boat, the loss of personal effects, and for the loss of support. The circumstances proved are sufficient to identify the boat run down by the Alaska as the pilot-boat Columbia. Neither the boat nor the men were ever heard from afterwards, and the pilots and the cook named in the libel and supplemental libel are proved to have been aboard. All the evidence in the case as to the circumstances of the disaster is derived from the officers, seamen, and passengers on board of the Alaska. The principal facts are as follows:

At 11:40 P.M., the Alaska then heading about W. by N., the pilot-boat's torch was observed bearing about S.W. The steamer answered with a blue light, indicating that a pilot was desired. The helm of the Alaska was thereupon starboarded, so as to approach the pilot-boat, until she headed W. by S. 1/2 S., when her helm was steadied. The wind was blowing a gale from N.W. The night was dark, but not thick. The pilot-boat shaped her course to the northward and eastward, so as to intercept the course of the steamer, and at the proper time to launch a yawl, as customary, to carry the pilot to the steamer's side. A ladder and light were placed at the steamer's gangway on the port side, which was the lee side, as a signal to the pilot where he would be received. This was about 200 feet abaft the stem. When the Alaska steadied at W. by S. 1/2 S. the pilot-boat bore about two points off the Alaska's port bow. The master ordered the helmsman to keep the pilot-boat at least two points off the steamer's port bow, and to mind his port helm accordingly. Under these directions, as the pilot-boat hauled to the westward, the Alaska's course was correspondingly changed until at 12:06 she headed W. 1/2 S., and at the time of the collision, about 12:10, she headed, as the wheelsman testifies, W. 1/2 N., nearly her original course.

When the pilot-boat was first sighted, and for some 12 minutes afterwards, the Alaska was making about 14 knots per hour. Her speed subsequently, and at the time of the collision, is one of the controverted questions in the case. The narrative of the log is as follows:

'At 11:40 observed pilot-boat's torch bearing S.W.; 11:52 proceeded half speed. At 11:57 proceeded slow. At 12:06 stopped engines, ship's head being W. 1/2 S., pilot-boat's light bearing about S.W. by W. 1/2 W. At 12:08 observed the pilot-boat attempt to cross our bows. Reversed engines full speed, and in about two minutes she came into collision with our stem, sinking almost immediately. 12:13 stopped engines, and used every means of saving life with life buoys, lines, and also sending away a boat at 12:20. Cruised about in the vicinity of the disaster until daylight; then steamed around with a lookout at the mast-head, and, seeing nothing, proceeded on our course at 7:30.'

The entries in the engineer's log agree with the above. The evidence of the pilots and others, called as experts, showed that there are three different methods pursued by pilots intending to board steamers when approaching in front of them in a strong head-wind. The first is for the pilot-boat to sail down into the lee of the steamer, and there launch her yawl, as Capt. Murray expected would be done in this case; the second, for the pilot-boat to sail across the steamer's bow, pass down on her windward side, wear around her stern, and launch the yawl as she comes up on the steamer's lee quarter; third, to launch the yawl ahead of the steamer, so as to let the yawl go down upon her lee side, while the pilot-boat crosses her bows, and goes down to windward, and rounds her stern to pick up the yawl. The latter was the course pursued in the case of The City of Washington, 92 U.S. 31, and the course manifestly intended by the pilots in this case. One of the most experienced pilots called as an expert testified that the proper course for the steamer, after signaling the pilot, under circumstances like the present, is to make towards the pilot-boat, and come substantially to a stop,-- that is, not exceeding half a knot or a knot an hour, when off the pilot-boat's lee bow, and a few hundred feet distant; and that in that situation the pilot-boat may properly pursue either of the last two methods; but that the latter is not prudent or justifiable at night, in a strong wind, when the steamer is evidently in motion, and when her two colored lights have not been seen, and she appears to be keeping off to windward. The last two methods are deemed preferable to the first as a general rule, because the pilot-boat is thereby better enabled to keep clear of the yawl, and to keep control of her own motion. 92 U.S. 40.

Although both these latter methods have been long practiced by pilots, the master of the Alaska testified that he had never before known such an attempt at night. His testimony, and that of the officers of the Alaska, leave no doubt that the pilot-boat was expected by them to sail down upon the lee side of the Alaska, and there launch her yawl; and that it was not until the Alaska's engines were reversed at 12:08, 'about two minutes,' as the log says, before the collision, that the officers of the Alaska had any idea that the pilot-boat was intending to cross her bows. Their account of the disaster is, and the answer states, that immediately before the order to reverse was given, the pilot-boat, being then two points on the Alaska's port bow, was observed suddenly to close in rapidly across the steamer's course, when apparently only a short distance ahead. It is supposed that the pilot-boat then luffed into the wind, so as to reduce her speed, for the purpose of launching the yawl. Her previous speed is estimated at some seven or eight knots. The carpenter testified that he saw the pilot-boat suddenly luff when within 50 or 100 feet of the Alaska's stem, and that he then saw, as he thought, one end of the yawl resting upon the pilot-boat, and the other end in the water; which, if true, would indicate that something unusual had happened in attempting to launch the yawl. The hull of the pilot-boat, after striking the steamer's stem, was not again seen. It began to sink immediately, and passed along the starboard side of the steamer. The master ran down the ladder from the bridge, and saw from the starboard rail only the light, the mast, and the peak of the pilot-boat's sail above water; and she disappeared altogether when about amid-ships. The yawl was capsized, and passed along the steamer's port side. Several men were seen clinging to it, and were heard calling for help. Another man near it was clinging to a spar. The lines thrown out to the men from the steamer failed to reach them as they passed astern, and none were afterwards found.

On the part of the steamer the contention is that her headway was substantially stopped; that the pilot-boat, upon luffing, and while waiting to repair the supposed accident that happened to the yawl, was blown against the starboard bow of the steamer by the strong wind, upset, and stove in. The libelants contend that the steamer was under considerable headway, and ran upon the starboard quarter of the pilot-boat while she was engaged in launching her yawl, and cut her in two, before the pilots, who had a right to suppose the steamer to be stopped, or nearly so, discovered their mistake.

The case, in many of its aspects, resembles that of The City of Washington, 92 U.S. 31, in which the respective duties of the steamer and the pilot-boat were fully and carefully discussed. In that case, as in this, the steamer was bound for New York, and the wind was strong from the north-west. The pilot-boat, however, approached from the northward instead of from the southward. The City of Washington, after first porting her helm so as to approach towards the pilot-boat, when the latter was near to the line of the steamer's course, starboarded her helm so as to turn her bows somewhat to the southward, towards the direction in which the pilot-boat was moving. In these respects the two cases are perfectly analogous. An examination of the 'apostles' also shows that in that case, as in the present, the engine had been first slowed, and then reversed full speed; and it was claimed there, as here, that the quick-water of the reversed propeller had reached amid-ships before the collision. The court found the steamer in fault for not sufficiently stopping her headway, and for starboarding so as to put herself in the way of the pilot-boat's crossing her bows. The court also found upon the proofs that the crossing of the steamer's bows was justified by the custom of pilot-boats, and was not a fault on the part of the pilots. In the district court, (6 Ben. 138,) BENEDICT, J., said, (page 140:)

'The starboarding is admitted in the answer, and, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, I consider it negligence. The course of the pilot-boat was known to be crossing that of the steam-ship, the breeze was...