United States v. Van Schaick
| Decision Date | 23 December 1904 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. VAN SCHAICK et al. SAME v. BARNABY et al. SAME v. VAN SCHAICK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Henry L. Burnett, U.S. Atty., and Ernest E. Baldwin, Asst. U.S Atty. (William S. Ball, of counsel), for the United States.
Black Olcott, Gruber & Bonynge (William M. K. Olcott and Terence J McManus, of counsel), for defendants Van Schaick, Atkinson and Dexter.
Dittenhoefer, Gerber & James (A. J. Dittenhoefer and Dudley F. Phelps, of counsel), for defendant Barnaby.
Hugo Hirsh, for defendant Pease.
The above actions are known as the 'Slocum Cases,' and the present question involves a demurrer to each of the indictments in the three actions, numbered for convenience 1, 2, and 3, which are found under section 5344 of title 70 of the Revised Statutes (page 3629, U.S. Comp. St. 1901), which provides:
The defendant Van Schaick was master of the steamboat General Slocum. She was owned by the Knickerbocker Steamboat Company, a corporation, whose managing directors and officers were the defendants Barnaby, president; Atkinson, secretary; Dexter, treasurer; while Pease was employed as the commodore of the fleet. Resort must be had to the indictments for a statement of the facts that are conceded for the purposes of the demurrers.
The Slocum was inspected by the inspectors of the United States on May 5, 1904, and thereupon permitted to navigate for a year the waters of the Bay and Harbor of New York, and rivers tributary thereto, Long Island Sound, and coastwise between Rockaway Inlet and Long Branch. On June 15, 1904, while navigating the East river, a fire occurred, and was so uncontrolled that many persons were compelled to jump into the water, and some 900 were drowned.
The indictments charge that the deaths were caused (1) by unsafe and unserviceable life preservers (indictment No. 1 and indictment No. 2, count 1; indictment No. 3, counts 1 and 2); (2) by unsuitable, inefficient, and useless life preservers, and incomplete and unfit equipment of steam pumps and hand pumps, so far as the weakness and unserviceability of the hose was concerned, and in that the hose was not provided for and attached to the steam pumps and hand pumps (indictment No. 2, count 2); (3) by the wrongful neglect of Van Schaick, the captain, to discipline and train his crew, whereby none of the crew knew or attended to his duty, and no attempt was made to unlash and swing out the lifeboats or the life rafts, in consequence of which the passengers were obliged to throw themselves into the water, and thereupon drowned on account of the useless and unfit life preservers. Three classes of persons are charged with breach of duty in regard either to the defective appliances or the discipline of the crew, or both, to wit, the owner of the vessel, the Knickerbocker Steamboat Company, Van Schaick, the master of the vessel, Barnaby, Atkinson, Dexter, and Pease.
Indictment No. 1 charges that Van Schaick was--
'Guilty of misconduct, negligence and inattention to duty on such vessel, as such master and captain, in that he then and there unlawfully had and kept on said vessel, among other life preservers, adjustable to the bodies of human beings, which had been placed thereon for the use of the passengers and other persons on board of the said vessel in case of emergency, and intended for such use divers, to wit, nine hundred and upwards, unsuitable, inefficient and useless life preservers; that is to say, in the respect that, according to the laws relating thereto, and the regulations thereunder, the said life preservers on said vessel were required to be in good order and accessible for immediate use, adjustable to the bodies of passengers and made of good, sound cork blocks, or other suitable material, with belts and shoulder-straps properly attached in the manner prescribed by the laws of Congress relating thereto and the rules and regulations thereunder as aforesaid, and that every such life preserver should contain at least six pounds of good cork, which should have a buoyancy of at least four pounds to each pound of cork; but in truth and in fact, large numbers of the same, to the amount of nine hundred and upwards as aforesaid, through the unlawful misconduct, negligence and inattention to his duties by the said master and captain, as aforesaid, were unsafe, unsuitable and unserviceable, so that, at the times aforesaid, while the said William H. Van Schaick was master and captain as aforesaid, of the said steamboat, the said life preservers, in large numbers, to wit, nine hundred of the same and upwards, were utterly useless for the protection and saving of human life, in that, in many instances, the covers thereof were rotten and not of sufficient strength and soundness to make them impervious to water, and the shoulder-straps and bands of the same were so decayed that it was impossible to securely fasten the said life preservers to the human body; and the said life preservers did not have the buoyancy required by law; and the unsuitability and the inefficiency and uselessness of the said life preservers for the purpose which they were intended to serve should have been known to the said William H. Van Schaick, and he might by the exercise of ordinary observation, and inquiry, have ascertained the same, and should so have ascertained before the said vessel started on the excursion hereinafter mentioned; and which said unsuitable and inefficient appliances he, the said William H. Van Schaick, notwithstanding the premises, unlawfully caused, suffered and permitted to be and remain on said vessel, and he was guilty of misconduct, negligence and inattention to his duties upon said vessel, in that he permitted the said vessel to go, and took the said vessel, on said excursion, with the said unsuitable and inefficient life preservers on board, and caused, suffered and permitted, the same to be tendered and held out for the use of the passengers and other persons on board of said steamboat, at the time of her destruction by fire as hereafter mentioned.'
And indictment No. 1 further charges that Barnaby, Atkinson, Dexter, and Pease--
'Being such directors and commodore as aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully aid and abet the said William H. Von Schaick in his said unlawful misconduct, and inattention to his duties on said vessel as aforesaid, and cause, procure, suffer and permit him, then and there, the said misconduct, negligence and inattention to his duties, in manner and form aforesaid, so to engage in and commit as aforesaid.'
Indictment No. 2 charges that the Knickerbocker Steamboat Company, the owner of the vessel, 'Was guilty of fraud, misconduct and violation of law, in that the said company then and there unlawfully had and kept on said vessel' life preservers in violation of the requirements of law and regulation, specifically describing the requisites, and the condition in which said life preservers in fact were, and charges that:
'The said unsuitable, inefficient and unfit appliances the said Knickerbocker Steamboat Company, notwithstanding the premises, unlawfully caused, suffered and permitted to be and remain on the said vessel and to be tendered and held out to the passengers and other persons on board of the said vessel for their use at the time of the happening of the fire hereinafter mentioned.'
And that the defendants named in the indictment--
'Did then and there unlawfully aid and abet the said Knickerbocker Steamboat Company in its said fraud, misconduct and violation of law, and cause, procure, suffer and permit the said company then and there the said fraud, misconduct and violation of law in manner and form as aforesaid, so to engage in and permit as aforesaid.'
It is further charged in indictment No. 2 that:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Etzweiler
...prerequisite. See State v. Lacoshus, 96 N.H. 76, 79-80, 70 A.2d 203, 206 (1950); State v. Larkin supra. Cf. United States v. Van Schaick, 134 F. 592, 604 (S.D.N.Y.1904) (corporate officers, although not present when the deaths occurred, were held as principals to manslaughter because their ......
-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
...such other person in jurisdictions where the distinction between principals and accessories has been abolished by statute. United States v. Van Schaick, 134 F. 592. Gibbs State, 37 Ariz. 273. People v. Zimmer, 23 Cal.App. (2d) 581. State v. Burns, 82 Conn. 213. Boggus v. State, 34 Ga. 275. ......
-
Commonwealth v. McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc.
...offense when committed by a corporation, than it intended to give the wrongdoer impunity simply because it happened to be a corporation. 134 F. at 602. Finally, are unable to accept the lower court's conclusion that Section 3732 "is strictly natural person solely operational driver oriented......
-
State ex rel. Kropf v. Gilbert
...C. L. 768). The only reported cases to the contrary which an extended search has disclosed are two nisi prius court cases, U. S. v. Van Schaick (C. C.) 134 F. 592, 602;U. S. v. Young & Holland Co. (C. C.) 170 F. 110, and the case of Union Colliery Co. v. Reg., 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 81, 2 British......
-
Intentional disregard: remedies for the toxic workplace.
...Intent: Toward a Better Understanding of Corporate Misconduct, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1287,1292 (1990). (167) United States v. Van Schaick, 134 F. 592, 608 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. (168) New York Cent & Hudson River KR. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 492-93 (1909) (citations omitted). (169) Patrick Hami......
-
Criminal liability for life-endangering corporate conduct.
...330 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1963); United States v. Gibson Products, 426 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. Tex. 1976). (122) United States v. Van Schaick, 134 F. 592 (2d Cir. 1904); People v. Ebasco Services, Inc., 77 Misc. 2d 784, 354 N.Y.S.2d 807 (1974); Commonwealth v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 152 Ky. 320......
-
Individual Accountability for Corporate Crime
...it is the case generally identified with establishing a doctrine of corporate criminal liability. See, e.g., United States v. Van Schaick, 134 F. 592, 593 (1904); see also Gregory m. Gilchrist, The Expressive Cost of Corporate Immunity, 64 HASTINGS L.J. 1, 4 n.14 (2012). 23. See Pamela H. B......