Van Schaick v. United States

• Decision Date: 11 February 1908
• Docket Number: 61.
• Citation: 159 F. 847
• Parties: VAN SCHAICK v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

159 F. 847

VAN SCHAICK v. UNITED STATES.

No. 61.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 11, 1908

Dittenhoefer Gerber & James (A. J. Dittenhoefer and Dudley F. Phelps, Jr. of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Atty. (Henry L. Stimson, Goldthwaite H Dorr, and Felix Frankfurther, of counsel), for the United States.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

COXE Circuit Judge.

The statute under which the indictment was drawn, in so far as it is necessary to consider it here, provides that every captain on any steamboat by whose misconduct, negligence or inattention to his duties on such vessel, the life of any person is destroyed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter. The defendant was convicted under the third count of the indictment which charges that from May 6, 1904, to and including June 15, 1904, he was master of steamboat General Slocum, a vessel authorized to navigate the bay and harbor of New York, rivers tributary thereto, Long Island Sound, etc. That as such master it was his duty to cause a station bill for his own and the engineers' department to be prepared in which every person employed on said vessel should be assigned a post of duty in case of fire. That these station bills were required to be posted in the most conspicuous places on said vessel for the observation of the crew. That it was the duty of the defendant, at least once a week, to exercise the crew in the discipline and in unlashing and swinging out the life-boats and in the use of the fire pumps and all other apparatus for the safety of life, in case of fire or other emergency and to see that all the equipments required by law were in complete working order and ready for immediate use. The third count further alleges that it was defendant's duty to see that the said vessel was provided with a double-acting steam pump or other equivalent apparatus for throwing water, equipped with at least two pipes, one on each side of said vessel for carrying water to the upper decks and that it should be kept in working order and ready for immediate use. That it was the defendant's duty to see that to these pipes, both between decks and on the upper deck, was attached by means of stopcocks or valves, good and suitable hose of sufficient strength to stand a pressure of not less than 100 pounds to the square inch, long enough to reach to all parts of the vessel and ready for immediate use. That it was also the duty of the defendant to see that two hand pumps, with suitable hose, ready for immediate use, were provided for the purpose of extinguishing fire on the said vessel. That it was also his duty to see that the life-preservers on the vessel were of the regulation buoyancy and equipment and were in good order and ready for immediate use. The indictment charges that the defendant wholly neglected to perform any of the duties or discharge any of the obligations required by law, as enumerated above. That he failed to prepare and post station bills, assign the crew to positions, or exercise them in their respective duties. That the hose provided for the pumps was weak, unfit, unserviceable and unable to withstand the strain required by law, no hose of any kind being provided for the hurricane and promenade decks or for use on the hand pumps. That the life-preservers were unsafe and unserviceable, being decayed, without the necessary buoyancy and fastening straps and useless for saving human life. The indictment further charges that on June 15, 1904, the General Slocum with not less than 1,200 passengers was navigating the East river when she was destroyed by fire and a large number of passengers, not less than 900, were drowned or burned to death. That by reason of the negligence and misconduct of the defendant there was an entire lack of discipline on said vessel after she caught fire, causing panic and confusion on board and, there being no adequate means for extinguishing the flames, no attempt to do so was made. That lifeboats were not launched or made ready for launching, that the life-preservers were useless and those who attempted to use them sank instantly and were drowned while others who remained on board sank into the flames and instantly died. In brief the indictment charges that the misconduct of the defendant, while master of the General Slocum, in failing to drill and discipline his crew and in failing to provide suitable life-preservers, hose and apparatus for fighting fire, caused the death of a large number of persons.

The General Slocum was built in 1891 and was a wooden, sidewheel, excursion steamboat, her length, over all, was about 250 feet, she had two stacks and three decks and was licensed to carry 2,500 passengers. The defendant had been her master since she was built. On the morning of June 15, 1904, between half-past 9 and a quarter of 10 the Slocum left her dock at the foot of Eighth street with a Sunday School excursion of between 1,000 and 1,100 persons, composed of men, women and a large number of children, the women predominating. She proceeded up the river by the North Channel. The point when the fire was first discovered is in dispute. This was a question of fact for the jury. It is argued here, as are many similar questions, as if it were the duty of this court to examine and decide it and base the final decision upon the conclusion reached. There is unquestionably a marked conflict in the testimony as to the point on the river where the fire was first discovered. The defendant contends that it was off the spindle at the sunken meadows, the government that it was below the meadows and when the boat was opposite Ninetieth street in the vicinity of the Astoria Ferry. The jury may well have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred at the latter point. Certainly we cannot say that there was no evidence to support such a finding. Crumpton v. U.S., 138 U.S. 361, 11 Sup.Ct. 355, 34 L.Ed. 958.

As will be seen later, irrespective of the place where the fire was discovered, there was time to have extinguished or checked the flames had not every effort in that direction been frustrated by lack of discipline or failure of equipment. The fire originated in the forward hold which was directly aft of the quarters of the crew and forward of the hold containing the boilers. It was about under the center of the pilot house and was reached by a companion way on the starboard side of the vessel, the entrance being by a large door. The stairs ran athwart ships. This hold was used as a storeroom and for filling lamps, it contained oil barrels filled and partially filled, old rope, paint pots, straw, life-preservers and old junk generally. Upon discovering the fire the defendant ordered the boat full speed ahead, directing his course for the shelving beach at North Brother Island. Assuming that this order was given in the vicinity of Ninetieth street it would require from eight to twelve minutes to make the distance, about two miles, to North Brother Island where she was beached. The bow of the vessel after beaching was directly on shore so that one could jump from there onto dry land but from the paddle boxes aft there was a depth of water of from 10 to 15 feet. In order to avoid the flames the passengers were crowded together in the rear portion of the vessel. The flames spread with great rapidity soon after beaching, the decks fell in, many were drowned, some were burned, and in all over 1,000 persons lost their lives. The testimony indicates that the officers and crew were all saved and the truth of this statement was not challenged at the argument by the counsel for the defendant.

The offense of which the defendant has been convicted is statutory in character. Under the statute it was necessary for the United States to prove three propositions: First, that the defendant was captain of the Slocum. Second: that he was guilty of misconduct, negligence or inattention to his duties on the Slocum. Third: that by reason of such misconduct, negligence or inattention human life was destroyed. Intent is not an element of the offense, malice need not be proved and it is unnecessary to show that the acts or omissions which caused the loss of life were willful or intentional. U.S. v. Keller (C.C.) 19 F. 633; U.S. v. Holmes (C.C.) 104 F. 884.

The fact that a certificate signed by United States inspectors was filed certifying that the Slocum had been duly inspected and was permitted to navigate for one year from May 6, 1904, has little relevancy to the present issue. The law imposed certain duties upon the defendant, it also imposed duties upon the inspectors, but the fact that the inspectors failed in their duty is no reason why the defendant should be exculpated if he failed in his. The law placed upon him personally the obligation of seeing that this vessel had sufficient protection against fire, he could not delegate that duty, he had no right to rely solely upon the statements of the inspectors, his duty was not discharged until he personally had seen to it that the required protection was furnished.

Section 4471 of the U.S. Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3049) provides for a steam fire pump and two hand pumps with pipes, one on each side of the vessel, to convey water to the upper decks to which hose suitable in strength and length shall be attached, the hose and apparatus to be kept in good order at all times, and ready for immediate use.

Section 4405 of the U.S. Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 3017) provides that the Board of Inspectors shall establish necessary rules for...