286 Danger of Collision vn Vessels 
the causes assigned for collisions by boards of inquiry are 
very seldom the true ones. | 
Now, perhaps the best mode of disclosing the error in 
question and showing how generally it prevails, will be by — 
pointing it out in the case of the late collision between the 
steam-ships “City of Launceston” and “ Penola” as it was 
presented and adjudicated in the Supreme Court. The 
testimony given by the captain of the “City of Launceston ” 
and all his officers was concise and clear; it went to show 
that they sighted the “Penola” two and a-half points on the 
starboard bow, ata distance of about five miles, and that after 
pursuing their course until the distance was diminished to 
about two and a-half miles, the captain made a second 
observation of the “ Penola,” and found that she was on the 
same “bearing,” viz., two and a-half points on the bow, as 
when first sighted, and in consequence of observing this con- 
tonuance of the angle, he, influenced by the common belief 
in such cases, concluded that the vessels would pass a long 
way off from one another, he therefore confidently held on 
his course at full speed, and now positively declares that no 
collision could possibly have happened unless the other vessel 
had improperly altered her course after the second observa- 
tion had been made, which, as he alleges, showed the ships 
to be pursuing perfectly safe courses. Now we shall show 
that this captain acted precisely wrong, yet his conduct was 
fully approved by the Court, the experts, and the jury, and 
a verdict was given him accordingly, and there can be 
no disrespect in saying (because it is a simple fact), that both 
the nautical and legal professions are very much in the dark 
with respect to the true indications of safety and danger in 
a case of impending collision. The mathematical principle 
discovered by the writer to be available as a preventive of 
collisions if brought to bear on the case we have been notic- 
ing, would at once show that the common practice of j 
“keeping” an approaching ship upon whatever angle she 
may happen to be on, asa means of safety and the com- 
monly received theory that such a practice is a right one, are 
altogether delusive, and that the continuance of an 
approaching vessel upon any angle whatever, however 
“broad” on the bow it may be, is so far from being a 
criterion of safety, that it is emphatically the very index of 
danger. It proves therefore that in some respects our pre- 
sent practice with regard to collisions systematically reverses q 
the true indicationsiof safety, and danger blindlychoosesapro- — 
