them British subjects, resulting from a collision which occurred in the River St. Lawrence between the steamship Canadienne and the United States Government's steamship Yantic on October 29, 1897.

The collision was the subject of two investigations, one made by the Canadian marine authorities at Montreal on November 3 and 8, 1897, and the other by the United States naval authorities on November 22, 1897, at Quebec.

I. As to the facts:

The Canadienne left Montreal on October 27, 1897, bound for Quebec, Gaspé and other ports on the lower St. Lawrence. She was fully manned and had an apprentice pilot on board. In the early morning of October 29th she was on her way down nearing Pointe à Pizeau or Sillery Point, on the north bank of the river, about three miles above Quebec. On the same morning the United States steamship Yantic left her Quebec anchorage at 4.15 a. m. bound for Montreal and at 4.30 she stood up the river with a duly licensed Canadian pilot on board.

It appears from the evidence taken at the investigation held by the Canadian authorities that the Canadienne, when approaching Sillery Point, first saw both side lights of another steamer, which subsequently proved to be the Yantic, and shortly thereafter, only her green light, afterwards, both side lights appeared again, and then the green light disappeared, leaving only the red light visible.

It appears from the inquiry held by the United States authorities that the Yantic came up to and passed Sillery Point without reporting any light ahead; then she changed her course slightly to starboard, and after the ship was steadied on that new course, she reported the masthead and the green light of an approaching steamer, which was the Canadienne. It was found in the United States inquiry, that "When the Canadienne saw both the Yantic's side lights and afterwards the green only, the latter must have been east of Pizeau Point" (United States answer, p. 29).

It is further stated in the report of the same inquiry that it is probable that the change of course made by the Yantic in rounding Sillery Point opened again her two lights and let the green disappear, leaving only the red visible.

After the green light of the Canadienne was reported, the Yantic finding herself red to green, came one-half point to starboard, and gave one blast of the whistle to indicate that she was directing her course to starboard.

To this signal the Canadienne gave no answer, but kept steadily on her

course.

Then the Yantic put her helm hard-a-port, reduced her speed, stopped and reversed the engines.

The Canadienne continued on her way, full speed ahead.

Almost immediately the collision occurred.

II. As to the liability:

At the outset it must be observed that the International Rules of the Road applied in 1897 on the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec.

When the Canadienne saw both side lights of the Yantic, and particularly when almost immediately afterwards the Yantic showed her red light, a clear indication that she was coming to starboard-the Canadienne was at fault in taking or keeping her way to cross the Yantic's bow so as to pass starboard to starboard, instead of giving way so as to pass port to port according to the Rules of the Road (Articles 25 and 18, pars. 1 and 3). There is no evidence in this record showing the existence of any necessity, local conditions, or special rule which would authorize the Canadienne to keep the north side of the river (Rules of the Road, Article 30). Furthermore the Canadienne was about to round a point in the river and when she saw another steamer rounding the same point in the opposite direction, she was at fault in not indicating her course by sounding her whistle (Rules of the Road, Article 28, par. 2). On the other hand, it is stated in the United States inquiry that the Yantic, before reporting the masthead and green light of the Canadienne, that is to say, before or when she was rounding Sillery Point, was within sight of and should have reported the lights of the Canadienne. The United States officer appointed to make the inquiry said: "As the lights were plainly visible, they should have been seen before" (United States answer, p. 28), and, in fact, at that time the Yantic had already been sighted by the Canadienne. Nevertheless those on board the Yantic failed to report the Canadienne's lights until after their ship had taken her course to starboard, and it necessarily follows that the Yantic did not keep a proper lookout (Rules of the Road, Article 29). The same officer also stated that as he had been unable to examine the lookout he could not give any explanation as to why the lights of the Canadienne had not been reported.

Whatever may be the reason, right or wrong, why the Canadienne

took or kept her way toward the north side of the river and was still showing her green light, the failure of the Yantic to keep a proper lookout prevented her from seeing the Canadienne until they were so close that it was dangerous to try to cross her bow and the Yantic should have kept clear of a way in which she was able to see the other steamer was already engaged (Rules of the Road, Articles 27 and 29).

The Canadienne acted most negligently, after taking or keeping her port way as aforesaid, (a) in giving no blast signal and no answer to the starboard blast of the Yantic, (b) in not reducing her speed, (c) in not stopping and reversing as she was approaching nearer and nearer the Yantic. And when the collision appeared to be inevitable, she did not take any of the measures prescribed by the Rules of the Road as well as by the most elementary prudence to avert the accident.

Consequently, so far as it is possible to ascertain the facts of a collision after fifteen years have elapsed, and without an opportunity to see the witnesses, the ship's papers, or the engineer's log, the Tribunal is of opinion that the Canadienne was at fault, but that the Yantic was not without reproach, and consequently that both ships are to blame, but in a different proportion.

III. As to the law and the consequences of the liability:

According to the generally recognized rule of international law in the United States (Story, Conflict of Laws, ch. 14, sec. 558) and in Great Britain (Marsden, Collisions at Sea, 6th ed., p. 198), in such a case as this the lex loci delicti commissi must apply.

The law in force in that respect in Canada in 1897 was the law in force in England (Canada Shipping Act, Rev. St. 1906, ch. 113, sec. 918), and at that time the English rule as reported in Marsden, Collisions at Sea, 6th ed., p. 123, was as follows:

The law apportions the loss where both ships are in fault by obliging each wrongdoer to pay half the loss of the other. Thus, if the loss on ship A is £1,000 and that on B is £2,000 A can recover £500 against B, and B can recover £1,000 against A.

IV. As to the amount of the claim:

His Britannic Majesty's Government give an estimate of four thousand three hundred eight 77/100 dollars ($4,308.77) net for the disbursements of the Dominion of Canada for repairs to the Canadienne, dock dues and incidental expenses, and the charterer an estimate of three thousand five hundred fifty-six 82/100 dollars ($3,556.82) net, mak

ing the total of seven thousand eight hundred sixty-five 59/100 dollars ($7,865.59) as claimed.

But some of the items in the charterer's estimate represent damages, of which no sufficient proof is given, viz., loss of traffic, two thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($2,250), witnesses and fees of counsel, five hundred dollars ($500), and traveling expenses, two hundred forty-eight dollars ($248), amounting to two thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($2,998), reducing the total amount to four thousand eight hundred sixty-seven 59/100 dollars ($4,867.59), one-half of which is two thousand four hundred thirty-three 79/100 dollars ($2,433.79). Although the United States did not claim for damages suffered by the Yantic, inasmuch as according to the law applicable to this case, each vessel is entitled to recover one-half of her own damage, the Yantic's damage, which has been estimated by the United States naval commissioner at one thousand dollars ($1,000) (United States answer, p. 33), must be taken into consideration.

V. As to the interest:

The Tribunal, being entitled under the Terms of Submission to allow or disallow interest as it thinks equitable, is of the opinion that in this case no allowance of interest is justified.

On these motives

The Tribunal decides that in this case the Government of the United States shall pay the Government of His Britannic Majesty the sum of one thousand nine hundred thirty-three 79/100 dollars ($1,933.79) without interest.

This is a claim for Five thousand dollars ($5,000) and interest from June 5, 1812, presented by His Britannic Majesty's Government on behalf of Henry James Bethune, legal personal representative of James and William Crooks, deceased, the owners of the Lord Nelson, a British

schooner, on account of the capture of the said schooner by the United States naval authorities on June 5, 1812, nearly two weeks before the declaration of war between Great Britain and the United States of America.

The capture of this schooner at the date and under the circumstances above mentioned is not disputed.

Further, it appears that the vessel, after her capture, was acquired by the United States Navy at a valuation of two thousand nine hundred ninety-nine 25/100 dollars ($2,999.25). She was converted into a war vessel by the United States and used against Great Britain in the war of 1812 and was never returned to her former owners.

It is said that in 1815 the owners applied to the United States Government for redress, but no evidence is offered to show either the date of that application or whether it constituted a claim regularly presented.

On July 11, 1817, by decree of the court of the Northern District of New York, the capture of the Lord Nelson was pronounced to be illegal and void and the proceeds of the sale, i. e., two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine 25/100 dollars ($2,999.25) were directed to be paid to the owners; but that direction was not complied with because the funds had meanwhile been embezzled by the clerk of the court.

On February 3, 1819, a regular claim for indemnity was received by the United States Government from the British Government, and subsequently numerous claims, petitions and applications were presented either by the claimants or by His Britannic Majesty's Government, but no action was taken notwithstanding favorable reports and recommendations on bills introduced in Congress providing for payment of the claim.

On June 24, 1836, on a new petition presented by the claimants, the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives, considering that the illegality of the capture was established by the said decree of 1817, resolved that an investigation should be made by the Secretary of the Navy, as to the real value of the ship at the time of the capture. And on February 11, 1837, the Secretary of the Navy, after an investigation by a special committee, reported that this value should be fixed at five thousand dollars ($5,000).

This estimate has never been questioned on any of the many occasions when this claim has been under consideration by executive or congressional committees, and the United States Government has admitted before this Tribunal its liability on this claim to the extent of the