Tax collision case lately tried in the Supreme Court, between H.M.S. Frolic and the merchant steamer Dragon, is one which calls for a few words of comment. We do not purpose entering into the merits of the case as between the two vessels, nor attempting to criticism the decision, which we believe to have been a just one under the cireumstances brought forward. What does appear to us strange is the inferiority of the lights which appear to be tolerated on board Her Majesty's vessels. A great deal was said on both sides, during the progress of the case, respecting this question, and it does seem surprising that a vessel belonging to H.M's Navy should have to defend such @ serious countercharge. The Court was satisfied that this inferiority could not, in the present instance, be pleaded as an excuse for the collision; and the evidence and result of the personal examination made by the Judge and the Assessors, of the lights used by the Frolic, justifies that opinion, But it is none the less certain that the fact itself is discreditable to the responsible authorities. We are well aware that neither to the Commander nor to any person connected with the ship does this responsibility attach; they can only use what is provided, but the negligence which omits to provide a man-of-war with lights of the very best description cannot be too strongly blamed. Her Majesty's ships should rather set an example in this respect to ships of the mercantile marine. Instead of this being 80, however, in the present instance, not only was one light stated to be too small and in many particulars not up to Board of Trade Regulations; but even the best light exhibited by the Frolic is alleged to have been only a third-class light, and one that would be discount tenance by the Board of Trade Surveyors at Home for a merchant vessel. There can scarcely be @ question that the Board of Trade officials are, after so long an experience of testing and comparing different lights, the best judges of what class of light and what size of lamp is most capable of conforming to the requirements of the law. Now, a third-class light has simply common lens, and, unless it has a very powerfal reflector and is in other particulars exceedingly well made, its sufficiency may well be questioned, as an abstract question. At any rate, there is an incongruity amounting to injustice in requiring for merchant steamers a higher standard than that which is tolerated in the case of men-of-war. A first. class light, on the other band, has a dioptric lens which concentrates the rays of light and enables them to be thrown by the reflector to a greater distance. We maintain, therefore, that this, the highest class of light, is the only one which should be used by ships of war so that the question of the sufiiciency of their lights may not, in case of collision, ever be called in question, Wo wore glad to see the Court conidered it necessary to add a rider to its judgment, respecting this portion of the case; and we trast that the prom mence thus given will attract the attention of the responsible officials, and secure the future supply to Her Majesty's ships of such lights as the Board of Trade require to be used in the vessels of our mercantile navy.
is, we believe, an unusual thing for the Government to enter an action for damages, in cases where their ships unfortunately sustain damage in collision with those of their subjects, and the justice and expediency of doing 60 may be open to argument; but at least one advantage will ensue from the course taken in the present instance, if the publicity given to the defects we have indicated lead to the remedy of an evident incongruity—There yot one point in connexion with this subject which invites remark, and that is the position of the lights exhibited by the Frolic. These were placed immediately before the bluff of the bows, in places let into the bulwark of the ship on each side. This also appears to be against the Board of Trade Regulations for a merchant vessel, and we donot see any reason why, in times of peace, mon-of-war should not carry theirlightslike ordinary merchant vessels, at either extremity of the bridge, where they can be under the immediate supervision of the officer of the watch. There is, we are aware, an objection on the part of naval officers generally to having the sides of the ship hampered with clumsy looking seroon-boards such as would be necessary in case lights were fitted in the position mentioned; but, as in the case of some other objectionable looking fittings, these might be so constructed as to enable them to be removed in time of war, or when the vessel arrived in port, and easily refitted when she gets ready for sea.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.