BUKaE V. STEAHSHIP UTOFIA. 013 �each other at a distance, as he judged, of an eighth of a mile. As lie was entirely mistaken in respect to the course of the bark when he put his wheel hard a-port, bis testimony does net show us how far apart he thinks they would bave passed, the bark being upon the course she was on, to the lee-ward, as he afterwards disoovered she was. But he and the mate bave answered that question in the officiai log, where they say, "but instantly the ship kept away," which, as we bave seen, is to be interpreted as meaning, in the light of the facts, that "the ship was seen to be on a course to leeward;" and they say of this "keeping away" of the ship : "The ship kept away, compelling the steamer, to starboard. The ship at this time was dangerously close to the steamer, and, a collision being inevitable, the angines were reversed, fuU speed astern, when she suddenly ported," etc. �It was the judgment of the master of the bark that if he had kept bis course, instead of luf&ng, the steamer would bave Btruck the bark on the starboard quarter. His judgment at the time is thus confirmed by that of the master and mate of the steamer when they signed the officiai log so soon af ter the collision. �The leamed counsel for the claimants bave made very light of this officiai log as evidence, and the master himself bas, upon the trial, treated it as a mere formai matter, a docu- ment of no consequence, a statement of the collision which was near enough to the truth for the purpose for which it was made. I cannot so regard it. Great importance, it seems to me, bas been given to the officiai log by the merchant ship- ping act. It is expressly made evidence in any court, subjeot to ail just exceptions. The compliance with the statute re- quiring it to be made is enforced by penalties, and it seems to me that facts stated in it mnst, as against the ship, be taken to be true, expressly where it is made and signed by those chiefly havrng knowledge of the facts, unless a mistake is clearly shown. �The case cited to show that the log is not competent evi- dence has no application. That was a case in which the �v.l.no.lO— 58 ��� �
