vessel on the starboard tack; and she will be liable for damages thereby occasioned; since it is her duty to keep out of the way of a vessel close-hauled on the starboard tack. A change from port to starboard tack is not charged as a fault against the vessel on the port tack, where it is made in time to enable the other vessel to avoid her."

§ 6798. Vessels Close-Hauled and Free.-Where sailing-vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled; and the close-hauled vessel must hold her course." A vessel having the wind free must keep out of the way though the lights on the close-hauled vessel are not visible, where, as a matter of fact, the vessel sailing free is not misled and knows the course of the other vessel.10

§ 6799. Rules where Both Vessels are Running Free.-Where both vessels are running free with the wind on different sides, the vessel which has the wind on the port side must keep out of the way of the other." If both are running free with the wind on the same side, the vessel to the windward must keep out of the way of the vessel to the leeward.12 A vessel which has the wind aft1s must keep out of the way of another vessel which does not have the wind aft.14

14

§ 6800. Vessels Should Avoid Crossing Ahead.-Under the navigation rules, it is the duty of vessels directed to keep out of the way

The Essex, 50 Fed. Rep. 586. 'The British American, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 417.

• Article 17 (a) International Rules; Article 17 (a) Harbor Rules; Rule 17 (a) Red River of the North Rules; Rule 16 (a) Great Lakes Rules. See also, The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185; The Charles H. Trickey, 66 Fed. Rep. 1020; The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U. S. 514; The Gypsum Prince, 67 Fed. Rep. 612; rev'g s. c. 57 Fed. Rep. 859; The Havilah, 50 Fed. Rep. 331; rev'g s. c. 33 Fed. Rep. 875; The North Star, 29 Fed. Rep. 151; The Rabboni, 53 Fed. Rep. 952; The Robert Graham Dunn, 63 Fed. Rep. 167; The Royal Arch, 22 Fed. Rep. 457; s. c. 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 209.

igation Rules; Article 17 (c) Inland Rivers and Harbor Rules; Rule 16 (c) Rules for the Great Lakes; Rule 17 (c) Red River of the North Rules. See also, The Grace Seymour, 63 Fed. Rep. 163; The Rolf, 47 Fed. Rep. 220; s. c. aff'd, 1 U. S. App. 166; 1 C. C. A. 534; 50 Fed. Rep. 478.

12 Article 17 (d) International Rules; Article 17 (d) Inland Rivers and Harbor Rules; Rule 16 (d) Rules for the Great Lakes; Rule 17 (d) Red River of the North &c. Rules.

13 The wind is aft when at least four points aft of the beam: The Privateer, L. R. 9 Ir. 105.

14 Article 17 (e) International Rules; Article 17 (e) Rules for Inland Rivers and Harbors; Article 17 (e) Red River of the North &c. 10 The Mary Augusta, 55 Fed. Rep. Rules. See also, The Aurania, 29 343. Fed. Rep. 98.

The Ella Warner, 30 Fed. Rep. 203.

11 Article 17 (c) International Nav

of other vessels to avoid crossing ahead of such vessels if the circumstances of the case admit.15

way

$6801. Vessel Required to Give Way should Allow Wide Berth.A vessel required by the navigation rules to give way must take timely precautions to avoid collision;16 and must not approach the privileged ressel so close as to create an apprehension of collision and thus compel a change of course on the part of the latter vessel.17 Thus, a sailing-vessel having the wind free and being bound to keep out of the of another vessel close-hauled which she meets nearly head on, is liable for a collision between them where she misleads the other by her unsteady course, and fails to keep out of the way because her master does not see the other's lights because of his position abaft the foremast.18 But it is a condition of the duty of one sailing-vessel "to keep out of the way" of another, that the latter afford reasonable evidence of her intentions. While that is doubtful, the former is justified in keeping on her course. 19

§ 6802. The Privileged Vessel must Keep her Course.--The requirement that one vessel shall keep out of the way of another would be ineffective to prevent collision unless the other vessel was required to continue in her course, as uncertainty in this respect would render the task of the avoiding vessel exceedingly difficult; and hence the navigation rules impose this correlative obligation;20 and the vessel

18 The Robert Healey, 51 Fed. Rep.

462.

10 The B. C. Terry, 30 Fed. Rep.

711.

"Article 22 International Naviga- S. 514; The Jeremiah, 10 Ben. (U. tion Rules. See also, Fulton v. S.) 326; The John H. Abeel, 4 Ben. Holmes, 122 Fed. Rep. 406; rev'g s. (U. S.) 58; The Osseo, 8 Ben. (U. c. 100 Fed. Rep. 874. A finding that S.) 518. a schooner was in fault for a collision with a crossing vessel in the night was affirmed, where it appeared from the evidence that the schooner was the burdened vessel, and that, through the inefficiency of her lookout, she failed to see the lights of the other vessel until she was only three or four lengths distant, and then attempted to cross ahead of her, in violation of article 22 of the International Navigation Rules: The Queen Elizabeth, 122 Fed. Rep. 406; rev'g s. c. 100 Fed. Rep. 874.

The A. R. Weeks, 26 Fed. Rep. 654; Westcott v. The Ann Barton, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 10; The Maude Webster, 1 Hask. (U. S.) 325.

The Commodore Jones, 25 Fed. Rep. 506; The Mary Augusta, 55 Fed. Rep. 343; Wells v. Armstrong, 29 Fed. Rep. 216; The Argus, Olc. (U. 8.) 304; The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U.

20 Article 21 International Navigation Rules. See also, The Argus, Olc. (U. S.) 304; The A. R. Weeks, 26 Fed. Rep. 654; The Ella Warner, 30 Fed. Rep. 203; The Gypsum Prince, 57 Fed. Rep. 859; Larsen v. The Myrtle, 44 Fed. Rep. 779; The Mary Manning, 98 Fed. Rep. 1000; The North Star, 29 Fed. Rep. 151; The Rabboni, 53 Fed. Rep. 952; The Ralph M. Hayward, 12 Fed. Rep. 794; The Robert B. King, 50 Fed. Rep. 781; The F. W. Gifford, 7 Biss. (U. S.) 249. One of two sailing vessels approaching each other from opposite directions in the night was sailing free with the wind to starboard, while the other was closehauled on the port tack. So long as such courses were maintained, there

24

required to keep out of the way is entitled to presume that the privileged vessel will respect this rule.21 The navigation rules allow a departure from this rule only where a change of course is necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.22 Ordinarily the privileged vessel is justified in changing her course when, in the opinion of the officer in command, in the exercise of good judgment and seamanship, a collision will otherwise be unavoidable because of the failure of the burdened vessel to take timely action to keep out of the way.23 Thus, a schooner sailing close-hauled will not be regarded as at fault for a collision with another schooner sailing free and bound to keep out of the way, where the privileged schooner keeps her course until just as the latter is about to strike her, and then, by putting her wheel hard up, tries to ease the blow. So, a ship was properly held not imputable with contributory fault for a collision because of her change of course, although she was the privileged vessel, where the change was not made until immediately before the collision, when the vessels were within a few hundred feet of each other, and it was apparent that the other vessel was attempting to cross ahead in violation of the rules. 25 Then again, the privileged vessel may be justified in changing her course where it is apparent that the vessel charged with the duty of keeping out of her way is not under control, or is not being navigated in accordance with her obligations.26 Where the movements of the vessel required to give way are in doubt, the privileged vessel should keep her course.27 A vessel on the starboard tack is not justified in running out her tack where a collision can be avoided by a change. 28

was no danger of collision, but when a short distance apart the vessel running free twice changed her course, the last time taking a course in which she was close-hauled on the tarboard tack, and making a collision inevitable if both maintained their courses. It was held that in such situation the other vessel, which had previously been privileged and required to maintain her course, became the burdened vessel, and was not in fault for changing her course, although a collision resulted by reason of both changing at the same time; and that the one making the first changes, bringing about the dangerous situation with out necessity, was solely in fault: The Mary Buhne, 118 Fed. Rep. 1000; s. c. 55 C. C. A. 494; aff'g s. c. 95 Fed. Rep. 1002.

Rep. 781; The Commodore Jones, 25
Fed. Rep. 506.

22 Article 27 International Navigation Rules. See also, The Eliza S. Potter, 31 Fed. Rep. 687.

The Robert Healey, 51 Fed. Rep. 462; The Zampa, 113 Fed. Rep. 541. 24 The Mary Augusta, 55 Fed. Rep.

343.

25 The Queen Elizabeth, 122 Fed. Rep. 406; rev'g s. c. 100 Fed. Rep. 874; Fulton v. Holmes, 122 Fed. Rep. 406; rev'g s. c. 100 Fed. Rep. 874.

26 The Mary Eveline, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 348; The Maude Webster, 1 Hask. (U. S.) 325.

27 The H. P. Baldwin, Browne Adm. (U. S.) 300; The F. W. Gifford, 7 Biss. (U. S.) 249.

28 The French v. The Victoria, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 292; The Eliza S. Potter, 31 Fed. Rep. 687; The Robert B. The Robert B. King, 50 Fed. King, 50 Fed. Rep. 781; The Essex,

50 Fed. Rep. 586.

6809. Privileged vessel must main- 6812. Duty to slacken speed, or stop, tain her course and speed.

or reverse.

§ 6805. Meaning of the Term "Steam-Vessel" in Navigation Laws. -The term "steam-vessel," as declared in the navigation laws, includes all vessels propelled by machinery and every vessel under steam, whether under sail or not.1

$6806. Steam-Vessels Meeting End On.-The navigation laws require that when two steam-vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each must change her course to starboard so that each will pass port side to the other. This rule applies only to cases where vessels are meeting end on or nearly end on so as to involve risk of collision, and does not apply where vessels are pursuing parallel courses and will pass clear of each other. Vessels will be regarded as meeting end on where by day each vessel sees the masts of the other in line or nearly in line with her own; and where by night each vessel is in such a position as to see both the

'International Navigation Rules (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2863).

Article 18, International Navigation Rules (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2870). See also, The Elba, 123 Fed. Rep. 139; The Kaga Maru, 123 Fed. Rep. 139; The Sarah Thorp, 50 Fed. Rep. 587; s. c. 1 C. C. A. 580; 1 U. S. App. 154; aff'g s. c. 44 Fed. Rep. 637; In re Central Railroad of New Jersey, 92 Fed. Rep. 1010; The Wolverton, 28 Fed. Rep. 381. A tug and her tow met a steamer about head on. The captain of the tug saw the steamer and signalled his intention to go to the left, but the signal was

not answered. It was held that the tug was bound to whistle again before proceeding upon her indicated course, or make an effort to get out of the steamer's way, the steamer being, as the captain of the tug knew, on her regular route to her usual landing: The Pegasus, 15 Fed. Rep. 921. A steamer which undertakes to reverse the statutory rule and pass starboard to starboard, assumes the risk of any misunderstanding of signals properly given by the other vessel: The Frostburg, 25 Fed. Rep. 451.

3

side lights of the other. Each of two vessels approaching each other is entitled to presume that the other will act lawfully and pursue the customary course, regulating her actions so as to avoid danger.*

§ 6807. Crossing Vessels.-The rule requiring vessels meeting end on or nearly end on to change their courses to starboard does not apply by day to cases in which a vessel sees another ahead crossing her own course; or by night to cases where the red light of one vessel is opposed to the red light of the other, or where the green light of one vessel is opposed to the green light of the other, or where a red light without a green light, or a green light without a red light is seen ahead, or where both green and red lights are seen anywhere but ahead."

§ 6808. Vessel must Keep Out of the Way of a Vessel on her Starboard Side. When two vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side must keep out of the way of the other, and, if the circumstances of the case permit, avoid crossing ahead of her,? an attempt to do which will be at her peril. But good seamanship sometimes sanctions, if it

Article 18 International Navigation Rules (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2870).

The Victory and the Plymothian, 168 U. S. 410; s. c. 42 L. ed. 519; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149.

Article 18 International Navigation Rules. See The Gulf Stream, 43 Fed. Rep. 895. Where two steamers at the distance of half a mile were approaching on such courses as to enable each to make the green light of the other on her starboard bow, and one vessel ported her helm, it was held that she was in fault under Orders in Council, article 13, providing that if two vessels are meeting end on, or nearly so, the helms of both shall be put to port, but that the article shall not apply "where the green light of one ship is opposed to the green light of the other": The Ping-On, 7 Sawy. (U. S.) 483.

Article 19 International Navigation Rules. See The Amos C. Barstow, 50 Fed. Rep. 620; The Dorchester, 121 Fed. Rep. 889; The Emma Kate Ross, 46 Fed. Rep. 872; The Frisia, 28 Fed. Rep. 249; rev'g s. c. 24 Fed. Rep. 495; The Joseph M. Clark, 119 Fed. Rep. 459; Ocean Steamship Co. v. Talisman, 36 Fed. Rep. 600; The Shackamaxon, 66 Fed.

Rep. 75; s. c. 13 C. C. A. 335; The Thingvalla, 48 Fed. Rep. 764; s. c. 1 C. C. A. 87; 1 U. S. App. 32; The Thornhill, 121 Fed. Rep. 889; Watts v. United States, 123 Fed. Rep. 105. A steamer meeting another under such circumstances as to be required to keep out of the latter's way is bound by rule 2 of the Supervising Inspectors, requiring steamers approaching in an oblique direction to pass to the right, notwithstanding the presence of a tow in a channel 500 feet in width, where at the time of meeting such other steamer she has the whole width of the river to her right in which to avoid an ascending vessel, by merely running down into the bight of the tow out of danger, when there would be no collision; and is liable where, instead, she heads directly across the river into the course of the other steamer, and would be liable even if not bound by such rule: The New York, 82 Fed. Rep. 819; s. c. 54 U. S. App. 248; 27 C. C. A. 154; rehear'g denied, 86 Fed. Rep. 814.