within five or six lengths for the purpose of crossing each other without slackening speed or taking any precautions to prevent collision.30 So, a tug attempting to get a line to a schooner for the purpose of towing her into port, and prevented therefrom by the presence of a rival tug until the schooner grounds, is not guilty of negligence which will render her liable to the schooner, but the interfering tug will be liable for damages resulting to both schooner and the other tug from such interference.31

$6864. Care as to Make-Up of Tow.-The tow must be made up with reference to the channel to be traversed, having in mind particular obstructions to be encountered.32 Where the channel will admit of such navigation, it is not negligence for a tug towing a barge to place herself alongside on her quarter. 33 A tow consisting of numerous vessels should be arranged in an order allowing the most efficient control by the tug. Thus, a tug which undertook to navigate, in a river where she was likely to meet numerous vessels, a flotilla so arranged and organized that she could not under normal conditions of wind and tide safely conduct it past a vessel lying at anchor, seen a half mile away, with no obstructions and a clear channel one-half mile wide, was held at fault for a collision; and the case was made stronger by reason of her failure to detach her helper

Latham v. Hamilton &c. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 856; s. c. 11 C. C. A. 454; rev'g s. c. 50 Fed. Rep. 583. So, a tug following another in a race to obtain the towage of a vessel is not relieved of the duty of an overtaking steamer to keep out of the way, by having gained a lead of a half length, but is liable for an injury to the vessel caused by the overtaking tug swinging in and striking the other tug, thereby changing the Catter's course so that she heads toward and strikes the vessel; and the latter tug is not liable where, immediately upon the collision, she reverses and does all that is possible to avoid striking the vessel: The Jesse Spaulding, 50 Fed. Rep. 583. So, where two tugs are endeavoring to reach a prospective tow, and one of them deliberately departs from her course, and, although signaled by the other to keep it, so alters it as to cross the bow of the other in such dangerous proximity as but for the checking of the latter would resalt in a collision, and endeavors to crowd the latter over and out of her

course, racing along side by side with her so close that for a mile

or

more they rub against each other, the former is at fault for an ensuing collision with the latter by which the former is sunk: The John Gregory, 81 Fed. Rep. 971; s. c. 54 U. S. App. 113; 27 C. C. A. 33.

a The E. D. Holton, 55 Fed. Rep. 1010.

32 The Bordentown, 16 Fed. Rep. 270 (owner of old barge did not object to the position of his barge in the tow, and was held to have waived any objection on that ground); The Florence, 88 Fed. Rep. 302; The Julia, 91 Fed. Rep. 171. It is customary to carry tows safely to port at New Orleans without dividing them; and the question whether a tow should have stopped and broken up before coming to land must depend upon the ability of the tow-boat to handle her barges amid the circumstances of the time: St. Louis &c. Co. v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. (U. S.) 251.

33 The Charlotte, 51 Fed. Rep. 455.

and send it to the rear to assist in keeping the tow in line. Á tug, as pilot of a tow, is charged with the duty of seeing that the lines are strong and securely fastened.35 A tow having been made up, the tug may rely on the presumption that the vessels in the tow are equipped with anchors; and the tug is not required to attach herself to the tow at once, but may postpone the attachment until conditions are such that the voyage may be proceeded with; and she will not be liable for the escape of one of the vessels of the tow caused by the fact that she was not equipped with an anchor.36

§ 6865. Shifting Tow.-Whether a vessel engaged in the operation of shifting her tow is to be regarded as a navigating vessel or not, she should, in so doing, move forward or backward only after exercising ordinary foresight to see if the water within which she is executing her manœuvre has been left free for her by other vessels.37

§6866. Length of Hawser.-It is negligence for a tug to tow a vessel on a hawser so long that the tow can not be readily controlled ;38 but it must be shown that the disaster resulted from the excessive length of the line.39 Where a long line is used, some efficient means of communication between the tug and the tow must be maintained for use in emergencies.40

$6867. Use of Bridle.-The system of towing by means of a bridle, whereby two or more boats are towed abreast at the end of a single hawser, is in common use, and is not in itself unsafe;41 and a

tug

will not be liable where the bridle breaks on a sudden strain caused by starboarding to avoid an approaching vessel, unless it is shown that the bridle was too small or out of repair or otherwise insufficient.*2 The failure to use a bridle to tow a single canal-boat will not be imputed as a fault, as the principal reason for using the bridle would seem to be absent in this character of towage.43

$6868. Tug must Take Notice of Wind and Water Before Entering upon Voyage.-A tug must exercise reasonable care and diligence. in determining the time for commencing the voyage; and she will be liable where the voyage is entered upon in the face of threatening weather, and persisted in after it becomes dangerous. It is the duty

46

of a tug, when encumbered with a heavy tow, to provide against contingencies of the weather likely to occur, by carrying sufficient help to meet such emergencies.45 After a storm has abated, a tug is not negligent in proceeding with her tow in reliance upon weather signals indicating fair weather; and she may be justified in proceeding where there is a low but rising barometer, and cautionary signals are posted, but there is no immediate indication of dangerous weather, provided of course the decision to proceed is reached after due consideration. So, it has been held that the master of a propeller, having a schooner in tow on the Great Lakes at the close of the navigation season, was not imputable with negligence in proceeding with the voyage notwithstanding indications of bad weather, especially where no cautionary signals were displayed by the Government Bureau. Where a voyage has not been imprudently entered upon, there is no negligence in proceeding through a storm where the master considers the risk of anchoring near the shore too great. There

48

The Zouave, 90 Fed. Rep. 440; The Emma Kate Ross, 43 Fed. Rep. 607.

"The Zouave, 90 Fed. Rep. 440. The Lady Wimett, 92 Fed. Rep. 399.

"The Gratitude, 31 Fed. Rep. 232; Tucker v. Gallagher, 122 Fed. Rep. 847; The Temple Emery, 122 Fed. Rep. 180 (navigation entered upon over protest of owner of tow). *O'Brien v. New York &c. Transp. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 494.

The Argus, 31 Fed. Rep. 481; The E. Luckenbach, 113 Fed. Rep. 1017; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 589; aff'g s. c. 109 Fed. Rep. 487; The E. V. Mc

Caulley, 90 Fed. Rep. 510; s. c. 33 C. C. A. 620; aff'g s. c. 84 Fed. Rep. 500; The Ivanhoe, 90 Fed. Rep. 510; s. c. 33 C. C. A. 620; aff'g s. c. 84 Fed. Rep. 500.

47 The Allie & Evie, 24 Fed. Rep. 745. Where the evidence fails to show clearly such threatening weather as should forbid a tug with a tow from continuing on her course, the tug, when in charge of a competent pilot, should have the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the testimony: The Frederick E. Ives, 25 Fed. Rep. 447.

The Wilhelm, 47 Fed. Rep. 89. 40 The Argus, 31 Fed. Rep. 481.

is no custom on the Hudson River requiring tugs to send ahead scouts in stormy weather, though this is the practice in the larger waters opening into the ocean.5o And navigators of tugs on the Hudson River are not negligent in failing to observe signals or keep themselves advised of the predictions of the Weather Bureau as to stations along the Atlantic, particularly where there is no evidence that navigation on the river is ordinarily affected by storms along the coast.51

§ 6869. Care with Reference to Navigation when Channel is Filled with Moving Ice.-The duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in all forms of navigation applies where the channel contains floating ice; and a tug will not be imputable with negligence by reason of proceeding on a voyage through such waters, where such action would be justified under rules of prudent seamanship.52 The tug will certainly not be liable where the owner of the tow, with knowledge of the danger, does not dissent from the undertaking.53 The burden of showing negligence in proceeding with a voyage under these conditions rests on the tow.54

§ 6870. Tug should Control Navigation of Tow.—The tug should have full control of the tow; and where the tow is of great length, the flotilla should be so manoeuvred that the tow will not swing out into the channel to the danger of other vessels.55 The tug should give

A steamer with vessels in tow is not imputable with negligence by reason of continuing her voyage, after rounding to in a storm of uncertain duration for the purpose of righting herself and readjusting her deckload, although the hawser parted and the tow was lost by force and violence of the storm, the tow being greatly exposed after rounding to and righting herself: The Wilhelm, 52 Fed. Rep. 602; aff'g s. c. 47 Fed. Rep. 89.

50 The Victoria, 95 Fed. Rep. 184.

The Victoria, 95 Fed. Rep. 184. 52 The Mary R. McKillop, 23 Fed. Rep. 829; The E. A. Packer, 22 Fed. Rep. 668 (tug liable where hazard was great and voyage was started without directions of owner of tow); The W. E. Gladwish, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 77. A tug was held not in fault for starting out of a dock on the Hudson River with its tow, where the wind had blown a large cake of ice in the river below over to the eastern shore, leaving a clear passage down the west shore,

but, while the tug was passing the ice, a corner of the ice caught on the east shore so that, when the ebb tide made, it was turned in the river so as to close in on the tug and tow, and force her ashore before she could escape, as such an occurrence was not reasonably to be expected: The Gen. Wm. McCandless, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 453.

53 The Packer, 24 Blatchf. (U. S.) 27; s. c. 28 Fed. Rep. 156.

The W. E. Gladwish, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.). 77.

55

The Brinton, 50 Fed. Rep. 581; The Jamestown, 114 Fed. Rep. 593; The Nettie, 35 Fed. Rep. 615; The Norfolk, 114 Fed. Rep. 593. A tug with a steamer under her own steam in tow, which permits such steamer to outrun her, so that when the steamer sheers the tug is obliged to cast off to avoid being capsized, will be held at fault for collision of the steamer with a vessel moored at a dock: The Syracuse, 84 Fed. Rep. 1005.

steering directions to the tow;56 and these should be strictly obeyed in order to relieve the tow from liability for collision with passing vessels. It is the duty of the tug to know whether the tow is in a condition to respond to the movements and orders of the tug.58 When a collision occurs between a vessel in tow and a third vessel which the tug has passed in safety, the law raises the presumption that the tow was in fault. It is an obvious measure of prudence for vessels navigating narrow channels to slacken speed when meeting; and this measure of safety is most pressing in the case of a tow liable to sheer when encountering displacement waves.60 But the fact that such waves are seen to approach does not impose upon the tug the duty to turn the stern of the tow directly to the displacement waves, as she has the right to presume that the passing steamer will take proper measures to avoid disaster by lowering her speed. In passing vessels at anchor, a tug is negligent where, after passing such a vessel, she returns to her course without allowing time for the tow to clear the vessel. It is the duty of the tug to signal to approaching vessels notice that she is encumbered with a tow.63 This duty is not so imperative where the meeting occurs in daylight and the fact that the tug is leading a tow is apparent."

62

$6871. Care in Attaching to Tow and Starting on Voyage.—It is the duty of a tug to use reasonable care in attaching herself to the

*The Harold, 84 Fed. Rep. 698. A tug employed to land a vessel at a particular place has a right, and it is its duty, to direct the vessel in the management of its helm, so that she may aid in making the landing: The Southwest and the L. P. Smith, 2 Flip. (U. S.) 79.

The Ciampa Emilia, 46 Fed. Rep. 866; Miller v. The Argonaut, 37 Fed. Rep. 910. A canal-boat in tow of a tug at the time she grounds upon rocks is at fault, together with the tug, for the injury, where the helmsman of the canalboat was away from his post after having been given to understand that the boat could not be successfully manœuvred without his cooperation, and after having received xplicit instructions as to the management of the helm, where if he bad been present he might have prevented the accident, or at least lessened the blow: The Jonty Jenks, 54 Fed. Rep. 1021.

The Alfred W. Booth, 123 Fed. Rep. 172; The Barney Dumper No.

3, 123 Fed. Rep. 172; Booth v. Moran, 123 Fed. Rep. 172.

50 The Albert N. Hughes, 92 Fed. Rep. 525; s. c. 34 C. C. A. 516; The Australia, 120 Fed. Rep. 220; s. c. 56 C. C. A. 568; Davidson v. American Steel Barge Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 250; s. c. 56 C. C. A. 86; The Invertrossachs, 59 Fed. Rep. 194; The Lottie K. Friend, 92 Fed. Rep. 525; s. c. 34 C. C. A. 516; The Sagua v. The Grace, 42 Fed. Rep. 461.

60 The Alexander Folsom, 52 Fed. Rep. 403; s. c. 6 U. S. App. 156; rev'g s. c. 44 Fed. Rep. 932; The Mariel, 32 Fed. Rep. 103.

The Majestic, 48 Fed. Rep. 730; rev'g s. c. 44 Fed. Rep. 813.