§ 7859. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) (Art. 20.) Steam and sail ing vessels meeting. 3. Vessels bound to keep out of way. -When a steam vessel and a sailing vessel are proceeding in such directions to involve risk of collision, the steam vessel shall keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. as In determining the liability for a collision between a steamship and a schooner, it is unnecessary to determine just what were the positions and courses of the two vessels prior to the collision, since, whatever their courses, it was the steamer's duty to keep out of the way, if the lights of the schooner could be seen and the schooner's duty to maintain its course and speed. The Creole (D. C. N. Y.) 277 F. 119, decree affirmed (C. C. A.) 277 F. 122. 4. Extent of steamer's duty.-When a steamer and sailing vessel are on courses which cross, the duty is imposed on the steamer to alter her course, if this will avoid the danger of collision. The Shawmut (D. C. Pa.) 261 F. 616. The obligation of diligence on a steamer which is approaching a schooner to avoid collision is very great, and the higher the speed the greater the care required. The Creole (D. C. N. Y.) 277 F. 119, decree affirmed (C. C. A.) 277 F. 122. 6. Excuses for failure of steamer to keep out of the way-Change of course by sailing vessel.-See notes to § 7860, post. 8. Presumptions and burden of proof. -In cases of collision between a steamer and a sailing vessel, a strong case must be made out if the sailing vessel is to be held in fault. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. Where a steamer admitted seeing some two miles away a schooner, which was approaching on a course that would cross, and the vessels collided, the steamer, in view of the navigation rules requiring it to avoid the collision, practically has the burden of proving that the collision occurred despite its observance of the rules. The Shawmut (D. C. Pa.) 261 F. 616. It being a schooner's duty to hold her course, and a steamer's duty to keep out of her way, the fact that the steamer failed to do so raised a presumption of fault on her part. Crowell v. U. S. (D. C. Mass.) 273 F. 227. 10. Steamer held in fault for failure to keep out of the way. In a proceeding by the owner of a sailing vessel colliding with a steamer for limitation of liability, held that the steamer was solely in fault. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. A collision at sea on a clear night, between a scooner which showed regulation lights and properly kept her course and speed, and a steamship on a crossing course, held due solely to the fault of the steamship in failing to sooner see the schooner's lights, and in proceeding thereafter without change of course at full speed of 17 miles an hour until 22 minutes before collision. The Stimson (D. C. Va.) 257 F. 762. Where a steam and a sailing vessel, proceeding on courses which would meet, collide, held that, under the circumstances, the steam vessel, which was bound avoid the sailing vessel, was solely liable, being negligent in failing to give the sailing vessel space in which to safely pass, and the sailing vessel not being negligent in an attempt to change its course when it appeared that a collision was imminent. The Shawmut (D. C. Pa.) 261 F. 616. Steamer held solely in fault for collision with schooner, the steamer approaching at full speed, while the color and significance of the schooner's lights were yet uncertain, and giving an order to port when the light was first seen, instead of starboard, or hard astarboard, which would at that time have cleared the schooner. Crowell v, U. S. (D. C. Mass.) 273. F. 227. § 7860. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) (Art. 21, as amended, Act May 28, 1894, c. 83.) What vessel shall keep her course, etc. 5. Special circumstances requiring or permitting privileged vessel to change course. It is the primary duty of a sailing vessel as to risk of colliding with steam vessel to hold her course and speed, and to do so as long as the steamer can avoid collision. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. 7. Presumptions and burden of proof. -When a sailing vessel departs from the rule as to holding her course and speed when collision with a steamer is imminent, the burden of proof rests upon her to justify the departure, taking upon herself the obligation of showing both that her departure was neces sary at the time it took place in order to avoid immediate danger, and that the course adopted was reasonably calculated to avoid that danger. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. 11. Privileged vessel held not in fault for keeping course.-One or two crossing vessels held solely in fault for a collision at sea, where, although the burdened vessel, she continued her course and speed until collision, and gave no signal of her intention to cross ahead until too late for the other vessel to avoid the collision. The privileged vessel held not in fault for keeping her course and speed until one min ute before collision, where until that time the other vessel could have avoided the collision by porting, and had given no indication that she would fail in her duty. The Binghamton (C. C. A. N. Y.) 271 F. 69, certiorari denied Czarnikow Reonda Co. v. Binghamton Steamship Co., 41 S. Ct. 377, 255 U. S. 575, 65 L. Ed. 793. Under article 21 of the International Rules, it is the duty of the privileged of two crossing vessels to keep her course and speed until a departure from the rule is necessary to avoid immediate danger, and the fact that subsequent events show that her sooner stopping and backing would have avoided collision does not prove negligence. Id. 15. Privileged vessel held in fault for changing course-Steamer on crossing course with another on her port side. A collision at sea, on a calm, clear day, between a steamship and a barge in a crossing tow, helu due to faults of both the towing tug and steamship; the tug, which had the steamship on her starboard, hand, being in fault for not keeping out of the way, as required by article 19 of International Rules (Comp. St. § 7858), but keeping her course and speed, and the steamship for not sooner realizing the danger, and when it was realized for turning directly into the tow. The Coamo (C. C. A. N. Y.) 280 F. 282. Evidence held insufficient to establish the fault of a steamer for collision with a fishing vessel at sea at night, in changing her course, but rather that it resulted from an admitted change of course by the fishing vessel made under misapprehension of the course of the steamer. The Lake Monroe (D. C. Mass.) 270 F. 858, decree affirmed (C. C. A.) 271 F. 474. § 7863. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) (Art. 24.) Overtaking vessel to keep out of the way; definition of "overtaking ves sel," etc. When a vessel is an overtaking vessel.-A vessel, which had started in the rear of a large convoy, and which at the time of the collision had come nearly, if not quite, abeam of a vessel ahead, was an overtaking vessel, bound to observe the course of the other, and to keep away from it, and her lookout was under the duty to keep the other vessel under vigilant observation for every appearance of unsafe approach. The War Pointer (C. C. A. Va.) 277 F. 718, modifying decree (D. C.) The Stortind, 264 F. 1013. Excuses for failure of overtaking vessel to keep out of the way.-Breaking of the steering gear of an overtaking steamship shortly before collision with a schooner held not to sustain the defense of inevitable accident, where it was through negligence that the steamship failed to see the schooner in time to safely avoid collision. The Northland (C. C. A. Va.) 262 F. 245. Overtaking vessel held in fault for failing to keep out of the way.-A col lision at sea on a clear night between a schooner making 22 or 3 knots and an overtaking steamship, held due solely to fault of steamship, on evidence that schooner kept her course and speed, and on seeing steamship 8 or 10 miles behind showed a bright white light astern, which should have been seen for at least 2 miles, but that she was not seen until within half a mile, and the steamship then kept her course and speed until collision. The Northland (C. C. A. Va.) 262 F. 245. A collision at sea between the steamships Stortind and War Pointer, each a member of a convoy moving eastward from the Virginia Capes, held due to the fault of the War Pointer, which at the time occupied the position of an overtaking vessel, and under this article, was bound to keep out of the way, and also because she did not sooner navigate with reference to the presence of the Stortind, which was not reported by her lookout. The Stortind (D. C. Va.) 264 F. 1013. § 7864. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) (Art. 25.) Steam-vessel in narrow channel. Waters to which rule applicable.Vineyard Sound, at the point of a collision at night, where as delimited by the red sectors, it is about seveneighths of a mile wide, held a "narrow channel" within this article. Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. Seaboard Transp. Co. (D. C. Mass.) 258 F. 707. Presumption of fault from violation of rule. The presumption of fault against a vessel by her violation of the statutory rule by being on the wrong § 7866. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) and construction of rules. See The Camden (D. C. Mass.) 283 F. 326. NO VESSEL, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, TO NEGLECT PROPER PRECAUTIONS § 7868. (Act Aug. 19, 1890, c. 802, § 1.) (Art. 29.) Vessels not to neglect precautions. I. LOOKOUT 3. Necessity of lookout. Every steamer is required to have at least one lookout in the eyes of the ship. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. It was gross fault for a steamer to maintain full speed, at least eight or nine knots, through a fog, without a properly posted lookout. Adams v. U. S. (D. C. Mass.) 272 F. 780. 7. Position of lookout.-The fact that the lookout on a steamer was stationed on the bridge instead of forward held not a fault contributing to a collision where each vessel seasonably discovered the other and kept her under continuous observation. The Lake Monroe (D. C. Mass.) 270 F. 858, decree affirmed (C. C. A.) 271 F. 474. A steamer's lookout should have been posted on the forward deck, when he could perfectly well have stood there, and not on the bridge, about 100 feet aft the stem. Adams v. U. S. (D. C. Mass.) 272 F. 780. 14. Vessel held in fault for not keeping proper lookout.-The lookout of an overtaking vessel in a large convoy, which was proceeding at night without lights, held at fault for failing to keep under close observation another vessel of the convoy, which was being overtaken, so that no warning of the close approach of the vessels was given in time to avoid the collision. The War Pointer (C. C. A. Va.) 277 F. 718, modifying decree (D. C.) The Stortind, 264 F. 1013. II. PRECAUTIONS REQUIRED BY ORDINARY PRACTICE 20. Tug with tow.-Under International Rules, arts. 27, 29 (Comp. St. §§ 7866, 7868), it is the duty of commanders of tows to arrange and navigate them, not merely with regard to their own convenience and safety, but with reasonable right and regard for other vessels rightfully on the sea. The Camden (D. C. Mass.) 283 F. 326. 222. Passing between shore and vessel aground.-A collision between a steamship anchored for loading near the edge of the channel of a river, leaving ample room in the channel for the passage of other vessels and 60 to 80 feet of shallow water between its stern and the bank, and a barge in tow of a tug which attempted to pass between the steamship and the bank, held due solely to the fault of the tug. Compania De Navegacion Interior, S. A. v. Boston-Virginia Transp. Co. (C. C. A. Tex.) 278 F. 868. 24. Vessel held in fault for violating precautions required by ordinary prac tice of seamen.-A collision at sea, on a calm, clear day, between a steamship and a barge in a crossing tow, held due to faults of both the towing tug and steamship; the tug, which had the steamship on her starboard hand, being in fault for not keeping out of the way, as required by article 19 of International Rules (Comp. St. § 7858), but keeping her course and speed, and the steamship for not sooner realizing the danger, and when it was realized for turning directly into the tow. The Coamo (C. C. A. N. Y.) 280 F. 282. 25. Vessel held not to have neglected any proper precaution.-Negligence with which the law maritime concerns itself, as in the case of the law of negligence everywhere, is not negligence, but negligence which contributes to the injury done; and hence a vessel is not liable for negligence which did not contribute to the collision. The Shawmut (D. C. Pa.) 261 F. 616. III. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 29. Inevitable accident.-A steamship held not exonerated from liability for a collision, on the ground of inevitable accident, because of the breaking of the connecting shaft of the steering gear, immediately before collision, although from a latent defect, where she was the burdened vessel and should have acted sooner to avoid risk. The Stimson (D. C. Va.) 257 F. 762. 30. Maneuvers in extremis.-When it becomes apparent to a sailing vessel that a steamer does not intend to conform to the law concerning its duty to keep out of the way of the sailing vessel, what is done or omitted to be done by the sailing vessel in the agony of collision can make no difference, as it is impossible to consider a decision so made as a fault. The Stifinder (C. C. A. N. Y.) 275 F. 271. Faults in navigation by vessels in two convoys, which met nearly head on at night while sailing without lights, held not excusable as faults in extremis, notwithstanding the confusion which would naturally be caused by the situation. Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. (D. C. N. Y.) 278 F. 770. 32. Maneuvers by convoys.-Where a large number of vessels were traveling at night, without lights, in a convoy in which each had been assigned its place and given the same course and speed, it was a fault for a vessel in the rear to attempt to pass a vessel ahead, except for cogent and special reasons, and the vessel ahead held at fault for devia tion of her course from that fixed for the convoy. The War Pointer (C. C. A. Va.) 277 F. 718, modifying decree (D. C.) The Stortind, 264 F. 1013. America v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Where two convoys of vessels sailing without lights met nearly head on, each of two colliding vessels held at fault, the east-bound vessel for failing to turn back to the designated course after porting to pass a vessel in the first tier of the meeting convoy, and in stopping across the path of a vessel in the second tier, and the west-bound vessel for not immediately slackening speed when the other convoy was sighted. Id. The original cause of a collision between two convoys of vessels, which met nearly head on at night while sailing without lights, was the failure of the naval authorities, either those in charge of the convoys or those on the shore, to prescribe courses for the convoys which would have prevented their meeting. Queen Ins. Co. of RULES FOR HARBORS, RIVERS, § 7872. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) collisions in harbors and on inland waters. Effect of violation of rules.-Where one vessel is guilty of fault sufficient in itself to bring about the result, the other should not be lightly called on to participate therein, unless for obvious and plain violation of the laws of navigation in bringing about the collision. The Nevada (D. C. Va.) 275 F. 965. A vessel, disobeying an imperative statutory rule, has the burden of proving that her fault could not have been a contributory cause of a collision. AND INLAND WATERS The Providence (D. C. R. I.) 282 F. 658. Vessel under control of master of tug moving her.-A steamship, under the exclusive control of the master of a tug employed to move her from her slip and start her to sea, is not liable for faults in her navigation which contribute to a collision. The Dorset (C. C. A. Va.) 260 F. 32, affirming decree (D. C.) 250 F. 867. PRELIMINARY § 7873. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) Meaning of words "sailingvessel," "steam-vessel," and "under way." Steam vessel.-A vessel more than 87 feet long, propelled partly by sail and partly by gasoline engines, is a steam vessel, within this section, prescribing that every vessel under steam, whether under sail or not is a steam vessel, and that the term "steam vessel" shall include any vessel propelled by machinery, and as such was required by article 2 of those rules to carry white masthead lights. The Alice M. Guthrie (D. C. Va.) 257 F. 472. RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS, AND SO FORTH § 7876. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) (Art. 2.) Lights of steamvessel under way. "Steam vessels."-A vessel more than 87 feet long, propelled partly by sail and partly by gasoline engines, is a steam vessel, within Inland Navigation Rules (Comp. St. § 7873), prescribing that every vessel under steam, whether under sail or not, is a steam vessel, and that the term "steam vessel" shall include any vessel propelled by machinery, and as such was required by article 2 of those rules to carry white masthead lights. The Alice M. Guthrie (D. C. Va.) 257 F. 472. An auxiliary schooner, propelled by § 7877. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § sail and machinery, held at fault for a collision occurring at night just outside Cape Henry, for failure to carry the white masthead light required of her as a steam vessel. Id. Effect of failure to have lights properly burning.-A steam vessel, failing to carry lights prescribed by inland navigation rules cannot insist on too rigorous an enforcement of the obligation of other vessels to maintain a lookout. The Alice M. Guthrie (D. C. Va.) 257 F. 472. 1.) (Art. 3.) Steam-vessel when towing another vessel or vessels. Evidence held to show that tow was carrying proper lights.-On libel and cross-libel for damages resulting from a collision between a ferryboat and a barge in tow of a tug which were on substantially meeting courses, the tow held to have displayed the proper lights, and the ferry to have been solely at fault for assuming the course of the tow to be different from what it actually was, and therefore not paying attention to the lights, which would have shown the falsity of the assumption. The Senator Penrose (D. C. Pa.) 270 F. 785. Tug and tow at fault for failure to carry lights.-A collision at night in Bay Ridge Channel between a steamship passing out and a tow of seven coal barges, six of them in two tiers, passing up, held due to faults of the steamship, the tug, and the outside barges of the tow; the steamship being in fault for attempting to pass, as she thought, between tows too close together for safety, the tug for being on the wrong side of the narrow channel, and both tug and the outside boats in the tow for failure to carry on such boats the lights required by the rules. The Sif (C. C. A., N. Y.) 266 F. 166, reversing decree (D. C.) 244 F. 261. § 7878. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) (Art. 5.) Sailing-vessel under way or in tow. 9. Vessel held in fault for failing to have the required lights properly burning. A collision on Long Island Sound on a clear night between a passenger steamer, with a lookout posted and officers on duty and a meeting schoon er, held due solely to the fact that the schooner was not showing her port light. The Lexington (D. C. N. Y.) 256 F. 63, decree affirmed (C. C. A.) Id. 65. § 7881. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) (Art. 8.) Pilot-vessels on and off pilotage duty. Cited without definite application, The Lafayette (C. C. A. N. Y.) 269 F. 917. § 7883. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) (Art. 10.) Vessel overtaken by another. Cited without definite application, The Lafayette (C. C. A. N. Y.) 269 F. 917. § 7884. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) 16. Vessel held in fault for failure to have light properly barning.-A dredge held in fault for failure to maintain lights as required by the rules on anchoring in the middle of the towboat channel of the Ohio river. Otto Mar § 7885. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § Necessity of displaying a flare-up.A steamship, which when going at a speed of 14 miles in New York Bay on a calm, clear, moonlight night, ran down and sank a small sloop yacht on a crossing course and carrying proper lights, held in fault for not keeping an efficient lookout; the yacht, which kept her course and speed, as required by the rules, held not in fault for not (Art. 11.) Vessel at anchor. met Coal & Mining Co. v. Fieger-Austin Dredging Co. (C. C. A. Ohio) 259 F. 435, certiorari denied Fieger-Austin Dredging Co. v. Otto Marmet Coal & Mining Co., 40 S. Ct. 13, 250 U. S. 666, 63 L. Ed. 1197. 1.) (Art. 12.) Additional lights. showing a flare, as permitted, but not required, by this article, her navigator, who saw the steamship when two miles away, having the right to suppose, until too late to prevent collision, that she also saw his vessel and as the burdened steam vessel would keep out of his way. The Lafayette (C. C. A. N. Y.) 269 F. 917. SOUND SIGNALS FOR FOG, AND SO FORTH § 7888. (Act June 7, 1897, c. 4, § 1.) (Art. 15.) Fog signals. See Conklin v. City of Norwalk (C. C. A. Conn.) 270 F. 68. 3. Necessity for sounding fog signals. -A tug, which was navigating just outside a bank of vapor sufficiently high and dense to conceal from view a vessel which might be in the bank, should have sounded fog signals to warn any vessels in the bank of her presence. The William H. Taylor (C. C. A. N. Y.) 278 F. 717. Certiorari denied William H. Taylor v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 42 S. Ct. 461, 258 U. S. 629, 66 L. Ed. 799. 8. Fog bell.-A drill boat, working near a pier in the East River in a thick fog, was at fault in drowning out the sound of its bell by the working of the drill, and it was no excuse that the noise of the drill might be heard, as this was not the warning to which moving craft are entitled, and such sound was apt to be puzzling and confusing. The Haven (C. C. A. N. Y.) 277 F. 957. A vessel at anchor in a fog and ringing her fog bell is not obliged to blow danger whistles, unless there is some reason therefor. The Central Railroad of New Jersey No. 27 (D. C. N. Y.) 270 F. 297. 11. Effect of failure to sound fog signals. This rule requiring signals to |