does not require, that a vessel under such circumstances may attempt to keep out of the way by starboarding and crossing the bows of the approaching vessel. The vessel charged with the duty of keeping out of the way must do so by a sufficient margin to prevent apprehension of danger on the part of the privileged vessel.10

$6809. Privileged Vessel must Maintain her Course and Speed.Where one of two vessels is required to keep out of the way, it is the duty of the other to keep her course and speed;11 and she is not required to reverse to avoid a collision until it becomes evident that the other vessel will not or cannot keep out of the way.12 Such a vessel will not be held to have departed from her course by reason of turning from her general course to avoid obstructions known to the vessel charged with the duty of keeping out of her way.13 It is now the settled law that the privileged steamer will not be held in fault. for maintaining her course and speed so long as it is possible for the other to avoid her by porting, at least in the absence of some distinct indication that she is about to fail in her duty. It has been pertinently observed that "if the master of the preferred steamer were at liberty to speculate upon the possibility, or even of the probability, of the approaching steamer failing to do her duty and keep out of his way, the certainty that the former will hold his course, upon which

'The E. A. Packer, 140 U. S. 360; 8. c. 35 L. ed. 453; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 794.

"The Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 546. "Article 21 International Navigation Rules. See The E. A. Packer, 140 U. S. 360; s. c. 35 L. ed. 453; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 794; The Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 546; The N. & W. 2, 122 Fed. Rep. 171; The Vermont, 122 Fed. Rep. 171. The claim of a tug that her failure to have a proper lookout at the time of a collision with a crossing steamer did not contribute to the collision, because she was the privileged vessel, and maintained her course and speed as required by the rules, is not sustained by evidence which shows that she did change her course before the colision, even though it was done in extremis: The James A. Lawrence, 117 Fed. Rep. 228; s. c. 54 C. C. A. 260; aff'g s. c. 97 Fed. Rep. 351.

The Mary Powell, 92 Fed. Rep. 403 s. c. 34 C. C. A. 421; The Zouave, 90 Fed. Rep. 440. "The weight of English and perhaps of American authorities is to the effect that if the master of the preferred steamer has any reason to believe

14

that the other will not take measures to keep out of his way, he may treat this as a 'special circumstance,' under rule 24 [rule 29 of new rules] 'rendering a departure' from the rules 'necessary to avoid immediate danger.' Some even go so far as to hold it the duty of the preferred vessel to stop and reverse when a continuance on her course involves the apparent danger of collision. Upon the other hand, authorities hold that the master of the preferred steamer ought not to be embarrassed by doubts as to his duties. Unless the two vessels are in extremis, he is bound to hold to his course and speed": The Delaware, 101 U. S. 459.

13 The New York, 82 Fed. Rep. 819; s. c. 54 U. S. App. 248; 27 C. C. A. 154; rehearing denied, 86 Fed. Rep. 814.

14 The Mexico, 84 Fed. Rep. 504; s. c. 55 U. S. App. 358; 28 C. C. A, 472; aff'g s. c. 78 Fed. Rep. 653; Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674; The Britannia, 153 Ú. S. 130; The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459; The Northfield, 154 U. S. 629; The Highgate, 62 L. T. 841.

the latter has a right to rely and which it is the very object of the rule to insure, would give place to doubts on the part of the master of the obligated steamer as to whether he would do so or not, and produce a timidity and feebleness of action on the part of both which would bring about more collisions than it would prevent." The privileged vessel is not at fault for a failure to return signals of a vessel indicating her desire to pass starboard to starboard instead of port to port, where she keeps her course; as her silence is equivalent to an express refusal to depart from the regular navigation rule;16 and it cannot be urged that she was negligent in failing to see the vessel required to keep out of the way as soon as she could have; as her course would not have been different had she seen all the manouvres of the other vessel.17 The privileged vessel, upon assenting to the signal of another vessel, must aid in the manœuvre by going astern of the vessel desiring to cross, and give way or stop in time to prevent collision.18

§ 6810. Change of Course may Change Status of Approaching Vessel. A change of course by one of two approaching vessels after they come within view of each other, by which a danger of collision is first created, may make it the duty of the other vessel, under the sailing rules, to keep out of the way, though, had the original courses been maintained, she would have been entitled to the right of way.1o

§ 6811. Navigation Rules Give Way to Special CircumstancesVessels Leaving Slip to Enter upon Voyage.-Situations may arise where a strict compliance with the navigation rules would precipitate rather than prevent a collision. . The rules, however, have anticipated this contingency by a broad provision, that nothing therein shall exonerate vessels from the consequences of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or by the special circumstances of the case.20 The necessity for such a departure from the rules is determined by the actual situation at the time when the necessity for precaution begins; everything prior to that is immaterial, except as it may give to each a knowledge of the other's intentions.21 Of necessity the steering and sailing rules will

15 Brown, J., in The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459.

10 The New York, 82 Fed. Rep. 810; s. c. 27 C. C. A. 154; 54 U. S. App. 248; rehearing denied, 86 Fed. Rep. 814.

"The New York, 82 Fed. Rep. 819; s. c. 54 U. S. App. 248; 27 C. C. A. 154; rehearing denied, 86 Fed. Rep. 814.

18 The Susquehanna, 35 Fed. Rep. 320.

10 The Mary Buhne, 95 Fed. Rep.

1002.

20 Article 29 International Navigation Rules. See also, The Sunnyside, 91 U. S. 208.

21 The Aurania and The Republic, 29 Fed. Rep. 98.

not admit of strict application to vessels backing out of slips before taking their course.22

$6812. Duty to Slacken Speed, or Stop, or Reverse.-Steam-vessels directed by the navigation rules to keep out of the way of other ressels must, on approaching such vessels, if necessary slacken their speed, or stop, or reverse; 23 and a vessel will not be excused from stopping and reversing when required by these rules, merely because her own construction is so faulty that she could not have stopped in time to prevent the collision.24 It being the purpose of the navigation rules to prevent collision, the navigator in all cases must exercise judgment where the possibility of collision is present; and though privileged and given the right of way with the duty to maintain course and speed, yet, if he finds himself so close to another vessel that collision cannot be avoided by the efforts of the other vessel alone, he must take such action as will best aid to avert collision;25 and where

Thus, where a steamship was backing out from her berth in Jersey City, and another steamship had backed out of her slip in New York and was heading down the Hudson River above the former, and both ships were going to sea, each was bound to conform to her own customary course and manœuvres under similar circumstances, and take notice of the customary course and manœuvres and observe the movements of the other, and each had the right to assume that the other would do so: The Servia, 149 U. S. 144; s. c. 37 L. ed. 681; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 817.

Article 23 International Navigation Rules. See also, The Helena v. The Lord O'Neil, 26 Fed. Rep. 463; The Straits of Dover, 120 Fed. Rep. 900; . c. 58 C. C. A. 86; The Bluefields, 120 Fed. Rep. 900; s. c. 58 C. C. A. 86. A steamboat coming up a river through a drawbridge is not liable for a collision with a small tog which starts out from her pier with a tow on a course directly arross that of the steamboat, withcut anything to indicate her intention, or answering the signal of inquiry on the part of the steamer, where, upon failing to receive a reEpouse, the steamer reverses and ports her helm as far as she safely ear in the narrow channel; but the whole fault is with the tug: The A. B. Valentine, 55 Fed. Rep. 350. A steamer whose master sees an

other steamer on her starboard hand leaving the other side of the channel and coming over to the side on which the former is, and sees that her signal-light has disappeared behind a sailing-vessel between them, and her saloon lights are disappearing in the same way, but keeps on at full speed, taking no precautions against the action of the other steamer, is at fault for the collision where the aggregate speed of the two is twenty-five miles an hour and they are within a halfmile of each other: The Louise, 52 Fed. Rep. 885; s. c. 8 U. S. App. 138; 3 C. C. A. 330; aff'g s. c. 49 Fed. Rep. 84.

24 The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S.

240.

25 Article 21 International Navigation Rules. Article 27 of the International Navigation Rules, having this possibility of danger in mind, provides that in obeying and construing the rules due regard must be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstance which may render a departure from these rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. Under article 17 of the rules for navigation on the Great Lakes it is the duty of each of two steamers meeting end on, or nearly end on, as soon as signals have been exchanged for passing port to port, to change her course to starboard, and a failure to do so, where there is

necessary he should slacken speed, stop, or reverse. 26 If either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other, whether from signals given or answered erroneously or from other causes, and the vessels have approached within a half mile of each other, both are required by the Inspectors' Rules immediately to slow to a speed barely sufficient for steerage way until proper signals are given and understood, or until the vessels have passed each other.27 Promptness is required in the performance of this duty of slackening speed, but negligence will not ordinarily be imputed to the navigator by reason of a failure to act instantly, as a short time should be allowed for the exercise of judgment in determining the necessity for such action.28

nothing to prevent, is a fault; but the failure of one vessel to do so will not excuse the other for a failure to make a sufficient change in her own course to avoid danger of collision when it can safely be done, and she will be held equally in fault for a collision which she might thus have prevented, although she did in fact make such a change in her course as would have avoided the collision if the other vessel had done likewise: The Mary C. Elphicke, 115 Fed. Rep. 375.

The Gulf Stream, 43 Fed. Rep. 895; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97; The Ocean, 115 Fed. Rep. 229; The C. H. Seuff, 32 Fed. Rep. 237; The Bermuda, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 693; The Columbia, 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 268; s. c. 25 Fed. Rep. 844; The E. A. Packer, 140 U. S. 360; s. c. 35 L. ed. 453; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 794.

Rule 3 Supervising Inspectors' Rules. See also, The British Queen, 89 Fed. Rep. 1008; In re Central Railroad of New Jersey, 92 Fed. Rep. 1010. A steamship is at fault for a collision under the English Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, article 18, providing

that every steamer approaching another so as to involve risk of collision shall slacken her speed, or stop, or reverse if necessary, where, at a time when the indications are not such as to show distinctly and unequivocally that if both vessels continue to do what they are apparently doing they will pass clear without risk, and she is proceeding so slowly that she can only slacken speed by stopping, she fails to reverse as well as stop: The Lancashire, [1893] Prob. 47.

28 The Kwang Tung v. The Ngapoota, [1897] A. C. 391 (a few seconds' delay); The Livingstone, 113 Fed. Rep. 879; s. c. 51 C. C. A. 500; rev'g s. c. 104 Fed. Rep. 918. Failure of a steamer which knows that another proposes to cross her bows, while the rules of navigation require her to pass astern, to stop and back during a time when she cannot know but that the latter will alter her course and pass astern, and before it becomes obvious that she will not be cleared, does not render her at fault for the collision: The John King, 1 U. S. App. 64; s. c. 49 Fed. Rep. 469; 1 C. C. A. 319.

$6814. Steam-Vessel must Keep Out of the Way of Sailing-Vessel. -When a steam-vessel and a sailing-vessel are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steam-vessel must keep out of the way of the sailing-vessel.1 The rule recognizes the fact that the steam-vessel is under more perfect control than the sailing-vessel and can be manœuvred more easily, and is extended to the case of an encumbered tug, which is regarded as a single steam-vessel. The rule is

1Article 20 International and Inland Navigation Rules. See The Chatham, 52 Fed. Rep. 396; s. c. 3 C. C. A. 161; aff'g s. c. 44 Fed. Rep. 384: The Gazelle, 33 Fed. Rep. 301; Haight v. Bird, 26 Fed. Rep. 539; The McCabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 234; McCreery v. The Jessie Russell, 43 Fed. Rep. 928; aff'g s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 624; The Robert H. Rathbun, 88 Fed. Rep. 549; The Renovator, 30 Fed. Rep. 194; The Ancon, 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 118; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; The Blue Jacket v. Tacoma Mill Co., 144 U. S. 371; s. c. 36 L. ed. 469; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 711; The Kirkland, 5 Hughes (U. S.) 109; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 330; s. c. 34 L. ed. 687; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. A steamer moving at midnight in the open sea on a course S. W. 1⁄2 W. and approaching a schooner moving on a course N. E. by E., which passes the point of intersection of the courses just before the schooner reaches it, and, upon the schooner's

red light disappearing and the green light coming into view, ports her helm and produces a collision, is at fault therefor, although such manœuvre would have been the proper one had the courses been parallel: The Lepanto, 50 Fed. Rep. 234; s. c. 8 U. S. App. 1; 1 C. C. A. 503. A steamer which collides with a sailing-vessel because of the breaking of her rudder-chain without unusual strain, is liable for the collision, where the chain is of medium quality and has lost one-third of its area through long wear, although she gives distress signals and backs when her chain breaks: The Riverdale, 53 Fed. Rep. 286.