With regard to SOUND-SIGNALS, it is important to note that any vessel which proposes to comply with the rule as laid down above, by passing with her port side toward the other vessel, uses a signal of one blast.

IT IS ONLY WHEN GOING CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT THE TWO-BLAST SIGNAL IS USED.

Crossing Vessels. Pilot Rule IX, for United States inland waters has been criticized as being inconsistent both with itself and with Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Inland Rules. The alleged inconsistency within the rule itself lies in the fact that it begins with a clause limiting its application to cases in which A, having B on her starboard hand, has room to cross ahead of B without danger of collision, and follows this with a clause which requires B to keep clear of A; a requirement which is manifestly unnecessary if there is no danger of collision.

The seeming inconsistency disappears if we recognize the fact that a manœuvre which in the beginning seems perfectly safe may develop elements of danger before it is completed. The meaning of the rule is, then, that A may cross ahead if both ships believe that she can do so without requiring B to make any change of course or speed; but that, if danger of collision becomes apparent after the manœuvre has been agreed to and entered upon, B shall take such steps as may be necessary for keeping clear. In the situation which exists when the danger becomes apparent (after A has actually started to cross ahead), it is evident that A can do little or nothing to keep clear. Having once committed herself to the attempt to cross B's bow, there is nothing for her but to continue across, increasing her speed, if possible, and perhaps turning somewhat away from B. Whatever else is to be done now must come from B, who can usually make all safe by slowing, stopping, or backing, and turning to port, toward A's stern.

As interpreted above, Pilot Rule IX simply puts into words certain privileges and obligations which are in part implied and in part specifically set forth, in both the International and the Inland Rules; viz., the privilege of A to cross ahead of B when both ships believe that she has room to do so safely, and the obligation of B to keep clear if danger develops later which can only be averted by action on her part.

Viewed in this light, Pilot Rule IX is consistent not only with itself but with the International and the Inland Rules; but it can not be held to justify the very common practice of setting aside the prescribed rules for crossing, merely as a matter of conveni

ence.

Except in the case already considered, where A and B believe that there is room for A to cross ahead without requiring B to change her course or speed, and the other case, to be hereafter considered, in which A is obliged to cross ahead for safety, the

law requires that A shall keep clear and that she shall, if possible, avoid crossing ahead; and that B shall keep her course and speed.

NOTE 49.-At this writing (1910) there is some reason to anticipate that Pilot Rule IX will be modified or annulled. This will not materially change the duties of crossing vessels as they have been defined above. A will still have the right to pass ahead if she has room to do so without danger of collision. B will still be under obligation to act for the avoidance of collision when danger appears and when A alone can not avoid it.

The real objection to Rule IX is not that it is inconsistent with other rules, but that it emphasizes somewhat unduly the privilege of A to cross ahead under certain exceptional circumstances, and thereby appears to place this privilege upon an equal footing with the obligation to pass astern under all ordinary circumstances.

The law in this matter is clearly laid down in the following decisions of the United States courts:

(1) "A steamer bound to keep out of the way of another steamer by going to the right, has no right, when under no stress of circumstances, but merely for her own convenience, to give the other steamer a signal of two whistles, importing that she will go to the left, unless she can do so safely by her own navigation, without aid from the other, and without requiring the other steamer to change her course or her speed. Otherwise she would be imposing upon the latter steamer more or less of the burden and the duty of keeping out of the way, which by statute is imposed on herself. When two blasts are given under such circumstances, the steamer bound to keep out of the way thereby in effect says to the other: 'I can keep out of your way by going ahead of you to the left, and will do so if you do nothing to thwart me; do you assent?' A reply of two whistles, in itself, means nothing more than an assent to this course, at the risk of the vessel proposing it. Such a reply does not of itself change or modify the statutory obligation of the former to keep out of the way as before, nor does it guaranty the success of the means she has adopted to do so." "THE CITY OF HARTFORD," Federal Reporter 23, page 650.

(2) "But from the moment that such an attempt [the attempt to cross ahead] apparently involves risk of collision, both steamers are equally bound to do all they can to avoid a collision. But this general obligation applies equally whether the previous signals were of two whistles or of one. The precise acts which either is bound to do when immediate danger of collision arises must depend upon the particular circumstances, and of these circumstances the previous understanding as to the course or intention of each vessel is one of the most important. But where the circumstances are such that a course proposed by a signal of two whistles would, if assented to and adopted, require at once, as in this case, immediate and strong measures to avoid a collision, there can be no question that such a proposal is wholly un

justifiable, and a gross fault, when proposed by a steamer that is bound to keep out of the way, and is under no constraint of circumstances, but free to pursue other safe methods of doing so." The NEREUS. Federal Reporter, No. 23, page 455.

(3) "The rule of the Supervising Inspectors governing navigation in New York harbor, that a steam-vessel approaching another on a crossing course so as to endanger collision shall signify by a blast, or blasts, of the whistle what course she proposes to take can not be held to deprive the vessel which is on the starboard side of the other of her right to keep on her course as provided by Revised Statutes." The HAMILTON vs. THE JOHN KING. Federal Reporter, No. 49, page 469.

The remarks which precede with regard to crossing deal with cases in which the vessels are not hampered by any emergency connected with the original situation. There is another and very important case which frequently arises in crowded waters, where A, having B on her starboard hand and rather close aboard, is obliged to cross ahead because she has not room to manœuvre otherwise. This is distinctly an emergency situation and is covered in the International Rules by the second paragraph of Article 21, and in both the International and the Inland Rules by Articles 27 and 29. In this case the vessels exchange a two-blast signal and A crosses ahead, B taking such steps as may be necessary to let her cross safely.

Meeting Vessels. In crowded waters, it is often impracticable for meeting vessels to pass each other port to port. In such cases the practice is to exchange a two-blast signal and pass starboard to starboard. This deviation from the law is justifiable only in cases of actual necessity; yet it constantly occurs in the inland waters of the United States in cases where no possible excuse for it exists. The custom seems to be well established among pilots, to pass on whichever side is the more convenient; and it seems to be considered that the law has been complied with if the side selected is indicated by the appropriate signal.

So well established is this custom, that its existence can not be ignored; but there is no question that it is a direct violation of the law, except, as already noted, when it is actually dictated by considerations of safety.

Vessels Backing. An interesting and important point arises when one of two crossing vessels is going astern instead of ahead. It is the practice of seamen to consider in such cases that the rules apply with reference to the direction of motion of the ship, so that for the time being, the starboard side becomes the port side and the port side the starboard side. This practice has been sanctioned by several decisions of the courts, and may be regarded as fully established. In other words, we must consider the pilot of a backing vessel to be facing aft, toward the direction in which

his ship is moving. He must then keep clear of a vessel on his right hand as if that were his starboard side. And his whistle signals must correspond. Similarly, the vessel which is crossing him must regard the stern of the backing steamer as if it were the bow, etc.

Winding Channels. Where two vessels are approaching each other in adjoining reaches of a winding channel so that they are for the moment on crossing courses, it has been held by the courts that they are to be regarded as meeting, not as crossing vessels.

If they seem likely to meet at a bend, or in a narrow and difficult part of the channel, good judgment requires the one which is going against the current to slow until the other has cleared the difficult point and straightened out, after which there is no difficulty about passing.

This course, which is dictated by good seamanship, is in many rivers prescribed by local regulations.

Article 50 of the By-laws for the Thames reads as follows:

"Steam-vessels and steam-launches navigating against the stream above Richmond Lock shall ease and if necessary stop to allow vessels coming down with the stream to pass clear particularly when rounding points or sharp bends in the river."

Similar provisions are included in the local regulations for the Trent, the Danube, and many other rivers.

The following extract from a decision in a case of collision in the Danube, where two steamers met in a dangerous part of the channel, sets forth the view which would probably be taken by the courts in similar cases, even where no local regulations existed covering the situation. It must not be forgotten, however, that this decision has to do with a case which was actually covered by a local rule:

"An ascending ship must stop below the passage until a descending ship has cleared it whenever the ascending ship has notice that if she proceeds she will be exposed to the risk of meeting the descending ship at or near that point; and the descending vessel must stop above the passage when the ascending ship has reached such point and has actually begun to navigate the contracted passage before notice is conveyed to her that if she proceeds she will be exposed to the risk of meeting the descending ship at or near the point.

"When the ascending ship neglects to stop below the passage, it is the duty of the descending ship to refrain from any attempt to exercise her right of precedence, when the intention of the ascending steamer to violate the regulations becomes reasonably apparent." The CLIEVEDEN vs. The DIANA. 7. Aspinall's Maritime Cases, page 489. With regard to ships which for any reason pass at a bend, see remarks to Chapter XIV on rounding a bend with and against the

current.

§ VII.

INLAND RULES OF NATIONS OTHER THAN THE

UNITED STATES.

The Inland Rules of other countries do not exist in a form which admits of convenient grouping. In most cases the rules are made locally for each port or river.

Officers having to navigate the inland waters of any country should use every effort to acquaint themselves with these local laws. In some cases they are to be found in Sailing Directions; in others they must be learned from pilots or other local authorities.

Generally speaking, it will be found that such local rules do not modify the International Rules in any important particulars. So far as they deal with the rules for vessels meeting and crossing, they frequently emphasize certain points of the International Rules; as, for example, the requirement about keeping to the right-hand side of the channel. In many cases they limit the speed which may be used within the river or harbor in question. Other matters with which they deal are the following: anchorage limits; privileges and obligations of tows; length of tows; size of rafts; lights and signals for dredges at work in the channel, and rules for passing these; special rules for vessels desiring to pass other vessels going in the same direction in a narrow channel; ferry-boats crossing the channel, or entering or leaving their slips; vessels hauling out from slips; marking of wrecks; pilotage; harbor police regulations; explosives on board vessels in the harbor; buoyage; mooring alongside docks or alongside other vessels; special rules for exceptionally narrow and dangerous parts of channel; etc.

In the case of basins enclosed by breakwaters, rules are prescribed as to the conditions for entering, permission being necessary in all such cases, and arrangements being made with the harbor master.

In the case of military ports, very stringent regulations are prescribed, and vessels visiting such ports should, if possible, inform themselves of these in advance.

As a rule, all necessary information for the guidance of a stranger can be obtained from the pilot. The rules with regard to pilots and the signals for calling them are usually to be found in the Sailing Directions.

A very full and valuable collection of local rules is to be found in Rules of the Road at Sea," by H. Stuart Moore, published by J. D. Potter, London.