the charter must have intended to be governed by the law of the flag, and decided in favor of the French shipowners. Another principle properly deduced from the law of the flag is that whoever puts his goods on board a foreign ship to be carried authorizes the master to deal with them according to the law of the ship's flag, unless that authority is limited by express stipulation between the parties at the time of entering into the contract. This was the rule laid down in The Gaetano e Maria (1). A bottomry bond was given by the master of an Italian vessel covering the vessel and cargo. A part of the cargo belonged to a British subject. The bond was valid by Italian law, but invalid by English law, as the necessary formalities had been omitted. The Court sustained the validity of the bond on the ground that the case was governed by the law of the flag (2). Mr. Machlachlan (3), the wellknown author of the work on Merchant Shipping, claims that he was the first to communicate to the profession the principles and designation of the law of the Flag. Other phases of the development of Admiralty jurisdiction under existing legislation might be indicated were it necessary to do so.

It is appropriate to conclude with two quotations: one from an eminent jurist, upholding the efficacy of the Admiralty jurisdiction; the other from a distinguished publicist, pleading for a system of maritime law of universal application among civilized nations. Taney, C. J., says: "I can therefore see no ground for jealousy or enmity to the Admiralty jurisdiction. It has in it no one quality inconsistent with or unfavorable to free institutions. The simplicity and celerity of its proceedings make a jurisdiction of that kind a necessity in every just and enlightened commercial nation." And Sir Travers Twiss claims that "There ought to be in every civilized country Courts of Maritime Audience to settle all maritime disputes according to a common law of the sea. It is idle for nations to agree to supplement the ancient customs of the sea by written

(1) 7 P. D. 137.

(2) The reader on this point may, with advantage, consult the following anthorities: Peninsular and Oriental, etc. Co. v. Shand (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. 272; The Karnak (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 505; The Express (1872), L. R. 3 A. & E. 597; Chartered Mercantile Bank, etc. v. Netherlands (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 521 ; In re Suse (1887), 18 Q. B. D. p. 666; In re Missouri S. S. Co. (1889), 42 Ch. D. p. 336; Pope v. Nickerson, 3 Story 465; The Selah, 4 Sawyer 40, The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24; The Julia Blake, 107 U. S. 418; Ellis v. McHenry, L. R. 6 C. P. 238; The M. Moxam, 1 P. D. 51.

(3) Law of Shipping, Preface, 4 ed., 1892.

rules adapted to the altered circumstances of sea navigation, unless they agree in like manner to adopt a common system of judicature by which these rules may be enforced, and the disregard of them visited with penalties" (1).

(1) The Jurisdiction of the Silver Oar of the Admiralty, by Twiss, 46 Nautical Mag. p. 572, A. D. 1877.

REPORTS OF CASES

IN THE

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT

OF

NEW BRUNSWICK.

THE SOULANGES-PEATMAN;

THE NEPTUNE-HAWKINS.

Collision― Neglect of Proper Precautions — Observance of Sailing Rules -
Liability — Lights.

The passenger steamer S., sailing up the river St. John, met the steam-tug N.
coming down, near Akerley's Point, where the river is about half a mile
wide. The S. was near the western shore, which was on her port side
going up; the N. about one hundred and fifty yards from the same side
of the river. The S., by keeping her course when she first sighted the
N., might have avoided the collision, but instead ported her helm, which
gave her a diagonal course to starboard towards the east side, and as a
result struck the N. on the starboard quarter, and sank her.
Held:-That the S. was to blame, and liable for the damages sustained;
held that when two vessels are meeting end on, or nearly so, the rule to
port helm may be departed from, where there are reasonable grounds for
believing such course is necessary for safety, and consequently the N. was
not to blame, immediately before the collision, for putting her helm to
starboard.

also

A vessel may take a course opposed to that indicated by the rule when there is reasonable ground for believing such proceeding necessary for her safety or more secure navigation.

These two cases were tried on the same evidence, and were argued together. The facts and evidence fully appear from the judgment of the learned judge.

E. L. Wetmore, for the promovents against the Neptune, contended that the Neptune was wrong (1) because she had

1879

Aug. 11.

1879.not the proper lights exposed according to law; (2) the SOULANGES. Watch on board was evidently careless; (3) when she sighted NEPTUNE. the Soulanges it was her duty to put her helm to port and

pass the Soulanges on the port side. He cited The Canadian Act of 1868 (1); Abbott on Shipping (2); The Friends (3); The Jesmond (4); The Tirzah (5); The Elphinstone (6).

C. W. Weldon, Q. C., for promovents against the Soulanges, contended the Neptune had proper lights, a proper watch, and was properly navigated. Before the captain of the Soulanges took any precautions to ascertain the positions of the vessels he ported his helm; if he had not done so the vessels would have gone clear. Fisher's Dig. (7); The Henry (8); The Black Diamond (9); The Velocity (10); The Ranger (11); The Princess Alice (12).

Wetmore replied. WATTERS, J. These were cross libels for damages by collision between the steamer Soulanges and the steam-tug Neptune on the river Saint John. The collision took place on the 9th of November, 1877, at night, whereby the Neptune was so much damaged that she shortly afterwards sunk. The two suits were heard together on the same evidence and arguments.

The first material question to be determined in the evidence is, what were the respective positions of these vessels when they first sighted each other? On this point the sworn statements of the witnesses are conflicting. Captain Peatman, of the Soulanges, says: "We were in the middle of the river, or a little towards the eastern bank, when I saw a bright white light on our port bow, about Akerley's Point, or a little above it. It appeared to me to be close in to the shore. I saw no other light at that time. * * * I said to the man at the wheel, 'I think it is a schooner's