should keep so far astern that in case of sudden stop or mishap it will have sufficient room to keep away.1

Where two vessels are ascending a river abreast of each other, the outer one having the greatest amount of sea-room is obliged to give way to the inner one and to keep at sufficient distance to avoid danger of collision.*

Sec. 148. Dangerous rate of speed.-No rate of speed can be prescribed for the navigation of rivers that would be applicable at all times and all places. The rule as to reasonable speed is the same as that applicable to deep-water navigation. It must be such a speed as to enable the vessel to avoid one approaching within such distance as it is observable, taking into consideration the speed of both vessels.3

In navigating in foggy weather near piers or where the presence of boats may be reasonably expected, or in navigating a narrow channel, prudence demands the greatest care, and the speed should be reduced to a point where the forward direction of the boat may be changed on approach of danger. The fact being shown that such excess of speed did not contribute to the injury, no liability is thereby incurred. The proof, however, should be clear and positive, and the burden of showing that it did not contribute to the collision is upon the party asserting the fact.

1 The Hackensack, 32 Fed. R. 800. 2 W. J. Portevant v. The Bella Donna, 1 Newb. 510.

Seven or eight miles an hour is too great a rate of speed for a steamboat having barges in tow, in foggy weather, at a dangerous point on the Mississippi river. Security Ins. Co. v. The Milwaukee, 4 Am. L. T. (U. S. Cts.) 147.

a narrow channel nearly end on, with a combined speed of nearly nine miles per hour, was held to be running at excessive speed. The San Carlos, 14 Fed. R. 797.

5 The City of Macon, 47 Fed. R.

919.

In the case of The Florida, 4 Blatch. 470, it was held that nine miles an hour was excessive speed in a river crowded with shipping.

4 The St. John, 29 Fed. R. 221; Grey v. The Jessie Russell, 5 Fed. In the case of The Morning Star, R. 639; The Minnie, 20 Fed. R. 543. 4 Biss. 62, twelve and a half miles A steam-vessel approaching a without a competent lookout was sailing-vessel in the night-time in unreasonable speed in a river where

Sec. 149. Hugging shore.-It is the usual custom for boats ascending western rivers to hug the shore to avoid the retarding influence of the current, while the descending boat is entitled to the middle of the stream, to take advantage of its current. It is customary for an ascending steamer to take the bank to her right, but it may lawfully take the other, when the necessary precautions are given to inform others of its situation. It is the duty of an ascending boat, when proceeding against the current, to hug the shore as near as it safely may, where it is necessary to do so to afford the one descending sufficient room to pass, the latter having the right of way as against the other in narrow passages.2

Sec. 150. To keep middle of river. It is the custom of steamers navigating western rivers for descending vessels to navigate in mid-stream as nearly as possible, and for ascending vessels to navigate inshore; the reason being that the steamer navigating inshore is less impeded by the current than if in mid-stream, while the force and direction of the current are to the advantage of the one descending." The custom of navigation on western rivers requires a descending boat to run down the bend where it finds the strongest current and the deepest water, and the ascending boat to keep as close as possible to the shore, where the current is least resistful. Neglect of this custom of navigation, it has been held, will render the one violating it—if such neglect produces the injury liable in damages. Although

5

the passage of boats was fre- Relief, Olc. 104; The Bridgeport, 1 quent. Ben. 65; Shirley v. The Richmond, 2 Woods, 58; The Scranton, 5 Blatch. 400; The Belle, 34 Fed. R. 669; Barrett v. Williamson, 4 McLean, 589.

In the case of The Little Giant, 2 Biss. 23, over five miles an hour by a tug in a crowded thoroughfare was held unreasonable speed. 1 Schenck v. The Fremont, 1 Bond, 57; Keys v. The Ambassador, 1 Bond, 237.

4 Key v. The Ambassador, 1 Bond, 237.

5 Sinnot v. The Dresden, Newb.

2 The Annie E. Valentine, 22 Fed. 474; Shirley v. The Richmond, 2

R. 620.

Woods, 58.

3 The Natchez, 1 Newb. 489; The

The rule of navigation on the

the usual rule requires a descending boat to keep in the middle of the river, it may hug the shore so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others ascending; when, however, an ascending boat is met and indicates its disposition to hold the shore, the descending boat must give way.'

Sec. 151. Usage. When well-known usage has sanctioned the employment of a specific course for ascending and another for descending vessels, the usage, if not in violation of the statute, should be observed; and where either, for sufficient cause, deviates from the established course, it should resume it as soon as the necessity for such deviation is passed. A steamer navigating a river should comply with the known customs so far as they are not in violation of law. But where a custom is in violation of an express statute the custom is subordinate to the statute.3

Chicago river is that a steamer must take the starboard side of the channel both in ascending and descending. The Brothers, 2 Biss. 104. The custom of the Mississippi river is for the ascending steamer to keep the right-hand bank. Goslee v. Shute, 18 How. 463.

In the case of The Niles Works v. Page, 24 How. 228, it was held that a steamboat ascending the Ohio river was liable for colliding with a flat-boat descending, when it was shown that the custom of steamboats was to avoid them.

Where by a custom on the Ohio

1 Thorp v. The Defender, 1 Bond, it was shown that descending boats

397.

Where two vessels were ap proaching each other in a narrow and winding part of a river under such circumstances that neither was entitled to the use of the center of the stream over the other, there being nothing to prevent each from keeping its own side of the stream, the court found both at fault where the collision occurred in mid-stream. The Nautilus, 1 Ware, 529.

2 The Magenta, 2 Abb. 495; The A. Demerest, 25 Fed. R. 921; The John L. Hasbrouck, 93 U. S. 405.

were in the habit of keeping the middle of the river, and on meeting an ascending boat to stop its engines and float, leaving the choice of sides to the one ascending, the descending boat was held liable for failure to comply with the custom. Barrett v. Williamıson, 4 McLean, 589.

3 The Pequot, 30 Fed. R. 839. In Titus v. The James Bowen, 52 Fed. R. 510, the district court for the eastern division of Pennsylvania held that the established custom of the port of Philadelphia, that on the Delaware river between

Sec. 152. Obstructing channels. It is not unlawful to temporarily obstruct the navigable channel of a river where the necessity of the situation demands it. It becomes unlawful only when unnecessarily prolonged. Where a boat is navigating a river at a point where there is a well-known custom to obstruct navigation for the more convenient passing of natural or artificial difficulties, it becomes the duty of an approaching boat to navigate in compliance with the known custom.' Where one negligently obstructs navigation he must suffer the attending consequences, unless there is such contributory negligence as will render the other liable.2

Sec. 153. Eastern rivers. The navigation of the rivers flowing into the Atlantic ocean, as well as all other rivers, and inland waters of the United States, excepting the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters, are, under the act of congress of February 18, 1895, governed by the rules prescribed by sections 4233, 4412, 4413 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the regulations of the supervising inspectors made pursuant thereto. In many states local statutes prescribe rules for the government of river navigation within their borders, which must be observed, and which have the full force of federal regulations when not in conflict with the laws of congress. When in conflict with federal regulations, the latter prevail.

Sec. 154. Collisions at bend of river and near docks or piers.-"Whenever a steamer is nearing a short bend or curve in the channel, where from the height of the banks

League Island and Walnut-street wharf, vessels ascending at ebb tide shall keep in shore, and those passing down shall keep in the channel, supersedes regulations prescribed by the act of 1885.

1 The Echo, 19 Fed. R. 453.

2 The St. Lawrence, 19 Fed. R.

328; The Fawcett v. The L W. Morgan, 6 Fed. R. 200.

3 See Rules for Navigation of Harbor and Inland Waters, page 79.

4 For Rules of Supervising Inspectors, see page 80.

or other causes a steamer approaching from the opposite direction cannot be seen for a distance of half a mile, the pilot of such steamer, when he shall have arrived within half a mile of such curve or bend, shall give a signal by one long blast of the steam-whistle, which signal shall be answered by a similar blast given by the pilot of any approaching steamer that may be within hearing. Should such signal be so answered by a steamer upon the further side of such bend, then the usual signals for meeting and passing shall immediately be given and answered; but if the first alarm signal of such pilot be not answered, he is to consider the channel clear and govern himself accordingly. When boats are moved from their docks or berths, and other boats are liable to pass from any direction toward them, they shall give the same signal as in case of boats meeting at a bend; but immediately after clearing the berths so as to be fully in sight, they shall be governed by rule 1.”1

--

Sec. 155. East river. The statute of New York requires vessels navigating East river to keep as near the center of the stream as possible. The presence of so much shipping makes the navigation of this river especially dangerous; and a vessel failing to keep as near to the center of the stream as practicable does so at its peril.2

The violation of the statutory rule is not sufficient to charge a vessel with damages unless the violation contributes to the collision; the rule being that if the navigation of a vessel contrary to the statute produces difficulty or embarrassment, the violation is held to be a contributory fault,3

1 Rule V, Supervising Inspectors' Rules, 1895, for Western Rivers.

In the case of The City of Springfield, 26 Fed. R. 158, it was held that a long whistle given in pursuance of the above rule is not an indication of the course to be pursued where there are several available channels around the bend.

2 The Maryland, 19 Fed. R. 551; The Monticello, 15 Fed. R. 474; The Pequot, 30 Fed. R. 839; The Doris Eckhoff, 32 Fed. R. 555; The W. H. Beaman, 45 Fed. R. 125.

The Clara, 49 Fed. R. 765; The Columbia, 29 Fed. R. 716.

Where a vessel, failing to comply with the statutory requirement to