Where two ships are turning through a narrow channel, one astern of the other and on the same tack, the duty of the sternmost ship is to keep a good look-out, and be ready to go about, if necessary, the instant the other goes about; so as not to risk a collision by standing on while the other is in stays, or has not gathered way on the other tack (b). It seems to have been considered by the Privy Council that a ship in stays, or just gathering way on the port tack, should apprise another ship approaching her on the starboard tack of her inability to keep out of the way (c). But a sailing-ship turning up the Thames was held not to blame for giving no notice to a steam-ship astern of her intention to go about (d). Art. 24. America as to beating out tacks. The rule in America as to ships working to windward in Rule in narrow channels is that they must " beat out their tacks," and not go about before the depth of water or exigencies of the navigation require it (e). Vessels are expected to know the channel and the point at which other ships will be compelled to go about (f). A ship going about before she gets to the edge of the channel, and thereby causing a collision with a passing steam-ship, was held in fault (g). But the rule as "to beating out tacks" does not apply so as to preclude a ship from going about before she reaches the shoal water in order that she may be able to weather a point of land, or other object, on the next tack (h). The rule does not appear to have been expressly recognised in any Court in this country. In The Palatine (i), where there seems to have been room for its application, it was not referred to. (b) The Priscilla, L. R. 4 A. & E. 125; The Eclipse and The Royal Consort, Holt, 220. (c) The Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361; and see The Leonidas, Stuart's Vice Ad. Rep., Lower Canada (1858), p. 226. (d) The Palatine, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 468. (e) Thorp v. Hammond, 12 Wall. (f) The Nellie D., 5 Blatchf. 245. Art. 24. Whether a ship should hold herself in stays for another. Extra care required in passing over fishing grounds. Vessels navigating in an unusual manner or course do so at their own risk. Whether a ship, being in stays, is required to hold herself in stays to allow another vessel to pass, is not clear. Two American cases are contradictory on the point. In The Empire State (j) the Court said that it is the duty of a ship to beat out her tack and come about on the other tack with proper despatch; and that " she is not obliged to remain in the wind for a steamer to pass her.” On the other hand, in The W. C. Redfield (k), it was held that a sailing-ship was in fault for not holding herself in stays to allow a tug and her tow to pass clear. There are decisions of the American Courts to the effect that it cannot be imputed to a ship as a fault that she is sluggish in going about (1); and that she is not wrong in fore-reaching or shooting ahead in the wind's eye whilst going about (m). Fishing boats have a right to fish on the high sea, and to be fast to their nets, whether their fishing ground is in the track of ships or not. It is the duty of other ships to take greater precautions when passing over a fishing ground, so as to keep clear of the fishing boats, and not make them cast off from their nets (n). Vessels navigating in an unusual manner or by an improper course do so at their own risk. By the bye-laws in force in the Tyne (clause 17), all vessels proceeding to sea are required to keep on the south side of midchannel; and (clause 20) vessels crossing the river take upon themselves the responsibility of doing so with safety to the passing traffic. A vessel outward bound, coming out of the Tyne dock on the south side of the river, and either intentionally, or under the influence of the tide, crossing over to (j) 1 Bened. 57. (k) 4 Bened. 227; see also The Arthur Gordon and The Independence, Lush, 270; The Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, ubi supra. (1) The Charlotte Raab, Brown Adm. 453. (m) 1 Parsons on Shipping (2nd ed.), 578, note. (n) The Columbus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 730; Murphy v. Palgrave, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 284 (Irish case); The Margaret and The Tuscar, Holt, 44. the north side of the river, came into collision on the north side with two steam-ships also going down the river. She was held in fault for the collision as she should not have attempted to cross when there was risk of collision (o). It was held in The Smyrna (p) that a usual and proper precaution for vessels to take when navigating a winding river against a strong stream is to keep under the points in the slack of the tide, so as to avoid descending vessels which are swept across the river into the opposite bight by the stream setting off the point. But the rule would seem to be different under the present law of "starboard side' in narrow channels (q). In New York harbour, where ferry boats are constantly coming out from their slips or docks at right angles to the course of vessels navigating the river, the law requires vessels navigating the river to keep in midchannel, or if they go along the shore to go very slowly (r). Where two steam-ships were meeting in a narrow channel, one going with and the other against the tide, and it was necessary for one of them to stop, it was held by the Supreme Court in America that the vessel going against the tide should have stopped at once, as she could do so the more readily (8). A vessel warping down the Thames against the flood tide was held in fault for a collision thereby occasioned (†); and in America it was held that a vessel with a warp across a river fair-way is bound to slack it to allow another vessel to cross (u). A steam-ship proceeding down the Thames at night against a flood tide is required to exercise the greatest caution (x). (0) The Henry Morton, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 466. As to the duty of ships to keep on their proper side and in the usual track in rivers, see supra, pp. 193-197; and The Java, 14 Wall. 189. (p) 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 93. (q) See Article 21. (r) The Favorita, 18 Wall. 598. Art. 24. -Art. 24. Eddy tide. Being under way in thick weather; stress of weather. Standing too close to other craft. If a vessel enters an eddy tide and is thereby prevented from answering her helm and goes into collision with another ship, it is no excuse that the eddy prevented her from answering her helm (y); and the effect of the tide on other ships must be known and allowed for (z), If the weather is such that an object cannot be seen in time to avoid it, a vessel has no right to be under way at all. In such weather she should bring up on the first opportunity, and not get under way unless obliged to do so (a). In thick and bad weather generally it is the duty of a vessel under way to exercise more than ordinary care to avoid doing damage to other ships (b). "Stress of weather" is an excuse frequently put forward for omitting to exercise ordinary care, but it is one which the Court is very unwilling to accept (c). In squally weather it is the duty of a ship not to approach another so near that if a squall strikes her she will go in collision with the other. A vessel will be held in fault if she navigates so close to another that her view is obstructed and she cannot see a third ship in time to avoid her (d); or that she is affected by the wash or suction of the ship ahead, and will not answer her helm (e). A brig on the starboard tack endeavouring to pass a collier driving up the Thames with the tide was caught by a heavy squall which split her foretopsail and did other damage. The brig came up into the wind and drove against the collier. She was held solely in fault for the collision, because, having reason to expect squalls, she should have given the other vessel a wider berth (ƒ). (y) The La Plata, Swab. Adm. 220, 223; The Russia, 3 Bened. 471. (2) The Frantz Sigel, 14 Blatchf. 480. (a) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 198; The Otter, L. R. 4 A. & E. 203. And see supra, p. 163. (b) The Flint, 6 Not. of Cas. 271; The John Harley and The William Tell, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 290. (d) The Zollverein, Swab. Adm. 96; and see Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423, supra, p. 4. (e) The General McCandlass, 6 Bened. 223, 226. (f) The Globe, 6 Not. of Cas. 275. A barge turning down the Thames on a squally night stood so close to a ship at anchor that, upon her missing stays owing to a squall, she ran into her. The barge was held solely in fault (g). In America, a steam-ship passing so close to a sloop at anchor that the boom of the latter was driven against her by a sudden gust of wind, was held solely in fault (h). And where a steam-ship at sea sighted a schooner seven miles off, and shaped her course so as to pass within a cable's length of her, it was held by the Circuit Court that for two ships approaching each other at the rate of eighteen miles an hour such a course was an exercise of reasonable prudence" (i). very far from Where a ship, which had been ashore, came off unexpectedly and received damage in a collision with another ship which was near her, it was held that the latter was not bound to take such precautions that, at whatever time the ship ashore floated, she would not come against her (k). A ship driving over a sand on which she had been ashore came into collision with another brought up just clear of the sand. It was held that the former was not in fault for the collision, and that it was the result of inevitable accident. The ship that had been ashore could not have let go her anchor whilst driving over the sand without risk to herself, and if she had let go when clear of the sand, the collision would not have been avoided (l). If a ship steers a course to take her alongside another ship to speak her or for any other purpose, she does so at her own risk (m). The Supreme Court of the United States held a steam-ship solely in fault for a collision with (g) The Plato and The Perseverance, Holt, 262. (h) The George Law, 3 Bened. 396. (i) The Benefactor, 14 Blatchf. 254. (k) The Coxon, 2 Mar. Law Cas. (1) The Thornley, 7 Jur. 659. Art. 24. |