ive as to be readily apparent, the tow is not liable, as it may rely upon the superior qualifications of the tug, whose business may be presumed to better qualify it to judge of the sufficiency of the arrangement than the tow, whose business is of a passive nature, and not of such a character as necessarily to qualify it to determine the proper arrangement of a tow. The tug, being responsible for the safety of the tow, has the right to require its several members to assume such positions as appear to the master of the tug most suitable for towing, and least dangerous to its several members and shipping to be met with, and the tow is bound to obey all proper orders so long as it remains in tow; and when it refuses to do this, or neglects the usual duties pertaining to a tow, the tug is relieved from the consequences attending such conduct. But when the tug has no charge of the making up of the tow, and is simply engaged to tow it, the tug is not responsible for the negligent arrangement, so far as the members of the tow are concerned, but may be liable to third parties, where the defect is patent, and sufficient to attract the attention of ordinarily careful seamen skilled in the navigation of tugs and tows.'

A tug and tow may remain at rest in a thoroughfare while its tow is being made up, so long as it does not unnecessarily obstruct navigation and leaves sufficient passageway for others.

Sec. 132. Shifting tow. A tow while lying at rest upon the water for the purpose of shifting its members to different situations is in a position somewhat analogous to a vessel at anchor, and is not to be considered as a vessel under way, so far as the giving of signals to approaching boats, re

1 The Anglo-Austrian Steam Navigation Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 32 Fed. R. 798. In this case a tow, over which the tug had no supervision in its make-up, signaled a tug to proceed before one of its members was properly at

tached, which breaking loose collided with another. Held, that the tug was not liable, as it had no means of knowing that the tow was not in readiness as its signal indicated.

quired by the general sailing rules, is concerned; but so far as the tug in charge is concerned, when actually moving from one part of the tow to another, it is to be considered under way and subject to the observance of the general navigation rules in respect to an approaching vessel. When the latter observes a tug and tow in this situation, it is the duty of the approaching vessel not to intrude within the waters used by the tow in shifting, but to keep at a distance sufficient to prevent danger, interference or annoyance.1

Sec. 133. Dangerous tow.-A tug is bound to know the character of the tow it is engaged in handling; and where it is of such a dangerous nature that damage to others is liable to follow a near approach, prudence requires the tug to keep at such a distance that there may be no exposure to risk; but when a near approach is unavoidable, sufficient warning should be given of the dangerous nature of the tow, that an approaching vessel may take all possible precautions to incur as little risk as circumstances permit.2

Sec. 134. Unseaworthy tow. It is primarily the duty of those in charge of a tow to see that it is in fit condition to be towed. It is also the duty of those in charge of the tug to make such an inspection of the tow as may be necessary to ascertain its condition. By this is not meant a minute inspection of every timber, plank or line composing the

1 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. The Quaker City and The Isabella, 38 Fed. R. 153.

2 Benham v. The Niagra, 44 Fed. R. 775; The Edmund Levy, 8 Ben. 144; Orhanovich v. The America, 4 Fed. R. 337; The Express, 1 Blatch. 365; The Niagra, 20 Fed. R. 152.

Where a tug was engaged in towing a flotilla of canal-boats, one of which filled and became waterlogged, and the master of the tug knew of its condition, the tug was

held liable for damages incurred by another of the tow, injured by the breaking in two of the waterlogged boat, even though the continuance was at the request of the master of the water-logged boat; that it was improper to continue towing, in a flotilla, a boat filled with water after its dangerous condition became known to the master of the tug. Scott v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 59 Fed. R. 638.

tow, but a general inspection of those features readily ascertainable and open to the observation of a careful and prudent navigator. A tug is relieved from responsibility if the unseaworthy condition of the tow is such that it is not ascertainable from such examination as a prudent person would bestow upon it before proceeding with the voyage. Where, however, the defects of the tow are such that the attention of the tug is called to its unseaworthiness, or could be readily ascertained, it is negligence for the tug to proceed until the tow is rendered safe and seaworthy. But it is no defense to the liability of the tug that the tow was old and unseaworthy, where loss occurs by striking well-known obstructions in a channel which by ordinary prudence could have been avoided.2

Sec. 135. Leaving tow exposed. The duty of protecting its tow begins the moment a tug takes it in charge, and continues until the tow is conducted to its destination. Where convenience or the necessities of the case require a tug to leave its tow at any intermediate point, without the consent of its master or owner, the liability of the tug con

1 The Favorite, 50 Fed. R. 569; The Wm. Kraft, 33 Fed. R. 847; The Nicholson, 28 Fed. R. 889.

A tug towing a dredge was held not liable for proceeding on its course when it was ascertained there was some sea but not enough to be dangerous had the dredge been seaworthy, the cause of its foundering being the breaking of a chain by which the heavy dip per and crane was operated, the chain being insufficient for the use to which it was applied. The Hercules, 55 Fed. R. 120.

held not at fault for loss of the scow by reason of the giving way of the bits of the scow, in a heavy sea, because of the age and insecurity of the fastenings of the scow.

Where a tug agreed to tow a barge that was known to be unseaworthy, the towing to be at the owner's risk, it was held to be the duty of the tug, notwithstanding such agreement, to use ordinary and reasonable care to prevent damage; and where the tug failed to use ordinary and reason

2 Pettie v. The Boston Tow-boat able care and prudence in towing

Co., 49 Fed. R. 464.

In The R. C. Veit, 56 Fed. R. 122, a tug towing a dumping-scow was

it, it was held liable in damages. McCormick v. Jarrett, 37 Fed. R. 380.

tinues, and it is responsible for loss resulting from mooring it in a dangerous situation, or for neglecting ordinary means of prudence for its safety.'

Sec. 136. Abandonment of tow. It is the duty of a tug in charge of a tow to use every reasonable effort to conduct it in safety to its destination, and it is liable for abandoning it when absolute necessity for doing so is not shown. It is not required that a tug shall imperil its own safety in order to protect its tow, where the chances of imperiling itself are as great as affording protection to its tow. It is, however, required to do all that good seamanship can do to convey the tow to a place of safety. Having done all that ordinary prudence and good seamanship requires, it has no further liability.2

1 The American Eagle, 54 Fed. R. 1010; Phoenix Towing & Transp. Co. v. Mayor, 60 Fed. R. 1019; Morse v. The Charles Runyan, 56 Fed. R. 312; 46 Fed. R. 813; The Battler, 55 Fed. R. 1006.

Where a tow, at the beginning of an unusual storm, was left in a place of usual safety, but broke adrift and collided with another vessel, the evidence showing that the place of mooring was one of safety under ordinary circumstances, and that the ice-floe by which it was cut adrift was not reasonably to be anticipated, the tow being secured in an ordinarily safe manner, it was held that neither it nor the tug was liable. Wishing v. Transfer No. 2, 56 Fed. R. 313.

Where a tug left a canal-boat alongside a pier where there was not sufficient water, if the situation was one that ought to have been known by the master of the tug,

and the owner of the tug neglected to remove the boat after notice of the danger, the tug was held liable. Morse v. The Charles Runyan, 56 Fed. R. 312.

2 The John M. Nichol, 63 Fed. R. 275.

In the case of Wirth v. The William Murtagh, 6 Fed. R. 192, a tow in charge of a tug sunk in a channel-way and was abandoned by the tug.

Two days later collision occurred by another vessel running into the sunken wreck. Suit being brought against the tug for leaving the wreck in a dangerous situation, it was held that the tug. having done all it could to relieve the tow in its distress, had a right to terminate its connection with it when it was found to be beyond its power to keep it afloat, and that it was not liable for permitting it to remain in the channel.

It is not incumbent on the owner of a vessel sunk in a collision to

Sec. 137. Towing rafts.-The same rule of law applies to the towing of rafts that does to the towing of vessels, so far as their management is concerned. The tug, having entire, charge of their movements, is wholly responsible for the general direction of the raft, and is bound to navigate it in such a manner as not to do injury to others. Where the raft is