should for 10 minutes not see a light ahead, if it were such a light as the regulations require, and not obscured. In many similar cases it has been held that when several persons on watch, apparently attentive to their duties, can see no light during such a considerable period, when it ought to be seen, the defect will be ascribed to the other vessel, even when the precise reason why the light is not seen does not appear. The Narragansett, 20 Blatchf. 87; The Royal Arch, 22 Fed. Rep. 457; The Alaska, Id. 548, 551; The Sam Weller, 5 Ben. 293; The Westfield, 38 Fed. Rep. 366; The Drew, 35 Fed. Rep. 789. Still more, when there are circumstances such as exist in this case, viz., the lights being set far aft, and low down, and the vessel listing to starboard, that might cause the lights to be obscured. The Johanne Auguste, 21 Fed. Rep. 134, 140; The Tirzah, 4 Prob. Div. 33; The Caro, 23 Fed. Rep. 734. As the bark was coming head on, and was projected against a black horizon, I cannot find that there was negligence in not seeing her earlier. The Gustav, Holt, Rule Road, 34. Their combined speed was probably at least 12 knots, so that their approach was over 1,200 feet per minute. The steamer did all that was possible to avoid the bark from the time she was visible, so that she is free from blame. Porting her helm at last was the proper maneuver to swing her stern to port. Had the bark herself starboarded after the steamer's red light was shut out, and when the steamer was known to be sheering to port, no doubt the collision would have been avoided. Libel dismissed, with costs. CANFIELD et al. v. THE F. & P. M. No. 2. (District Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January 5, 1891.) COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAMERS-BEND IN RIVER-DUTY OF ASCENDING BOAT. Where an ascending propeller, while approaching a narrow and dangerous bend in the Manistee river, receives notice that a steamer is entering the bend from above, it should wait until the other has descended, and if it attempts to pass in the bend, and a collision occurs, it will be held in fault. In Admiralty. T. J. Ramsdell and Shepard, Haring & Frost, for libelants. JENKINS, J. On the forenoon of the 19th day of October, 1887, steam-barge James H. Shrigley, and the propeller F. & P. M. No. 2, collided in the Manistee river, and the question of the fault of such collision, if fault there was, is the subject of inquiry here. Manistee river is an outlet for the waters of Manistee lake, and, at a distance of two miles therefrom by the course of the river, empties into Lake Michigan. At a distance of one-half to three-fifths of a mile from its mouth there is an '11 Fed. Rep. 918. abrupt bend in the river to the north, of about 45 degrees from its previous south-westerly direction. To the north of the bend the land is level for a distance of 70 feet, thence rising, within a further distance of 100 feet, to an elevation of some 70 or 80 feet. There sand-hills obstruct the view, so that steamers approaching each other from opposite directions have not sight of each other for the full distance of half a mile; but, within a distance of perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 feet, the spars of the approaching steamer may be seen by the other, the hull of the one being visible to the other only when within a few hundred feet. The life-saving station is located upon the north bank of the river, about 1,000 feet below the knuckle of the bend, and above the bend, and upon the same bank, and within a distance of 1,400 feet therefrom, are several docks. On the south bank of the river, and just below the bend, are Canfield and Wheeler's dock and salt shed, and from thence a boom extends up the river, 1,000 feet or more. A shoal puts out from the north bank around the knuckle of the bend for a distance of 60 feet into the river. There is also low water outside of the boom line for a distance of 15 to 20 feet, so that the available channel around the bend for vessels drawing 10 feet of water, or over, is quite narrow,-not over 80 feet in width. The deeper water is found at the south side of the channel, where it is some 12 feet in depth. Below the bend the river is 200 feet in width, with a depth of water at the docks of 18 feet. The current of the river varies in its rapidity with the seasons of the year. At the time of the collision it was between two and three miles an hour. The Shrigley was a vessel of 388 tons burden, 175 feet in length over all, and drawing 10 feet forward and 11 feet 6 inches aft. The No. 2 was a vessel of 658 tons, 190 feet in length over all, and drawing between 3 and 4 feet of water forward, and 10 feet 8 inches at the middle, and 10 feet aft. There were at this time three vessels lying at the dock on the north side, below the bend, and one at the salt dock on the south side. The vessels met in the bend, and there collided. Before either vessel had reached the bend, the Shrigley, descending the river, and while above the boom, gave two blasts, indicating her desire to pass on the south side of the river. The F. & P. M. No. 2, below the bend, and near the life-saving station, answered with a signal of one blast, whereupon the Shrigley repeated her signal, and the No. 2 answered with two blasts, assenting. It is not necessary to go into particulars in regard to the collision itself, except to say that the F. & P. M. No. 2 attempted to pass the Shrigley in the bend, passing to the north side of the river. Seeing a collision inevitable, the master of the F. & P. M. No. 2 backed his engine, the bow of his boat swung to starboard, and came into collision with the Shrigley. Rule 5 of pilot rules for lakes and sea-board provides: "Whenever a steamer is nearing a short bend or curve in the channel, where, from the height of the banks, or some other cause, 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." It There is no charge or proof here, either in the libel, answer, or evidence, of failure by either vessel to have timely given this signal. The court is bound to assume, therefore, that each vessel complied with the regulation. Assuming that the signals were given, each vessel understood that the other was approaching. The F. & P. M. No. 2, being the ascending vessel, was bound, if necessary, to stop, and avoid the descending vessel, as her movements could be controlled with less difficulty than those of the descending steamer. The Galatea, 92 U. S. 439. was perhaps possible, under favorable circumstances, for two vessels to have passed each other in the bend, but it was hazardous. It was negligence unnecessarily to make the attempt, each vessel having timely warning of the other's approach. Prudence dictates that the ascending vessel should stop and place herself out of the strength of the current, permitting the descending vessel, carried along by force of the current, full swing around the bend. Even upon the assumption that the signal required by rule 5 was not given, it satisfactorily appears from the evidence that the F. & P. M. No. 2, upon receiving the first signal of two blasts from the Shrigley, could have safely stopped, and should have stopped. She should not have incurred the unnecessary hazard of collision in the difficult passage of the bend. In this she was negligent. She was then 1,000 feet below the bend. There was sufficient opportunity to avoid all danger of collision. Proceeding in the face of a known danger, she negligently placed herself in a position where she was likely to inflict injury, and should respond for the consequences of her negligence. A decree will be entered for the libelant. THE F. & P. M. No. 2. STARKE et al. v. THE F. & P. M. No. 2. (District Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January 8, 1891.) BEND IN RIVER DUTY OF DESCENDING 1. COLLISION BETWEEN STEAM-VESSELS STEAMER. An ascending propeller, when approaching a dangerous bend near the mouth of the Manistee river, gave the signal required in such case by rule 5 of pilot rules for lakes and sea-board, and, receiving no answer, proceeded. A descending steamer failed to give the signal, and there was evidence that the signal from below was not heard by her officers. When still 1,000 feet above the bend, she was notified by another that the propeller was, coming up the bend, but proceeded on her course, and shortly afterwards signaled that she desired to pass on the south side, which was promptly answered by assenting signals. At this time the propeller had entered so far into the bend that it would have been dangerous to retire, and, proceeding, a collision occurred. Held, that the descending steamer was in fault. 2. SAME-INTERPRETATION OF SIGNALS. The assenting signal of the propeller could not be regarded as an invitation to proceed, since it was required by the rules, and was merely an indication that the steamer's desire to pass on the south side of the river was known and acquiesced in. In Admiralty. Mr. Krause, for libelants. A. J. Dovel and F. M. Hoyt, for claimant. JENKINS, J. This cause involves an inquiry touching a collision between the propellers Joys and F. & P. M. No. 2, in the afternoon of the 17th October, 1888, in the Manistee river. The locus in quo of the collision was the same as in Canfield v. The F. &. P. M. No. 2, ante, 698, (herewith decided,) and is sufficiently described in the opinion filed in that cause. The F. & P. M. No. 2 upon entering the river sounded the signal required by rule 5, stated at length in the opinion in the Canfield Case, supra, and, receiving no response, proceeded on her course. The Joys, descending the river, failed to give the signal required by rule 5. When at a point above Brook's mill, and over 1,000 feet above the bend, she was notified by the tug Canfield that the F. & P. M. No. 2 was coming up into the bend. The master of the Joys responded: "I will give them a wide berth," and, as he states, checked the Joys down, "thinking the black boat would pass the bend before I got there, I was so far away; that was my idea at the time." Shortly or immediately after, the Joys sounded two blasts of her whistle, receiving prompt and assenting answer from the F. & P. M. No. 2, then opposite the Canfield salt-sheds, at the foot of the bend. There was a pile-driver lying at the upper end of the Canfield salt-shed, crossways in the river, the stern extending about 75 feet beyond the dock line. The Joys was some 600 feet above the bend, about opposite Kitzinger's dock, when she first sighted the F. & P. M. No. 2. Both vessels proceeded, the Joys hugging the south side of the channel so nearly as she could. The F. & P. M. No. 2 kept close to the north bank, "smelt the shoal water," and be gan to sheer. A collision then seeming inevitable, both vessels commenced to back. The F. & P. M. No. 2, owing to the force of the current, sheered to starboard, and directly across the bows of the Joys, the stem of the Joys striking the F. & P. M. No. 2 on the port bow. It is unnecessary to consider the disputed question of the speed of the Joys, as upon other grounds I think this libel cannot be sustained. That the F. & P. M. No. 2 sounded the signal required by rule 5 is established. That it was not heard by the Joys is negative testimony, not countervailing the positive testimony in that behalf. The signal was heard by one witness upon the shore above the bend. It should have been heard upon the Joys. Attention to duty would have enabled the master of the Joys to hear it, if he did not. He admits that he did not sound the signal required. As towards an ascending boat sounding the signal the Joys was in fault. Failing such signal by the Joys, the F. & P. M. No. 2 had a right to assume that no vessel was descending, and to proceed upon her course up and around the bend. The Joys, when over 1,000 feet above the bend, was notified by the tug of the approach of the ascending boat, then not visible to the Joys. The latter vessel, being in fault in not previously giving the required signal, and not knowing the position of the ascending boat, should have stopped, and should not, by proceeding, have experimented in the face of danger. He assumed that the ascending vessel would make the bend before he got there. He should have made that assumption certain by stopping until that event had occurred. It was rash, hazardous, and negligent to do otherwise under the circumstances. When the signal of two blasts was given, the F. & P. M. No. 2 could not stop with safety. She was too far into the bend, and would have collided with the pile-driver. It was the duty of the Joys to stop, for she could safely have then so done, and her negligence had placed the other in a position which rendered it hazardous to stop. It is a mistake to suppose that the assenting answer of the F. & P. M. No. 2 to the signal of the Joys was an invitation for the latter to proceed. She was required by rule to answer the signal. The answer was only an acknowledgment that the intention of the Joys to pass on the south side of the channel was known and acquiesced in. The Garlick, 20 Fed. Rep. 647; The Rescue, 24 Fed. Rep. 44; The Greenpoint, 31 Fed. Rep. 231; The Admiral, 39 Fed. Rep. 574. The F. & P. M. No. 2 did nothing in prevention of that design that did not result from the position she was placed in with respect to the Joys through the fault of the latter. The limit of obligation upon the F. & P. M. No. 2 was, when danger of collision was apparent, to adopt such preventive measures as were possible under the circumstances. This she did. The Joys was the offending vessel, by whose fault the situation was produced, rendering collision inevitable. It is also insisted that the F. & P. M. No. 2 was in fault in not sounding danger signal upon receiving the signal of the Joys, according to rule 3. There is no ground for this contention. There was no misunderstanding of the course or intention of the other, and in such case only is |
