Of steamers having ships

in tow.

ended, that is to say, that the place of collision was in the open sea, where there is a wide depth of water an expanse of water on both sides-where ships may safely navigate, then I should come to the conclusion that it is not a narrow channel within the meaning of the statute." And he intimated that so long as the channel was marked out by buoys, and no further, it might be considered as a narrow channel. Dr. Lushington's decision on this point was affirmed in Privy Council (a).

It seems questionable whether the obligation to keep to the starboard side of the fairway is as rigorously applicable to steamers which have vessels in tow as to steamers going alone. In the case of the La Plata, that vessel, a large and long ship, was going down the Thames in tow of a steam-tug, and was on her right side, i.e., on the south or starboard side of the river, when she met the brig Helene, also in tow of a steamer, and also on the South side of the river. The Helene's helm was ported, and she answered her helm; it was alleged that the helm of the La Plata was ported, but it certainly appeared that her course was not changed, and a collision ensued. The case for the Helene was rested on the La Plata's not having ported, or not soon enough; that of the La Plata on the Helene's being on the wrong side of the channel. Dr. Lushington pronounced in favour of the Helene. "The rule laid down in the Act," said the learned Judge, “must be modified with respect to both vessels,

(a) The Meander, 11 Weekly Reporter, 542.

because I am clearly of opinion, however strictly you may apply the rule to two steamers navigating alone, the one going down on the south side, and the other coming up on the north, yet, in the case of a vessel in tow of another, some allowance must be made, and some deductions taken from that extreme strictness which applies to a vessel steaming by itself." Then, with regard to the La Plata, it was not enough, he said, that the helm should be ported; the ship must also have answered her helm: and, if it were contended that there was a difficulty on account of the state of the tide, which was just on the turn, this must be answered by saying that, if a vessel going down the river in tow of a steamer starts before high water, and if the being towed against the tide occasions an increased risk of collision with other vessels, the ship which proceeds in this unusual manner must bear the consequences (a). This decision, however, was reversed in Privy Council, but so as to leave it doubtful whether the principle laid down in it, that a steamer with a ship in tow is not under the same obligation to keep her own side as a steamer going alone, was or was not accepted as law. The question was, said Sir W. Maule, in giving judgment, whether those who managed the La Plata had been shown to have been guilty of any wrong navigation, or any default or negligence which occasioned that accident. The collision happened, it appeared, just about high water, when it could not be known which way the

(a) Swab. 220.

Cases not
under the
jurisdiction
of the statute.

Foreign ship is bound by the customs of an English river.

tide might be running at the moment in any par-
ticular part of the river. That being so, it might
be an accident for which nobody was to blame, but
whether it was so or not, was a matter depending
upon nautical considerations.
Their nautical as-
sessors had told them they thought the La Plata
had done all she could; that her helm had been put
to port; that, from her length, she would not answer
her helm so quickly as the Helene, but she was on
her right side of the river, and was as close over as
she could get without fouling the craft at anchor on
the south shore; that the Helene was not on her
proper side of the fairway; and that, had a good
look-out been kept on board, she must have seen
the La Plata earlier than she did. These reasons
appeared to their Lordships perfectly satisfactory,
and they, therefore, pronounced that the La Plata
was not in fault (a). It will be observed, from
this summary of the judgment, that no opinion
was pronounced as to whether the Helene was
in fault, nor any reference made, except very
directly, to the general principle laid down by
Dr. Lushington.

in

The above-cited decisions have in each case had reference to such vessels as came within the jurisdiction of the English statute. In those which follow, the vessels, being foreign, were subject to no other rules than those of the general sea law.

In the case of the Fyenoord, it was decided that a foreign steamer navigating the Thames, whether

(a) Swab. 298.

or not coming within the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, is bound by the custom of the river Thames, founded on that Act, to keep to the starboard side of the channel. "We must presume," said the Court, "that a customary course of navigation has emanated from the statute, and that this was known to those on board the Fyenoord." In this case, and that of the Seine, it was determined that a foreign steamer, coming up the Thames, has no right to cross to the wrong side of the river in order to comply with a Custom House regulation, by which a station on the south side of the river at Gravesend had been appointed, where all steamers from foreign ports were to take in their Custom House officers. It had been directed by statute (a), that every ship, in proceeding to her place of mooring or unlading, should bring to at stations appointed for the purpose by the Commissioners of Customs. The place to which these vessels had crossed was the station so appointed. It was alleged to be dangerous in stormy weather, as well as inconvenient for the Customs officers, were they required to cross the river. There was also a custom, though not a uniform one, to cross the river to the station. These reasons, however, were rejected by Dr. Lushington as insufficient. There was not, he said, a uniform custom to clear on the south side, consequently no custom in law. It was no excuse to say that in stormy weather it might be dangerous to cross the Thames, for on this occasion it was not

(a) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 86, s. 12.

Rule for steering in rivers with strong currents.

stormy. Even granting it had been dangerous to them, still the dangers arising from a departure from the rule of navigation would have to be considered on the other side. The vessels, therefore, were in each instance held in fault for having crossed to the wrong side of the river (a).

In the following decision an important rule was laid down for the navigation of rivers with strong currents; and this is the more valuable, in the present absence of statutory regulations, as having been decided purely on general principles. The steamer Smyrna was going up the Danube, towing one vessel astern and another lashed alongside, when she met the steamer Mars coming nearly empty down the river. The place where they met was near a bend in the river, where the current sets very strongly towards the concave or Russian side. The Mars came down on that side, and the Smyrna was coming up on the same side, and before anything could be done a violent collision took place. The question arose, which of the two steamers was on her right side. On behalf of the Smyrna it was urged, that by a regulation issued by the European Commissioners appointed at the close of the Russian war to regulate the navigation of the Danube, vessels going up the river were to keep to the Russian side. But the Privy Council determined that in issuing this regulation the Commissioners had exceeded the powers given them by the treaty,

(a) The Fyenoord, Swab. 377; The Seine, Swab. 413.