Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

or fair-way, shall, at intervals of not more than two minutes, ring the bell rapidly for three to five seconds.” 1

Before the passage of the statutory rule prescribing the kind of signal to be given, a vessel anchored in a fair-way, or in a situation where the passage of vessels might reasonably be expected, was required to indicate her presence and situation by some sound sufficient to give warning to ap proaching vessels. No particular device was required so long as the sound emitted was sufficient."

Sec. 52. Substitution of signals. A vessel failing to give the proper signals in a fog is prima facie at fault even though other sound signals are substituted; and vessels will not ordinarily be permitted to show that such substituted signals are equally as effective as those required by the statStatutory rules, being positive requirements of law, cannot be avoided by showing that something else would answer the purpose as well.3

Regulations for the navigation of the Great Lakes, approved Feb. 8, 1895, Rule 14 (e). Page 72.

Raleigh and The Niagra, 44 Fed.
R. 781.

2 The Rockaway, 25 Fed. R. 775;

A tug with a tow was anchored The Chancellor, 4 Ben. 153; The in the Hudson river at a place Scotia, 7 Blatch. 309; The Porter,

where

vessels were liable to pass.

2 Dill. 146; The Exchange, 10

A sail-vessel hove to in a fog

The tow of canal-boats extended Blatch. 108. from the tug a distance of about eight hundred or a thousand feet. should ring a bell instead of blow The tug sounded the required sig- a fog-horn. The Alfredo, 32 Fed. nals, notwithstanding which, col- R. 240.

3 Bradley v. The John Pridgeon,

lision occurred between the tow and the passing boat. The tug in 38 Fed. R. 261; Elliott v. Stafford, charge was assisted by another 37 Fed. R. 811; The Milwaukee, 2 tug situated about midway in the Biss. 509; The Exchange, 10 Blatch.

raft.

The assistant tug failing to

168; The Porter, 2 Dill. 146; Rog

sound signals as required by the ers v. McCane, 19 Mo. 557; The statute, the court held that this Parthian, 55 Fed. R. 426. neglect on the part of the subor

dinate

was sufficient to charge the

Where a vessel's mechanical foghorn had become out of order and

principal, and the tug in charge the vessel was run down in a fog was held liable. Hardy v. The while using an ordinary mouth

Sec. 53. Sound signals for vessels towing and towed.The rules of 1890 provide (art. 15) "that a vessel when towing shall, instead of the signals prescribed in subdivisions (a) and (c) of this article, at intervals of not more that two minutes, sound three blasts in succession, namely, one prolonged blast followed by two blasts. A vessel towed may give this signal and she shall not give any other."1

Where a vessel is in tow of a tug or steam-vessel by a line she should give the statutory signals required by the above rule. But where the tow is lashed alongside, there is not the necessity for additional fog-signals and they should be given by the tug alone.

The rules governing the navigation of the Great Lakes provide that-

"Every vessel in tow of another vessel shall, at intervals of one minute, sound four bells on a good and efficient and properly placed bell, as follows: By striking the bell twice in quick succession, followed by a little longer interval, and then again striking twice in quick succession (in the manner in which four bells is struck in indicating time)."

"(c) A steamer with a raft in tow shall sound, at intervals of not more than one minute, a screeching or Modoc whistle for from three to five seconds." 3

horn as a substitute, and the evidence indicated that a mechanical fog-horn might have given reasonable warning, it was held that the vessel was in fault for using an improper signal. The Trave, 55 Fed. R. 118; The Wyanoke, 40 Fed. R. 702.

126 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 15. 2 The Peshtigo, 25 Fed. R. 488; 31 Fed. R. 427.

A tug towing a dredge to Sandy Hook in a fog with a line some four hundred or six hundred feet long, moving across the course of a steamer, was held grossly in fault

where she neither blew a fog-signal, as required by the statute, nor the signal of three distinct blasts, as required by the inspectors' rule then in force, where the tug was subject to the orders of the master. of the dredge. The latter was held liable also, having a steam-whistle by which its position could be indicated, and failing to use it. The City of Alexandria, 31 Fed. R. 427; The Ludwig Holberg, 36 Fed. R. 914.

3 Rules for the navigation of the Great Lakes, rule 14.

Sec. 54. Passing signals in fog.- By article 28 of the international rules of 1890, the use of passing signals prescribed for vessels in sight of each other is not permitted by a vessel under way and in a fog or other atmospheric condition when sight is cut off. Passing signals are to be employed only by ships in sight of each other, and they can only be permitted where there is absolute certainty of position that sight alone affords, and it is a prerequisite to their use.1 Article 19 of the international rules of 1885 is to the same effect. The rules governing the navigation of the Great Lakes provide that "in all weathers every steamvessel under way, in taking any course authorized or required by these rules, shall indicate that course by the following signals on her whistle, to be accompanied, whenrequired, by corresponding alteration of her helm; and every steam-vessel receiving a signal from another shall promptly respond with the same signal or as provided in rule 26. One blast to mean: 'I am directing my course to starboard. Two blasts to mean: 'I am directing my course to port.' But the giving or answering signals by a vessel required to keep her course shall not vary the duties and obligations of the respective vessels." 2

ever

This rule, it will be observed, permits passing signals to be used when vessels are not in sight of each other. It is a radical departure from the international rules, and from the law that governed the navigation of the Great Lakes prior to the passage of the act of February 8, 1895. It is, however, not altogether an experiment, as the former rules, not permitting passing signals when not in sight of each other, had been for many years almost wholly disregarded upon the Great Lakes. The present rule was framed to comply with the custom that had grown up on these waters, to Passing signals in all kinds of weather, thus legalizing by statute what it has heretofore been unlawful to do.

use

The

Parthian, 55 Fed. R. 426;

2 Rules governing the navigation

The City of New York, 147 U. S. of the Great Lakes, approved Feb72, 84: The Bolivia, 49 Fed. R. 169; ruary 8, 1895, rule 23. Page 72. The Nacooche, 137 U. S. 330, 338.

CHAPTER V.

COLLISIONS BETWEEN SAILING-VESSELS.

Sec. 55. Steering and sailing rules. The rules adopted by the various international conferences for the prevention of collisions at sea are the result of the wisdom and practical experience of the maritime world, and the courts are strict in their requirements that the rules shall be complied with, unless it is clearly shown that a strict compliance with them in the particular instance would tend to produce rather than avoid collision; and, unless there is some substantial reason given arising from the special circumstances of the case, every vessel will be held to a strict compliance with the regulations. It is not to be supposed that rules can be made that will afford a guide in every emergency that may arise, and a vessel may be placed in a situation where to follow the letter of the law would invite rather than prevent collision. In such cases the master must act upon his own judgment as to the best means of protecting his ship; and if upon judicial investigation the ship's maneuvering is shown to have been done in a seamanlike manner and as well as could be done under the circumstances, no liability will arise.

Sec. 56. Sailing free and close-hauled. The international rules of 18901 and 1885, and the rules for the Great Lakes, provide that

"Where two sailing-vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other, as follows:

1 Rules for 1890, art. 17; 26 Stat. at L. 320; International Rules 1885,

art. 14; Rules for the Great Lakes, rule 16. Page 72.

"(a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled."

This rule, like most of the other international rules, is but declaratory of the laws of the sea that had existed long before any statutory rules were enacted on the subject.' The term "close-hauled " as used in the rules is not restricted in its meaning so as only to include vessels sailing as close to the wind as is possible. It is to be taken in its usual nautical signification, and includes a vessel on the wind, even though it be possible for her to sail a point or more without losing her wind. The term is used in its ordinary meaning, as close to the wind as is practical to make the

of sailing

best progress to windward, reference being had and due allowance made for the state of wind and sea.2 A vessel close-hauled, meeting another sailing free, has the right of way, and her duty is to keep her course regardless of what tack she may be on; the reason being that the ship sailing free can more readily control her movements, and can more easily change her course without loss of ground,

than

can one whose objective point is to windward. The duty of a close-hauled vessel to keep her course is correlative with the duty of one sailing free to avoid her, and the

law is

other.

as

strict in requiring this duty of the one as of the A close-hauled ship has the right to rely to the last

moment on the ability and skill of another meeting her, with the wind free, to avoid collision; and it is equally true 1The Havilah, 33 Fed. R. 875; 50 Fed. R. 98: Dickinson v. The Gore, Fed. R. 332; The Ella Warner, 30 1 Newb. 45; The Blossom, Olc. 188; Fed. R. 203; The North Star, 29 Fed. The Emily, Olc. Adm. 132; 1 Blatch. R. 151; The S. S. Anderson, 27 Fed. 236; The North Star, 29 Fed. R. 151; R. 392; The Osseo, 8 Ben. 518; The The Havilah, 33 Fed. R. 875; The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U. S. 514.

2

Chadwick

v. Doublin Steam

Erastus Wiman, 20 Fed. R. 245;
Stetson v. The Pepito, 3 Hughes,

Packet Co., 6 E. & B. 771; The Ada 483.

A. Kennedy, 33 Fed. R. 623.

4 The F. W. Gifford, 7 Biss. 249;

The Catherine v. Dickinson, 17 The Maria and Elizabeth, 7 Fed. R. How. 170; St. John v. Paine, 10 253; The Robert Graham Dunn, How. 557, 579; The Mary Augusta, 63 Fed. R. 167.

55 Fed. R. 343; The Aurania, 29

« EdellinenJatka »