statutory requirements and such other precautions as good seamanship would suggest, it must suffer the consequences attending a violation of the law. It is not always sufficient to relieve a vessel from liability that it literally complies with the statute. Where situations arise requiring other precautions than those prescribed by the statute, the general maritime law will hold the vessel responsible for failure to take such other measures as ordinary prudence and good seamanship would suggest. The fact that a vessel is anchored in a situation designated for that purpose, or in a situation where vessels may usually be expected, is sufficient to put all approaching vessels upon their guard, and to charge them with negligence in case of collision, even though the former may have omitted to comply strictly with all the statutory requirements."

1 Strout v. Foster, 1 How. 89; The Buffalo, 55 Fed. R. 1019; The John H. May, 52 Fed. R. 882. 2 Wells v. Armstrong, 29 Fed. R. Mary Fraser, 26 Fed. R. 872. 216.

158; The John Tucker, 5 Ben. 366; The Eloina, 10 Ben. 458; The Lillian M. Vigus, 22 Fed. R. 747; The

Where a sailing-vessel at anchor was about to change its position, and while in process of raising its anchor was run into and sunk by a steamer, it was held immaterial whether the anchor had actually left the ground or not. The failure to change the fog signal from bell to fog-horn was not a fault contributing to the injury, as the vessel had not gathered headway. The Obdam, 60 Fed. R. 637.

Where a barge anchored in a place where numerous other vessels were at anchor under orders from the harbor-master, as had been the custom at that port for a long period of time, and such custom was known, it was held not at fault for a collision caused by a steamer aware of its presence and running out of its course in a fog at a dangerous rate of speed. The Laurence, 54 Fed. R. 542.

A schooner properly anchored,

3 Fristad v. The Premier, 51 Fed. with the regulation lights set, was R. 766.

Where there are known indications of danger from any unusual cause, ordinary prudence requires the vessel to take such precautions to avoid disaster as the circumstances may require. The Anerly, 58 Fed. R. 794; The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164; The Energy, 10 Ben.

held not at fault for collision with a ship in tow of a tug, where the anchored vessel was plainly to be seen by both the tug and tow at a distance sufficient to enable them to have avoided it. The Percy Birdsall v. The Invertrossacks, 55 Fed. R. 683.

Sec. 107. Anchor-lights. When a vessel is anchored in a situation out of the usual track of vessels, it has been held that the omission of an anchor-light at night affords no excuse to a colliding vessel, even though the navigation of the vessel in motion is with ordinary prudence and caution. In the case of The New York & Virginia Steamship Co. v. Calderwood, the supreme court held that "neither rain nor the darkness of night, nor the absence of a light from a barge or sailing-vessel, nor the fact that the steamer was well manned and furnished, and conducted with caution, will excuse the steamer from coming in collision with a barge or sailing-vessel at anchor, or sailing in a thoroughfare out of the usual track of the steam-vessel." This decision was rendered in 1856, before the adoption by the civilized world of the international regulations, which may now be considered to be a part of the law of the sea, and observed in all maritime courts. By these regulations vessels at anchor in navigable waters are required to exhibit specified lights, there being' no exception in terms as to whether anchored in frequented, or unfrequented waters. When anchored in unfrequented waters, where there is no reasonable ground to apprehend the approach of others, the courts do not require so strict an observance of the details of watchfulness as they do when anchored in a more public situation. The statute does not relieve a vessel from the exhibition of an anchor-light, wherever anchored. The right of one vessel to navigate public waterways is as good as another's, and the laws governing their use are as democratic as their use is universal. The right of a vessel to navigate unfrequented waters without observing the statutory rules is as great as that of another to anchor there in violation of the same rules. A vessel navigating a public waterway has a right to rely upon obedience to the law by others; and the requirement of the statute, that an anchored vessel shall exhibit certain lights when at anchor, ought to be as obligatory upon it as are the burdens imposed by the same statute upon a 1 See Anchor-lights, page 103, ante. 219 How. 241.

vessel in motion. No reason can be given why the same relaxation afforded an anchored vessel from a strict observance of the rules, in unfrequented waters, should not be extended to a vessel under way navigating the same. So that it ap

pears that the doctrine stated by the supreme court above quoted, however applicable when rendered, is not now the law, and is inapplicable to modern requirements; and that where a vessel is at anchor, though in unfrequented waters, it is required to exhibit an anchor-light, in the absence of which it is chargeable with unlawful conduct. Under the general maritime law as it existed prior to the adoption of the international rules at present in force, a vessel at anchor was only required to maintain an anchor-light when in the vicinity of a roadstead or fair-way; and when anchored in situations remote from the usual track of navigation no anchor-light was required. It was with reference to the general maritime law as it then was that the supreme court enunciated the doctrine in the case of The New York & Virginia Steamship Co. v. Calderwood, before referred to. The same provision was embodied in the old rules embraced in section 4233 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The new rules are much broader in scope, and are not restricted to roadsteads and fair-ways. A vessel suing for damages must show that its anchor-lights were set and were burning. The absence of an anchor-light will not bar a partial recovery where the night is sufficiently light for an approaching vessel, using ordinary care, to see another, not

1 The Oregon, 45 Fed. R. 62; The State of California, 49 Fed. R. 172; The Buffalo, 50 Fed. R. 630; The Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848.

In The George W. Childs, 67 Fed. R. 269, it was held that a sloop which was anchored at night without an anchor-light could not complain because a tow, which was brought into immediate danger of collision without fault on its part, did not drop its anchor or cut its

hawser as soon as it might, owing to the momentary excitement prevailing aboard the tow.

2 Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 18 How. 584; The Erastus Corning, 25 Fed. R. 572; The Cambridge v. The Omega, 5 Hughes, 487; Beyer v. The Nurenberg, 3 Hughes, 505.

3 The Middlesex Quarry Co. v. The Albert Mason, 2 Fed. R. 821.

withstanding the absence of a light.' But where a vessel under way, in pursuing its usual course collides with a vessel having no anchor-light, no recovery can be had when the vessel under way uses ordinary care and caution in its navigation.2

Sec. 108. Maintaining anchor-watch.

Where a vessel

is at anchor in a place where there is reasonable expectation of the passage of others, prudence requires not only the maintenance of an anchor-light, as the statute prescribes, but also an anchor-watch, to see that the regulation lights are displayed, and to keep a lookout for approaching vessels. The more frequent the passage of shipping, the more exposed the situation and difficult the navigation, the greater the degree of watchfulness required. It cannot be said that the law requires an anchor-watch to be maintained under all circumstances. The statute does not prescribe it, and maritime usage does not demand it, under all conditions. A vessel anchored in a proper place in fair weather is not ordinarily required to maintain an anchor-watch, especially when anchored out of the usual course of vessels; but when anchored in the usual course of shipping, or where natural causes are liable to render the situation dangerous, a vessel may become liable for failure to maintain a watch. Judge Hughes, in the case of The Oliver," says: "The law of navigation which requires vessels lying at anchor in a fair

1 The John Frazer, 21 How. 184. 2 The Westfield, 38 Fed. R. 366. 3 See Anchor-watch, page 109, ante.

The Henry Warner, 29 Fed. R. 601; The Guyandotte, 39 Fed. R. 575; The Clara, 13 Blatch. 509; 102 U. S. 200; The Worthington & Davis, 19 Fed. R. 836; The Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848.

5 The Erastus Corning, 25 Fed. R. 572; The W. J. McCaldin, 35 Fed. R. 331; The Clara, 102 U. S. 200.

6 The Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848.

As

In the case of The Lion, 1 Spra. 40, a vessel was left at anchor, unattended and alone, in a situation where there was more or less of shipping liable to pass. Held, that recovery could not be had, because of the omission of the reasonable and usual duty of maintaining a light; and a custom of the place being opposed to maritime usage, offered no justification for the omission.

way to have a light up is imperative. It must be obeyed. It must be effectually obeyed. It will not do for the master to hang up a light after nightfall, and then go to bed, trusting to the moon to serve as a light in the event that the wind or other cause shall put out the light. Obedience to this important requirement of law must be certain and unremitted. The master must know that the light is continually up; conjecture will not do. When lying in a fair-way, the anchor-light must be known to be all the time up, and this cannot be with certainty unless a watch is kept on deck to keep it burning, and to be able to say positively that the light was up in the event of collision." To relieve a vessel from the fault of failure to maintain a watch, it must appear that the situation was such that the passage of vessels might not reasonably have been expected, or that the omission did not contribute to the result, and that the presence of a watch would not have prevented the collision.2

Sec. 109. Duty of anchored vessel to move.- Ordinarily a vessel at anchor is not required to move from its situation to accommodate passing vessels, nor to take active measures to avoid colliding with them. It has the right to assume that an approaching vessel will take the necessary precautions to keep out of the way, where her own lights are properly displayed and there is nothing to prevent their being seen. Usually an anchored vessel is so situated that it is impossible to move, and the most that is usually required is that it afford ample warning of its position to an approaching vessel. Where, however, the approaching vessel is seen to be not under command, and there is sufficient time to slip its cable or otherwise avoid the approaching vessel, the cir

1 The Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848; The Lucy D., 21 Fed. R. 142; Pierce v. The J. R. P. Moore, 45 Fed. R. 267. 2 The Altenower, 39 Fed. R. 118; Williams v. The Whisper, 37 Fed. R. 495; O'Neal v. Sears, 2 Spra. 52.

9 The Avon, 22 Fed. R. 905.

4 The Lady Franklin, 2 Low. 220; Engstrom v. The Howard B. Peck, 48 Fed. R. 334.