ties, no custom opposed to the general rules governing their conduct can be shown in defense for a violation of a statutory rule. Sec. 160. Collision with small boats Row-boats.Row-boats are not "vessels" within the meaning of the sailing rules prescribed by statute, and a steamer is not bound to slacken its speed or change its course on observing a rowboat ahead under such condition that the row-boat can easily avoid the other. Row-boats being of such a character as to admit of easy and speedy movement are required to keep out of the way of larger and more cumbersome vessels, whose movements are laborious and less under command. While a steamer is not justified in recklessly colliding with a row-boat, yet when the latter is observed at a distance, apparently under command, and so situated that a few strokes of the oar will remove it from danger, the larger vessel may rely on its doing so. A steamer may assume, until the contrary appears, that a row-boat is properly manned and equipped and will take the usual precautions to avoid danger; and where it appears that collision ensues as a result of ignorance and mismanagement of the row-boat, no liability follows on the part of the colliding vessel.2 Where the row-boat is observed to be mismanaged or laboring under disadvantages such as to render its ability to avoid an approaching vessel doubtful, it becomes the duty of the latter to avoid approaching near enough to inflict damage. It is negligence for an inexperienced oarsman to attempt to at fault. Conover v. The City of withstanding the fault of the other. In The John S. Darcey, 29 Fed. R. 644, it was held that a tug in navigating about the entrance to a slip was chargeable with notice of the ordinary course of a ferryboat in making her slip. The ferry was held liable where it could have avoided the collision, not 1 Fischer v. Camden & P. Steam- 2 The Plymouth, 26 Fed. R. 879; cross the path of a steamer but a short distance in front of it.1 Sec. 161. Sail-boats.- The duty imposed upon steamers in respect to small sail-boats is somewhat different from the rule applied to steamers and row-boats. The latter, being capable of self-propulsion, independent of external forces, are held to a greater degree of responsibility to avoid danger than are sail-boats whose means of propulsion are dependent upon the caprice of wind and weather. It may be stated as a general rule that steamers are bound to avoid sailingboats, especially when they are seen to be becalmed, or in a situation where their movements cannot be controlled; but when a sail-boat is provided with oars, or other means at hand for self-propulsion, it is its duty to apply such means to remove it from danger, and for failure to do so may be held responsible for ensuing damages. In the case of small sail-boats under way, and a steamer approaching, the latter is primarily bound to keep out of the way, although the other is not excused from failure to do as much as it can to keep away after collision becomes apparent.3 1 Sekerek v. Jutte, 153 Pa. St. 117. In Beck v. East River Ferry Co., 6 Robt. (N. Y.) 82, plaintiff's intestate with two others was out rowing in the harbor of New York, where they were overtaken and run down by a steamer. Just before collision took place intestate jumped overboard and was drowned. It appearing that those on board the row-boat had not discovered the approach of the steamer until it was nearly upon them, and that they lost their presence of mind, but for which they might have avoided the steamer. The court found that those in the row-boat were negligent in not observing the approach of the steamer, and that there was no liability on the part of its owners. Where persons in a row-boat had crossed the path of an approaching steamer, but which, by reason of the loss of an oar, was thrown again in the path of the steamer, it was held that no liability arose on the part of the steamer where it appeared that those in charge of it did everything possible to avoid danger after it was discovered, and where everything was done that could be to save the occupants from danger. Sekerek v. Jutte, 25 Atl. R. 494; 153 Pa. St. 117. 2 The Plymouth, 26 Fed. R. 879. The Bay Queen, 42 Fed. R. 271; Sec. 162. Pilots and pilot-boats-Pilots.-The fact that a state law compels a vessel on arriving or departing to take on a licensed pilot affords neither its owners or master exemption from liability for collision resulting from the negligence or misconduct of such pilot, unless the law requiring pilotage in terms exempts them from liability when complying with its requirements. The observance of usage, at a port where pilots are required, is as binding upon foreign vessels as upon American shipping, and the employment of pilots is not only to enable vessels to keep a proper course, but to enable them to observe those local customs and usages that a foreign vessel is not supposed to be familiar with, and would otherwise be unable to observe.2 A pilot is bound to use due diligence and care, and to be possessed of and use reasonable skill in the exercise of his important trust, and is answerable in damages for any neglect, fault or want of the necessary skill while a vessel is under his control. He is not an insurer of the safety of the vessel intrusted to his care, and is only chargeable in case of a failure to use the care, skill and knowledge required of persons in his vocation." The A. A. Washburn, 19 Fed. R. exempt from liability for damages 788. 1 Cook v. Curtis, 58 N. H. 507; The Lotty, Olc. Adm. 329; The E. M. Norton, 15 Fed. R. 686; Smith v. Condry, 1 How. 28; Smith v. The Creole, 2 Wall. Jr. 485; The China, 7 Wall. 53; The Alabama, 1 Ben. 476; Schuyler v. The Corsica, 37 How. Pr. 262; The Merrimac, 14 Wall. 199, 203; The Julia M. Hallock, 1 Spr. 539; The Carolus, 2 Curt. 69. by reason of having such pilot, and being under his charge. The Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Styles, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 19. 3 Wilson v. Charleston Pilots Ass'n, 57 Fed. R. 227; The James A. Garfield, 21 Fed. R. 474; Mason v. Erwin, 27 Fed. R. 459; The New World v. King, 16 How. 469; McDonald v. The Tom Lysle, 48 Fed. R. 690. While the navigation of a steam 2 Kennedy v. The Steamer Sar- ship entering or departing from a matian, 2 Fed. R. 911. Where there is a joint act of negligence on the part of the master, the crew and a licensed pilot, it was held the owners were not port is under the control of a duly authorized pilot of the port, the master is not at fault for failing to interpose his authority to avoid danger from under-currents or Sec. 163. Pilot-boats.- Pilot-boats are subject to the usual rules of navigation, and are liable to the same extent that other vessels are for negligent navigation.1 The nature of their business requires a nearer approach to the one whose patronage is solicited than is usual for vessels under ordinary circumstances to approach each other. A pilot-boat must not, however, approach so near another vessel as to render risk of collision, nor may it approach in any other manner than in conformity to the sailing rules. A vessel will not be held in fault for collision, occurring while trying to avoid the negligent approach of a pilot-boat, even though the latter be trying to approach for the purpose of offering pilot service. Failure to respond to the flash-light signal of a pilot-boat offering service is not sufficient to render a vessel liable for collision resulting from the negligent navigation of the other.2 Where a pilot-boat approaches a vessel to proffer services, which are accepted, it is the duty of the vessel in need of such services to stop while the pilot is being brought aboard, and the pilot-boat is bound to keep away during the execution of this maneuver, and is liable for collision inflicted by reason of such failure." Sec. 164. Fishing-boats.-The ordinary rules of navigation as modified by the international rules, applicable to this class of vessels, are to be observed by fishing-boats, not only when on fishing grounds but elsewhere.* other obstructions, the knowledge of which the pilot is charged with. Homer Ramsdell Transp. Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 63 Fed. R. 845. The Blossom, Olc. Adm. 188. A pilot-boat waiting for ships requiring pilots, although miles off the port to which it belongs, is a pilot-boat engaged on pilotage duty within article 9 of the act of March 3, 1885, requiring pilot-boats on stations to carry a white light at the mast-head, visible all around the horizon. The Haverton, 31 Fed. R. 563. 2 The Cambusdoon, 30 Fed. R. 704; The Blossom, Olc. Adm. 188. 3 The Leo, 34 Fed. R. 140; The Alaska, 33 Fed. R. 107; The Columbia, 27 Fed. R. 704. 4 The Summit, 2 Curt. 150; The Englishman, 37 L. T. (N. S.) 412; The Olivia, Lush, 497. Sec. 165. Flat-boats.- Steamers are required to avoid boats drifting with the current, depending on it for their means of movement. The superior facility of the steamer in directing its movements casts upon it the duty of avoiding a boat destitute of means within itself for keeping away.1 In case of collision between a steamer and such boat the presumption of law is that the steamer was at fault." Sec. 166. Canal-boats. The federal courts have jurisdiction over canals where they connect with navigable waters or form highways of interstate commerce. The rules governing the navigation of their waters are for the most part prescribed by local regulations, and the federal courts will observe the rules prescribed by state statutes so long as they are not in conflict with federal laws; and where the state statutes do not form a rule of action, local customs adopted by navigators of that class of craft, when shown, will be taken by the court as the governing law. In the navigation of canal-boats not on canals, but navigating the public waters of the United States, the same laws are applicable that apply to other craft navigating those waters.3 1 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Redding, 24 Ill. App. 260; Fritz v. Bull, 12 How. 466; The Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 1 Newb. 461; Begley v. Williams, 80 Pa. St. 187. ranged that the green rays of the flame extended forty degrees on each side of the line of movement of the boat, was a sufficient compliance with the rules governing navi 2 Seaman v. The Crescent City, 1 gation on the Delaware and RariBond, 105. 3 Where a canal-boat was left in an unusual position in a canal where it had no right to be, it was held necessary for it to take sufficient means to inform others of its situation, and was liable for failure so to do. The Thomas Carroll, 23 Fed. R. 912. In the case of McCausland v. The Steam Propeller Delaware, 3 Fed. R. 878, it was held that a globe lantern with a green glass, so ar tan canal. Where a collision occurred on a canal on a bright star-light night, between two boats going in opposite directions at a rate of about three miles per hour, it was held that under such conditions it could not be attributable to inevitable accident. The Thomas Carroll, 23 Fed. R. 912. In the case of The Milwaukee, 14 Fed. R. 365, it was held that it was the duty of a canal-boat, tying up |