Whether a sailing trawler at work is within Art. 14 Article 17. seems doubtful. By Art. 26," sailing vessels under way" Sailing are required to keep out of the way of "sailing vessels trawler fishing with . . . . trawls." This would probably

be held to apply as between a sailing ship, other than a trawler at work, and a trawler at work. As between two trawlers at work, in the absence of any express enactment, probably either Art. 16 or the general "port tack" rule would be held to apply.

The following cases, decided under the Regulations of 1863, illustrate the application of Art. 17, and the circumstances under which it may be departed from :

at work.

Art. 17.

Two ships were turning to windward in a narrow Cases illuschannel, both on the starboard tack, and one following in the wake of the other. The leading ship, having stood as far towards the side of the channel as was prudent, went about. There was risk of collision if the other ship stood on. It was held that it was the duty of the following ship, although on the starboard tack, to go about when the leading ship did so (c).

In a case where the courses of the two ships were within a point of being directly opposite (W.N.W. and S.E. by E.), the Privy Council held that they were "crossing," and not "meeting," ships (d).

Where two vessels close-hauled on opposite tacks sighted each other at so short a distance that it was not possible for the ship on the port tack to avoid the other if the latter stood on, it was held that it was the duty of the latter to port and let go her head sheets (e).

Where a ship close-hauled on the port tack was unable to bear up owing to her head-gear being carried away, and the other ship, in ignorance of her disabled condition, kept

(c) The Priscilla, L. R. 3 A. & E. 125; and see The Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361; infra, p. 456.

(d) The Constitution, 2 Moo. P. C. C. 453.

(e) The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18.

Article 17. her course, a collision which followed was held to be an inevitable accident (ƒ).

Two heavy full-rigged ships were turning to windward in the St. Lawrence. One of them, The Lake St. Clair, whilst in stays, was struck by the other, The Underwriter, nearly at right angles on the starboard side. Those on board The Underwriter could not see that The Lake St. Clair was in stays in time to avoid her; but they might have avoided her if they had ported their helm when hailed to do so. The Underwriter was held in fault for not porting, and The Lake St. Clair for not having braced her head yards aback, and for having hauled her fore-yard (g).

The wind being somewhere from S. to S.S.E., the sloop Constantine, heading N.N.E., fell in with the cutter Spring heading W. by S., and to leeward. It was held that it was the duty of The Constantine to keep out of the way, and that the duty of The Spring was to keep her course (h).

A full-rigged ship, with the wind free, crossing a brig and a schooner close-hauled on the same tack, was held in fault for approaching them so close that, upon the schooner going about, a collision with the brig was inevitable (i).

A ship just gathering way on the port tack, after going about, was held free from blame for a collision with another close-hauled on the starboard tack, which had approached her too near whilst in stays (k).

A collision occurred between the barque St. Jean and the barque Privateer. The St. Jean had the wind on the port side about two points free. The Privateer had the wind somewhere between dead aft and three points on the starboard quarter. It was held (in Ireland) that it was the duty of The Privateer to keep out of the way (),

(f) The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96.

(g) Wilson v. Canada Shipping Co., The Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, 2 App. Cas. 389.

(h) The Spring, L. R. 1 A. & E. 99.

(i) The Mobile, Swab. Adm. 69; on app. ibid. 127; this case was under a former Act.

(k) The Charlotte Raab, Brown, Ad. 453.

(1) The Privateer, 9 L. R. Ir. 105.

either by virtue of Art. 17 (a) or Art. 17 (e). The case of The Singapore (m) was relied on as an authority for the proposition, that a vessel heading as much as eight points. from the wind is "close-hauled" within the meaning of the regulations. In that case a laden barque was heading seven points from the wind, and was held to be closehauled. It is submitted that The Singapore is an extreme case, and that a vessel heading more than seven points from the wind cannot be properly said to be close-hauled.

A brig was heading E. by N. on the starboard tack, close-hauled, and a ship, also on the starboard tack, and said to be close-hauled (»), heading N.E. by E. half E., was to windward of her. Each vessel pleaded that the other, when first seen, was about four points abaft her own (ie. the complainant's) beam. It appears to have been held that the allegation of the brig was proved that the ship was overtaking the brig; and that her duty, therefore, was to keep out of her way. But the case is not satisfactory, for the Court appears to have been of opinion that the ships were, in fact, not within the overtaking rule, but within Art. 17 (0).

Two ships, close-hauled on opposite tacks, were crossing each other. The ship on the starboard tack was held in fault for not keeping out of the way when the other, being ahead and to windward, could not bear up without risk of collision, and could not go about because of a shoal (p).

A sloop, with the wind free, was running through a narrow channel against a strong tide close to the shore. Two schooners, the combined length of which was equal to half the breadth of the channel, were beating to windward in the opposite direction. It was held that the sternmost of the schooners was in fault for standing on when under

(m) L. R. 1 P. C. 378.

(n) She had carried away her fore-topsail shortly before the collision.

(0) The Breadalbane, 7 P. D. 184.

(p) The Ann Caroline, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 208 (American case); cp. The Maggie J. Smith, 16 Davis, 349, 354.

Article 17.

Article 17.

Article 18.

Two steam vessels meeting.

the stern of the leading schooner, so that when she was obliged to go about she ran into the sloop, which could not avoid her without going ashore (q).

ARTICLE 18.

Where two steam vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter her course to starboard, so that each may pass on the port side of the other.

This Article only applies to cases where vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, in such a manner as to involve risk of collision, and does not apply to two vessels which must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass clear of each other.

The only cases to which it does apply are when each of the two vessels is end on, or nearly end on, to the other; in other words, to cases in which, by day, each vessel sees the masts of the other in a line, or nearly in a line with her own; and by night to cases in which each ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other.

It does not apply by day to cases in which a vessel sees another ahead crossing her own course; or by night to cases where the red light of one vessel is opposed to the red light of the other, or where the green light of one vessel is opposed to the green light of the other, or where a red light without a green light, or a green light without a red light, is seen ahead, or where both green and red lights are seen anywhere but ahead.

This Article is almost identical with Art. 15 of the Regulations of 1884. It contains the substance of Art. 13 of the Regulations of 1863, and of an Order in Council of the 30th of July, 1868, explaining the meaning of "end on." The interpreting order is said to have been made in

(a) The Mark Eveline, 16 Wall. 348.

consequence of the decision in The Cleopatra (r), by which Article 18. the port helm rule of a former Act (s) was held to apply where the ships were on parallel courses green to green, each being on the starboard bow of the other (t).

The words " each shall alter her course to starboard ' are exactly equivalent to "the helms of both shall be put to port" of the regulations of 1863 (u). The words "so that each may pass on the port side of the other" appear to be merely explanatory.