Article 29. speed of seven knots across the fair-way of the river Mersey, the utmost precautions are only reasonable." He held that the people in charge of the launch were in fault for not taking every possible step to assure themselves that no vessel was approaching the ways before the launch was started. He also expressed his opinion that in the Mersey the tug or tugs attending a launch should be decorated with flags in the usual way when a launch is about to take place (→). Small craft not required by law to keep out of the way of heavy ships. In The Cachapool (s) it was held that a vessel at anchor in the way of a launch was in fault for a collision with the launch. Notice had been given her at six o'clock of the intended launch, which took place at half-past ten; and shortly before that hour a tug had been sent by those in charge of the launch to endeavour to get the ship at anchor to allow the tug to tow her out of the way. In The Glengarry (t) it was held that all proper precautions were taken, and that the vessel under way (a tug with barges in tow) was solely in fault for steaming across the path of The Glengarry at the moment she was being started. Even after proper notice of a launch has been given, it must not take place so long as other vessels are in the way. If it is customary for the harbour-master to superintend or be present, it should not take place in his absence (u). There is no rule in law requiring small vessels to keep out of the way of larger ones, though it may be much easier for them to do so than for the larger ship to take the steps required by the regulations. A large ship going at a slow speed in a narrow channel may be unable to alter her course rapidly, but, so far as she can do so, she must (r) See also The Glengarry, 2 P. D. 235, on this point; Malster v. Humphreys, 3 Fed. Rep. 535. (s) 7 P. D. 217. As to these cases, see The Westernland, supra, p. 26. (t) 2 P. D. 235. (u) The United States, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 166. comply with the regulations. In such a case it will be the Article 29. duty of the smaller vessel to take such precautions as are rendered necessary by the comparatively helpless condition of the larger ship (x). In America, a 20 feet sailing boat, in a flat calm, was struck by a steamship with a heavy barge lashed alongside. The sailing boat was held in fault (as well as the steamship), because she did not use her oars to get out of the way of the steamship (y); and a schooner of 130 tons, becalmed in a difficult position in a river, was held in fault for not using her sweeps, or having a boat to tow ahead, so as to avoid a steamship that struck her (). It is doubtful whether these cases would be followed in England. Reservation of Rules for Harbours and Inland Navigation. ARTICLE 30. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of Article 30. a special rule duly made by local authority, relative to the Local rules navigation of any harbour, river, or inland waters. This Article is identical with Art. 25 of the Regulations of 1884. It must be read together with the preliminary paragraph (supra, p. 387), which directs that the regulations shall be followed "upon the high seas, and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels." The effect of local rules in all waters within the Queen's dominions to which the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applies, is saved by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 421. Local rules have not, in all cases, been recognized by the Courts as of equally binding effect with the sea regulations; but there is no doubt that an infringement of a (x) See The La Plata, Swab. Adm. 220; on app., ibid. 298; and see The Arthur Gordon and The Independence, Lush. 270. (y) The Bay Queen, 42 Fed. Rep. 271. (z) The B. K. Washburn, 19 Fed. Rep. 788. not affected by the general rules. The Article 30. local rule made by a competent authority and applicable to the case will, unless excused by special circumstances, be held to be negligence contributing to a collision (a). A bye-law made under a local Act required ships coming into the Tyne to keep on the north side of the river. Raithwaite Hall, coming in from the sea in a thick fog, was in collision, on the south side of the river, with a vessel bound out. In the absence of proof of negligence on the part of the latter, The Raithwaite Hall was held to be in fault for the collision (b). In this case Sir R. Phillimore said, with regard to the effect of local rules: "There should, however, be no misunderstanding as to the effect of these and similar bye-laws governing the navigation of a river. It cannot be held that, because they or any of them are disobeyed, the vessel disobeying them is therefore to be held to blame. They are only evidence of what it is the duty of a vessel to do under the circumstances named in the particular bye-law. As such evidence, however, they are an important element in every case that comes within their provisions; and if it should appear that by the breach of one of them a ship has occasioned or contributed to a collision, the existence of such a bye-law would afford the very strongest reason for holding that a ship had been guilty of a breach of duty and was to blame for the collision" (c). Effect of An infringement of a local rule made under 57 & 58 infringement. Vict. c. 60, or by or under an Act which incorporates it, (a) See The Margaret, 9 P. D. 47; 9 App. Cas. 873; The Yourri and The Spearman, 10 App. Cas. 276. (b) The Raithwaite Hall, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 210. (c) As to the obligation to obey local rules, the recognition of them by an Admiralty Court, and proof of them, see The Henry Morton, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 466; The Iron Duke, Holt, 227; The Peerless, Lush. 30; 13 Moo. P. C. C. 484; The Smyrna, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 93. As to the effect of a breach of a local statutory rule or duty, see The United Service, 8 P. D. 56; Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Co., 2 Ex. D. 441. Ignorance of a local rule is no excuse for disobeying it: The River Derwent, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 467, per Lord Esher, M. R. will cause the ship to be held in fault under 57 & 58 Vict. Article 30. c. 60, s. 419 (d). rules in fo reign waters. The words of Article 30 are very wide, and appear to Effect of local negative the operation of the general regulations in all waters, at home or abroad, where they conflict with rules "duly made by local authority." But it seems to have been held that local rules as to ships' lights in foreign waters were not binding on British ships (e). Local rules are in force in the Thames, Mersey, Arron Local rules. river, Clyde, Humber, Tees, Trent, Tyne, and at Belfast, Dublin, and Cork. In the case of the Thames and some other waters the local rules are nearly identical with the general regulations. Some of these rules will be found in the Appendix, infra. It has been held by a Scotch Court that in the river Clyde, where local rules of navigation are in force, the stop and reverse" rule of the sea regulations nevertheless applied; and a steamship that had failed to stop and reverse was held in fault (ƒ). Vessels navigating the Mersey and the sea channels at its mouth are required to keep on the starboard side of the channel; and vessels at anchor in those channels are required to exhibit a second riding light in the after part of the vessel (g). By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 421 (2), her Majesty has power to make regulations for rivers and inland waters where they cannot be made under any local Act. Under the corresponding power of a former Act rules have been made for the Mersey (h) and for some of the Lancashire inland navigations (i). (d) See supra, pp. 65, seq. (e) The William Hutt, cited in Lowndes on Collision, 187; The Michelimo and The Dacca, P. C. May, 1877. (f) Little v. Burns, The Owl and The Ariadne, 9 Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 118. (g) See the Mersey Rules, Appendix. (h) See Order in Council of 27th June, 1866. (i) See two Orders in Council of 18th May, 1870. This effect is preserved by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 8. 745. Article 30. Local rules conflicting with the general regulations. By 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, dock and harbour authorities have power to make such regulations; and by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 125, in dockyard ports the Queen's harbour master has a similar power. Under the last-mentioned Act regulations have been made for Queenstown, Deptford, Chatham and Sheerness, Woolwich, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Pembroke, and Portland (k). There are special rules for the navigation of the Danube (1), and for the Suez Canal (m). There are in force in the Bosphorus rules relating to the navigation of steamships. These rules are issued in the Turkish language, and it is not clear that they are intended to apply to any but Turkish ships. One of them requires steamships in the Bosphorus to navigate in midchannel. Difficulties arise in some cases where the local rules are not consistent with the general regulations; but it appears that in the waters in which they are in force the local rules must be obeyed without regard to the general regulations, if the latter conflict with them. At a time when there was no bye-law in force in the Thames requiring sailing ships to carry lights, a Trinity sailing ballast lighter was run down in the river when carrying no lights. It was held that, not being a sea-going vessel, she was not required by the sea regulations to carry lights, and that she was not required to carry them under the local rules, there being no rule on the subject (n). Sir R. Phillimore expressed an opinion that the power of the local authority (k) See Orders in Council of 29th (1) As to former rules for the May, 1884, replacing those of 19th (m) The substance of these rules will be found in the Appendix below. (n) The C. S. Butler, L. R. 4 A. & E. 238. In America there are in force special rules as to steamships' lights, some of which appear to be inconsistent with the regulations. |