local rules. These rules are usually applicable in all weathers, whether thick or fine. Steering and Sailing Rules. ARTICLE 14 (b). When two sailing-ships are approaching one another so as Art. 13. Art. 14. to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the Two sailingway of the other, as follows, viz. : (a) A ship which is running free shall keep out of the way of a ship which is close-hauled. (b) A ship which is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep out of the way of a ship which is close-hauled on the starboard tack. (c) When both are running free with the wind on different sides, the ship which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other. (d) When both are running free with the wind on the same side, the ship which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to leeward. (e) A ship which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way of the other ship. This Article is identical with Art. 14 of the Regulations of 1880. It is different in form from the meeting and crossing rules (Arts. 11 and 12) of the Regulations of 1863 (c). Its effect, however, is the same, except in one (b) Corresponding to Art. 17 of the Washington Regulations. (c) As to the origin of the "porttack" rule, and of the rule that a ship with the wind free shall keep out of the way, see supra, p. 339. Except, perhaps, as to paragraph (a), the rules of Art. 14 embody the previous practice of seamen, irrespective of legislation. But the practice seems to have been loose. Whether the ship on the port tack was always required to bear up and go under the stern of the other, or whether she was at liberty to keep out of the way by ships. case-that of two sailing ships meeting end on, that is to say, with their masts or keels in a line, or nearly so. Such vessels were required by Art. 11 of the Regulations of 1863 to put their helms to port, a manoeuvre obviously dangerous for a vessel close-hauled on the starboard tack. The effect of putting the helm of a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack to port being, in many cases, to throw the ship out of command, and to cause imminent risk of collision, it was, under the port-helm rule of former Acts, often a question of difficulty whether a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack broke the law by not porting (d). As to what is "risk of collision," see above, p. 348. The classification of sailing ships contained in this Article occasions some difficulty. It is probably intended to be an exhaustive and not a cross classification. It is doubtful whether it is either the one or the other; and the wording is at least ambiguous. "Running free" appears to mean not close-hauled; but the phrase is not happily chosen to describe a ship ramp full, i. e., having the wind a point or two free and forward of the beam (e). The words " with the wind abaft the beam" occur in Art. 12. Again, the question arises, whether a vessel which "has the wind aft" can at the same time be "running free"; and, if so, whether (d) or (e) prevails; whether, if she is to leeward of the other ship, Art. 14 requires her to keep out of the way under (e), or to keep her course under the combined operation of (d) and Art. 22. A further question arises, as to how the (d) See The Norge and The Wolverine, Holt's Rule of the Road, 89; The Amalia and The Maria, ibid. 87; The Princessan Lovisa and The Artemas, ibid. 75. Under the former Acts see The Betsy, 1 Sp. E. & A. 34, note; The Clarence, ibid. 206; The Halcyon, Lush. 100; Chadwick v. City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 6 Ell. & Bl. 771; The Dumfries, Swab. Ad.125. American cases on the same point are-The Tracy J. Bronson, 3 Bened. 341; The Helen J. Holway and The Moore, 6 Bened. 536; The Annie Lindsay, ibid. 290; The Sylvester Hale, ibid. 523. (e) A ship in this condition appears to be treated as closehauled in the trades, though such a view was not countenanced by the Court: The Earl Wemyss, 6 Asp. M. C. 364; on app. 61 L. T. N. S. 289. dividing line between "running free" and having "the wind aft" is to be drawn; whether, for example, a ship with the wind on the quarter, say, three points from dead aft," has the wind aft." These difficulties will be found discussed at length in The Privateer (f), an Irish case. In that case the Court appears to have been of opinion that a ship may at the same time be "running free" and have "the wind aft"; and it appears to have been held in the same case that a ship with the wind about two points free was close-hauled; but the latter view receives no support from the Master of the Rolls, who recently expressed the opinion that a ship might be close-hauled when sailing a point off the wind, but doubted whether she would be so when sailing a point and a-half off (g). In The Singapore (h), decided under the Regulations of 1863, Lord Westbury appears to have used the phrase "running free" as equivalent to "free"-the term used in Art. 12 of of the Regulations of 1863. But in that case the ship, heading E. with the wind at N.W., was clearly both free and running. Art. 14. In The Spring (i) a smack with the wind from two to four points from dead aft was held to have the wind aft within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Regulations of 1863. A ship required by the Regulations to keep out of the way of another may do so in any way she thinks proper. She may go ahead or astern of the other, and she may put her helm to port or starboard, as she thinks best (). But she has no right to embarrass the other, or to put her into thinks proper. a difficulty. Thus, it has been held in America (1), that where two courses are open to a vessel required to keep out of the way, and she selects the more hazardous, she is (ƒ) 7 L. R. Ir. 105; infra, p. 418. See also The Byfoged Christensen, 4 App. Cas. 669. (g) The Earl Wemyss, 61 L. T. N. S. at p. 290. (h) L. R. 1 P. C. 378. (k) The Nor, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 264; The Carroll, 8 Wall. 302; (1) The Empire State, 1 Bened. A ship rekeep out of quired to the way may way she do so in any Art. 14. Art. 14 is and modified by Art. 20 and Art. 22. responsible for a collision that would not have occurred if she had taken the safer course. Art. 14 is supplemented by, and must be read with, supplemented Arts. 20 and 22; the former requires a sailing ship overtaking another to keep out of the way (m); the latter requires the overtaken ship to keep her course ("). The difficulty which arose under the Rules of 1863, of drawing the line between "crossing" and "overtaking" ships (o), is intended to be removed by the opening words of Art. 20. It seems that under the existing Regulations a sailing ship which is travelling faster than another ahead or anywhere forward of her own beam and coming up with her, must keep out of the way (p). It will be observed that the word "crossing," which governed the corresponding Article (12) of the Regulations of 1863, does not occur in the Article now under discussion. Duty of ship required to keep her course to stand on; though it is an infringement to come The duty of the ship close-hauled on the starboard tack, under Art. 14, is strictly to obey the rule requiring her to keep her course. She can excuse a departure from that rule only by showing that it was necessary to avoid immediate danger (2). "Keeping her course" under Art. 22 means keeping her course by the wind. If in so doing she comes to or breaks off a little, she does not thereby up as much as infringe Art. 22(); though it is an infringement if, alleging that she is close-hauled, she comes up as much as two and a-half points (r). But a vessel would not be justified by Art. 14 in standing on obstinately where it is clear that a collision may be avoided if she alters her helm, and in no other way (s). two points and a-half. The rule requiring a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack to stand on appears formerly not to have been so strict as it is under the existing law. Formerly, where (m) See infra, p. 457. (n) See infra, p. 471. (p) See The Seaton, infra, p. 459. Law Cas. 412; The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96. (rr) The Earl Wemyss, 6 Asp. M. C. 364; on app. 61 L. T. N. S. 289. (s) The Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, 2 App. Cas. 389. two vessels on opposite tacks were approaching with risk of collision, it was held to be the proper course for both to put their helms to port (t). Such is not now the law. Before altering her helm, a ship must ascertain what course the other ship is upon, and how she has the wind. Her duty is to wait until she knows what the Regulations require her to do. A wrong step taken by a ship in ignorance of the other's course will cause her to be held in fault if a collision ensues. Art. 14. A A hard case. Hence arise cases of great perplexity to seamen. ship, A., close-hauled on the port tack, sees a red light of another, B., ahead, and a point or two on his starboard bow. He cannot make out what is B.'s course. Not knowing which Article of the Regulations applies to his case, A. stands on, and at the last moment bears up, thinking, erroneously, that B. is close-hauled on the starboard tack. At the same moment, B., who has the wind free, bears up. A collision follows, for which A. is probably held in fault, because he did not keep his course. The temptation for A., on first seeing B., to bear up, go about, wear, or to take other steps which he thinks will avoid risk of collision, without regard to the Regulations, is strong. The following illustration may be suggested :—The wind being north, a ship close-hauled on the port tack and heading E.N.E., sees, within a quarter of a mile, and on her lee bow, a red light. The vessel to which it belongs may be either in stays, and heading N., or she may be close-hauled on the starboard tack, and heading from N.W. to W.N.W.; or, again, she may have the wind free and be heading from W.N.W. to W. by S. In the first case supposed, the rapid alteration in the bearing of the light as it crossed her bows would assist her in arriving at the conclusion that the other ship was close-hauled on the (t) The Seringapatam, 5 Not. of Cas. 61, 65. |