ART. 3

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

when seen from end-on, will indicate the following different combinations of vessel :

i. A tug with a tow of over 600 feet in length composed of several vessels.

ii. A tug towing a tow of over 600 feet in length consisting of one vessel only.

iii.

iv.

.

A tug towing a tow of under 600 feet in length composed of several vessels.

A tug towing a tow of under 600 feet in length consisting

of one vessel only.

The reason for this is apparent.

The third or lowest light

that the tug shows may be the additional towing light mentioned in Article 3 or the additional light mentioned in Article 2, subsection (e).

A tug may also be seen approaching with four white lights one under the other. This will indicate that she is towing a tow over 600 feet in length. She will be showing the three white lights of Article 3 and the extra light of Article 2, sub-section (e).

These extra lights that a steam vessel towing another must carry are doubtless allotted to her by the legislature for the purpose of indicating that she is not entirely her own mistress and cannot be expected to act in every respect as an ordinary steam vessel,1 and also for the purpose of indicating that she has a vessel or vessels fast to her by a rope.

It is to be remarked that by these Regulations no special lights are allotted to a sailing vessel towing a vessel. She must only show her side lights, although in fog she makes with her fog horn the signal for a vessel towing. (See Article 15.)

1 The American and Syria, L.R. 6 P.C. 127, 131.

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

ART. 4

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

ARTICLE 4.

(a) A vessel which from any accident is not under command shall carry at the same height as the white light mentioned in Article 2 (a), where they can best be seen, and, if a steam vessel, in lieu of that light, two red lights, in a vertical line one over the other, not less than 6 feet apart, and of such a character as to be visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least 2 miles; and shall by day carry in a vertical line one over the other, not less than 6 feet apart, where they can best be seen, two black balls or shapes, each 2 feet in diameter.

(b) A vessel employed in laying or in picking up a telegraph cable shall carry in the same position as the white light mentioned in Article 2 (a), and, if a steam vessel, in lieu of that light, three lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than 6 feet apart. The highest and lowest of these lights shall be red, and the middle light shall be white, and they shall be of such a character as to be visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least 2 miles. By day she shall carry in a vertical line one over the other, not less than 6 feet apart, where they can best be seen, three shapes not less than 2 feet in diameter, of which the highest and lowest shall be globular in shape and red in colour, and the middle one diamond in shape and white.

(e) The vessels referred to in this Article, when not making way through the water, shall not carry the side lights, but when making way shall carry them.

(d) The lights and shapes required to be shown by this Article are to be taken by other vessels as signals that the vessel showing them is not under command and cannot therefore get out of the way.

These signals are not signals of vessels in distress and requiring assistance. Such signals are contained in Article 31.

B

ART. 4

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

A ship not under command is now only required to carry two red lights by night in the place of the masthead light, and by day two black balls or shapes each two feet in diameter.

The lights to be carried by a telegraph ship at work are the same as heretofore.

Under this Article no distinction is made between a sailing ship and a steam ship not under command. It is therefore very necessary when a vessel is sighted showing these signals that she should be studiously avoided. She is not a vessel in distress or wanting assistance, but is a vessel that may not be entirely under the control of her navigators.1

Before deciding to hoist the signals mentioned in this Article it is necessary to determine whether the ship is under command or not. It is impossible to foresee the many circumstances that might justify a vessel in exhibiting these lights, and the judgment, therefore, of Lord Herschell in the P. Caland is here set out and should be carefully noted.2

The P. Caland was steaming up channel when an accident happened to her machinery, the effect of which was to reduce her speed to between 4 and 5 knots. Her captain, thinking she might come to a standstill at any moment, and that if her engines had to be stopped they might not be able to be moved again, considered her to be a disabled ship, and hoisted the lights for a vessel not under command. The Glamorgan seeing these lights and no side lights, as she alleged, and thinking the P. Caland might require assistance, steamed towards and collided with her. Lord Herschell, when giving judgment in the House of Lords, said :—

"At the time of the collision the P. Caland had at her "masthead, in place of the regulation white light, the red lights,

66

indicating that she was not under command. The question is, "whether she was, under the circumstances, justified in exhibiting "these lights. At the time when she thus exhibited them she was proceeding at a speed which must be taken to have been not less "than four to five knots. Both the Courts below have held that she "cannot properly be said to have been not under command at the "time in question.

66

"Construing the Article as a whole, it is certain that a vessel may not be under command within the meaning of those words

1 For the signals to be shown by a vessel in distress and wanting assistance, see Article 31, page 64.

2 [1893] A.C. 207 at 211.

66

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

ART. 4

as used in the Article, and yet be making way through the water; "for it is provided that, if making way through the water, a vessel "shall carry the ordinary side lights as well as the red lights at her "masthead.

66

"At the same time, I desire to say that I do not think that "because the Rule contemplates that a vessel not under command may be justified in making way through the water, it therefore "implies that a vessel in so disabled a condition is always justified "in continuing so to make way. This must depend upon the "circumstances, and in my opinion, a vessel which cannot show "that they were such as to justify her in taking this course, must "be held to blame for not acting in a reasonable and seamanlike "manner, even though she had complied with the statutory regulation. It never was intended that under all circumstances "a vessel should be entitled to proceed at a considerable speed "through the water, throwing upon other vessels out of whose way she would ordinarily have had to get, the obligation to get "qut of her way, though the circumstances might no doubt be such as to justify that course. For example, it might be necessary "in order to avoid some danger which would otherwise be "imminent. Or, again, if she were very near port, it might be "reasonable and prudent to pursue her course.

66

66

"With these preliminary observations I proceed to consider "the construction of the Article."

66 6

66 6

66 6

"In the Court of Appeal the Master of the Rolls expressed "himself as follows:-" -Now looking at the words of the statute, at "the first part of the clause, which speaks of her not being under command, and the second part her not being under commana so that she cannot keep out of the way-taking those two together, it seems to me that the real construction of the rules "is, that she must, through some accident, be in such a position “that she is not under command in this sense, that she could "not keep out of the way of another vessel coming near her. "But if she can be steered, and can be stopped, and can go “'a-head—which is necessary in order that she may be steered— "then she is under command, and the apprehension of her being "likely (however well founded), to be in a few moments out of "command does not show that she is out of command at the

166 moment spoken of.' And the other learned judges concurred in this view.

"I cannot but think that this construction is somewhat too

ART. 4

RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS.

"narrow. Suppose the vessel, though having steerage way on "her and capable of being steered to port or starboard, yet owing "to some disablement, answered her helm but very slowly, so "that if an occasion for doing so should arise she could not get "out of the way of another vessel in the manner which such vessel "would have reason to anticipate. And suppose, though she can stop and reverse, she can only do so after great and unusual 'delay. I am not satisfied that in either of these cases she might "not be probably described as not under command, and not able "to keep out of the way of other vessels. It is not necessary to "dwell upon the point as it has no application to the present case, "but I wish to guard against being supposed to assent to so narrow a construction as appears to me to have been adopted by "the Court below.

66

"Again, suppose that, owing to a breakdown of the machinery, "its ceasing to be capable of propelling the vessel is reasonably regarded as imminent and likely to occur at any moment, I am "not satisfied that in this case a vessel may not properly be said, "within the meaning of the rule, not to be under command. If "she were to allow other vessels to continue their course and to manœuvre on the assumption that she would get out of their way, "she might prove unable to take any action at the very time when a change of direction on her part could alone enable her to keep "out of the way and thus avert disaster. It would certainly tend "to safety if under such circumstances the rule required her to warn other vessels to keep out of her way, and I do not think 66 any violence need be done to the language used to construe it as extending to such a case.

"Even assuming, however, that the article will bear this con"struction, I am of opinion that the P. Caland cannot be said "to have been out of command at the time of the collision. "She was able to proceed at a rate which I think cannot have "been less than four to five knots an hour. This speed was "maintained, after the damage to the machinery presented itself " and the red lights were exhibited, for half to three quarters of an "hour before the collision. The two vessels were a considerable "time locked together, and after they were separated the P. Caland "steamed for half an hour before she became stationary. Even "then it would appear that the machinery did not come to a "standstill on account of its damaged condition, but was inten"tionally stopped for the purpose of repairing the damage.