the exception of the white lights mentioned therein, which they shall never carry."1

Under both the rules of 1864 and the international rules of 1885, only sailing-vessels in tow were required to carry side-lights, the rules making no provision for other classes of vessels. The objection to the old rule is apparent upon its face; there being no reason why a steamboat, a barge, or any other type of vessel capable of doing injury or receiving it, should be placed on any different footing from a sailing-vessel,— there being no special reason why they should be required to carry such lights rather than any other vessel. The rules of 1890 extend the requirement to "any vessel being towed." The rule is broad enough to embrace within its terms any type of water-craft coming within the meaning of the term "vessel."

The rule for vessels navigating the Great Lakes is: "A sailing-vessel under way, and any vessel being towed, shall carry the side-lights mentioned in rule 3. A vessel in tow shall also carry a small bright light aft, but such light shall not be visible forward of the beam.” 3

Sec. 33. Lights to be displayed by vessels at anchor.The international rule of 1890 provides that "a vessel under one hundred and fifty feet in length when at anchor shall carry forward, where it can best be seen, but at a height

1 Art. 5, International Rules,

223 Stat. at L. 439, art. 6; The

the collision, the night being light enough to discern the tow with- 1890. out the aid of the lights, held, the steamer colliding was liable, not- Ontario, 2 Low. 44; The Vesper, 9 withstanding the absence of lights. Fed. R. 574; The Narragansett, 11 The City of Troy, 9 Ben. 466; Cocks Fed. R. 919; The Manhassett, 34 V. The Tonawanda, 3 Fed. R. 588.

Fed. R. 408; United States v. Mil

A tug is bound to keep her col- ler, 26 Fed. R. 95; The Scotia, 14

ored lights

so as not to be obscured by her tow. Briggs v. Day, 21 Fed. R. 727; The Tug Conroy, 2

Fed. R. 785.

Wall. 170; The Wanata, 95 U. S. 600; The Huntsville, 8 Blatch. 228.

3 Rule 6, Regulations for the Navigation of the Great Lakes. See page 72.

not exceeding twenty feet above the hull, a white light in a lantern so constructed as to show a clear, uniform and unbroken light, visible all around the horizon at a distance of at least one mile. A vessel of one hundred and fifty feet or upwards in length, when at anchor, shall carry in the foreward part of the vessel, at a height of not less than twenty and not exceeding forty feet above the hull, one such light, and at or near the stern of the vessel, and at such a height that it shall be not less than fifteen feet lower than the forward light, another such light. The length of a vessel shall be deemed to be the length appearing in her certificate of registry."

The international rule of 1885 is as follows: "A ship, whether a steam-ship or a sailing-ship, when at anchor, shall carry, where it can best be seen, but at a height not exceeding twenty feet above the hull, a white light in a globular lantern of not less than eight inches in diameter, and so constructed as to show a clear, uniform and unbroken light, visible all around the horizon at a distance of at least one mile." 2

The rule for the Great Lakes is substantially like the international rule of 1890.3

Irrespective of statutory requirements, and before their enactment, the general custom of the sea required a vessel at anchor, where other vessels were liable to pass, to keep an anchor-light burning of such brilliancy as to inform approaching vessels of its situation. The custom of the sea required this to be a bright light, visible all around the horizon, hung high enough in the rigging to be seen at a distance sufficient to give ample warning to approaching vessels.

The law of congress of 18645 expressed the rule that had been observed by the maritime world for a long period prior to its enactment, requiring a bright light to be exhibited

126 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 11. 223 U. S. Stat. at L. 439, art. 8. 3 Rule 9, Rules for Navigation of Great Lakes. See page 72.

4 The Brig James Grey v. The Ship John Fraser, 21 How. 184. "U.S. Rev. Stat., sec. 4233, rule 10.

by vessels anchored in roadsteads or fair-ways. Where, however, the vessel was anchored out of the usual course of vessels, and in a situation that the approach of other vessels might not reasonably be expected, no light was required.1

The term "fair-way," as used in the above rule, was intended to mean navigable water on which vessels of commerce habitually move; and as to smaller vessels it meant any situation on navigable waters where vessels might reasonably be expected to pass. The acts of congress of March 3, 1885, and of August 19, 1890,3 modify this rule, and require all vessels when at anchor to exhibit a clear bright light; thus making it obligatory upon vessels to show an anchor-light regardless of the place where anchored. Under the former rules, the material question was as to whether the vessel was anchored in a fair-way, in such a position that she might reasonably expect other vessels to pass. Under the modified rules no such question can arise. A vessel, anchoring and failing to exhibit an anchor-light of the character prescribed by law, takes the attending risk, and, in the absence of fault on the part of the approaching vessel, cannot recover for damages by collision resulting from failare to exhibit such a light. A ship lying at anchor is bound to keep her anchor-light burning and visible. It is no justification for the omission of a light to show that it had been lighted, but that it had gone out, and this fact was unknown; or that it was down for cleaning or temporary repairs, if a collision occurs during its absence. It is the duty of the vessel to provide other lamps to take the place of those needing repairs and to see that they are constantly burning. This requirement under the former rule would apply only when anchored in a fair-way, but under the revised rules it applies to vessels whenever and wherever at anchor. An exception seems to have been made by the courts in the

Culbertson

v. Southern Belle,

18 How. 584; L'Hommedieu v. The Mischief, 39 Fed. R. 510.

2 The Oliver, 22 Fed. R. 848.

323 U. S. Stat. at L. 439; 26 U. S. Stat. at L. 320.

case of a vessel not anchored, but fastened to the shore at a place set apart for mooring vessels.1

It is no justification for the absence of an anchor-light to show that the custom of the port dispenses with such exhibition, statutory requirements and general maritime usage being superior to the laws of local custom, especially where ordinary prudence requires the exhibition of such lights. If the absence of the statutory lights does not contribute to the collision, and this is clearly shown, recovery may he had against the offending vessel, guilty of reckless navigation, for her proportion of the loss. It must, however, be clearly established that such omission did not contribute to the injury.3

I Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 18 How. 584; L'Hommedieu v. The Mischief, 39 Fed. R. 510. 2 The Lion, 1 Spr. 40; Kelly v. Cunningham, 1 Cal. 365.

3 The Scottish Bride v. Kelly, 1 Pa. L. Gaz. 289; Hoffman v. Union Ferry Co., 47 N. Y. 176; White Hall Transp. Co. v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 51 N. Y. 369.

Where a vessel had anchored at night in the harbor of New York and exhibited a light sufficient to give ample warning of its situation, though not such as was prescribed by the statute of the state of New York, it was held that her failure to comply with the statute in that particular was not a bar to a recovery for an injury received by collision. Steamer New York v. Rea, 18 How. 223.

Where a vessel anchored in a narrow channel in the track of other vessels without displaying any light, and without having any lookout, it was held liable for all damages sustained by a vessel col

liding with it. Cohen v. The Mary T. Wilder, Taney, 567.

Where a vessel had anchored in a fog, but had failed to keep a vigilant watch, it was held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in case of collision with a steamer running at too great a speed, and the damages were divided. The Bristol, 6 Ben. 470; 10 Blatch. 537.

Where a steamboat was pursuing her usual course by night in ordinary weather, and ran into a vessel lying at anchor without displaying an anchor-light, the steamboat was held not liable when it appeared she reversed as soon as the other was visible. The Westfield, 38 Fed. R. 366.

A bark was anchored on a dark night in the "ballast grounds" of the harbor of Port Townsend, in a course usually traveled by vessels entering the same, although not within the legally reserved fairway. A lantern suspended in the rigging failed to give a steady

Sec. 34. Anchoring in an improper place.-There is nothing in the international regulations requiring vessels to avoid anchoring anywhere; and unless the local regulations specify particular anchorage grounds, a vessel may lawfully anchor wherever desired. But where a vessel anchors in a roadstead or crowded harbor, the duty it owes to other vessels to guard against accident is increased in proportion to the exposed position it occupies. When the anchorage is a dangerous one by reason of the presence of other vessels, a greater degree of vigilance is required than if anchored in a remote and less open situation, where the probability of collision is less.

The Lady Frank

Where a vessel was anchored in

Although a vessel is anchored on grounds forbidden by local regulations, wilful negligence, or negligence of so gross a character as to amount to wilful negligence, on the part light, and was the only light to she is not seen. give warning of her presence. A lin, 2 Low. 220. steamer entered the harbor at full speed and collided with the bark, which was not discovered by the lookout of the steamer. It was held that both vessels were guilty of negligence; the bark for not showing

a proper light, and the

the Patapsco river, out of the usual course of navigation, but did not display the required lights and had no watch, the weather being foggy, and was run into by a steamer hav

ing no lookout, both were held

steamer for entering the harbor at at fault. The Cambridge v. The too great a rate of speed; the dam- Omega, 5 Hughes, 487. ages were divided. Fristad v. The

Premier, 51 Fed. R. 766.

Where a ferry-boat, far out of her course in a fog, collided with a

The schooner Foam, while lying sloop at anchor, but showing no at anchor in the harbor of New, lights and keeping no watch, where Haven, was run down at night by the sloop gave no fog signals and

the

steamer C.

Held, that the

disregarded the ferry-boat's whis

schooner was wholly in fault for tle, both were held at fault. The the collision in having no anchor- Lydia, 4 Ben. 523; 11 Blatch. 415. light properly burning. The Erastus Corning, 25 Fed. R. 572.

Where a steamer collided with a vessel at anchor in a fair-way or

A vessel at anchor is not bound roadstead of a navigable river, to take any active measures to get with no anchor-light burning and out of the way of an approaching with no lookout, the vessel was vessel under command, in broad held to be wholly at fault. Byer

daylight,

nor to hail her, unless

the anchored vessel discovers that

v. The Nurenberg, 3 Hughes, 505.