that the one sailing free has the right to rely on the other to keep her course. Each may rely on the other to perform its duty until it is seen that collision is imminent, when such measures may be adopted as the exigencies of the case seem to require. Where a close-hauled vessel has kept her course until there is imminent risk of collision, a wrong movement on her part in endeavoring to avoid collision, caused by the negligent action of the other, will not subject her to damages, unless it is clearly shown that there was time after the risk of collision becomes apparent to avoid it, and such measures were not taken as good seamanship, under the circumstances, would require.' The primary duty of a vessel close-hauled is to hold her course and not to deviate therefrom so as to interfere with the one sailing free and endeavoring to avoid her."

The right of way given by the statute to a close-hauled vessel when meeting one sailing free does not warrant the former in disregarding any means the situation offers for avoiding a collision, there being no absolute right of way at the peril of collision. It is the duty of both, in the presence of immediate danger, to do what they can to avoid it, and they are liable for damages in failing to do so.3 Slight deviation from its course, on the part of a close-hauled vessel,

1 The Havre, 16 Blatch. 427. 2 The A. R. Weeks, 26 Fed. R. 654; The Argus, Olc. Adm. 304.

Where a schooner with the wind aft attempted to go astern of another close-hauled on the port tack, and the close-hauled vessel at the same time came about, causing collision, it was held that the closehauled vessel was in fault for not keeping her course. The Richard R. Higgins, 1 Low. 290. Where two vessels were approaching each other, one free and one close-hauled, it was held that the first must keep out of the way of the other, and the close-hauled

ship must keep her course; and a luff on her part which might be only an error if she otherwise had obeyed the rule, became a fault if there was failure to otherwise fulfill the requirements of the law. The David Dudley, 11 Fed. R. 522; Kirk v. The Osseo, 8 Rep. 328.

In a collision between sailingvessels meeting nearly end on, one having the wind free, the other close-hauled, it was held that the vessel having the wind free was bound to keep out of the way. The Robert Healey, 51 Fed. R. 462; The Havilah, 1 U. S. App. 138.

3 The Nonpareille, 33 Fed. R. 524.

will not subject it to damages, especially where the deviation is in the nature of a luff and its tendency is to avoid rather than promote collision; but where an unnecessary luff on the part of a close-hauled vessel contributes to the collision, the rule is different, and she is liable in damages.2 The same is true of a slight change of course by falling off the wind. Where the change is slight, and does not promote the collision, no liability can arise therefrom; but where the falling off is unnecessary, and contributes to the collision, damages will be awarded. Where, however, the change of course occurs in extremis, the courts will excuse a

wrong maneuver, made under sudden impulse, in the presence of danger, the vessel in other respects having complied with the law.

Sec. 57. Both close-hauled.-"A vessel which is closehauled on the port tack shall keep out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled on the starboard tack."1

The courts are very zealous in requiring a strict observance of this rule as well as the preceding one. The requirements of both vessels are mutual. The duty of the vessel on the port tack, close-hauled, to give way, is no greater than that imposed upon the one on the starboard tack to hold her course." To relieve a vessel on the starboard tack from liability for failing to keep her course, she must clearly show that no substantial change was made until it became apparent that a collision was inevitable, and that the change was made to escape apparent injury. The law requires her, however, to take advantage of what other circumstances she can to avoid collision. A change of course is required under circumstances where good seamanship would suggest such action. A vessel on the starboard tack is not justified in running out her tack, where by doing so a collision is precipitated which can be avoided by a change. A strict compliance with the statute cannot be set up as a defense by a wrong-doer, as it offers

1 International Rules, 1885, art. 14; 23 U. S. Stat. at L. 441; Rules for the Great Lakes, rule 16(b); 26 U. S. Stat. at L. 320; Reg. 1890, art. 16. 2 The F. W. Gifford, 7 Biss. 249; The Essex, 50 Fed. R. 586.

3 The Richard R. Higgins, 1 Low. 290.

The Lady Anne, 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 670; The Pangussett, 9 Fed. R. 109.

verging courses on the same tack, and the convergence is caused by the ability of one to lie nearer the wind than the other, the latter must give way. The Clement, 1 Sprague, 257.

Where a vessel sailing on the starboard tack crosses the track of another sailing in the opposite direction on the port tack, and the latter fails to fall off and give the

5 The French v. The Victoria, 10 right of way, the former, on finding Phila. 292.

Where two sailing-vessels, both close-hauled, are sailing upon con

that collision is imminent, is justified in starboarding and letting her main sheet run out in order to les

no protection where the letter of the law has been complied with rather than its intent.

Sec. 58. Both sailing free.-"Where both are running free with the wind on different sides, the vessel which has the wind free on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other. When both are running free with the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel to leeward. A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way of the other ves

sel." "1

sen the force of the collision. The probably produce a collision. The Eliza S. Potter, 31 Fed. R. 687. Ann Caroline, 2 Wall. 538. Two schooners were sailing in general direction closeon the port tack. The

the same hauled

Where two schooners were closehauled on the starboard tack, and one of them came about on the

swifter vessel passed the other to other tack and collided with the

one still on the starboard tack, it was held that it was the duty of

the leeward and then came about on the starboard tack and was struck before she had fairly gath- the one on the port tack to give ered headway. There was sea-room

It was held

way even though she had but

Essex, 50 Fed. R. 586.

The

Where two schooners were sail

enough for the one rounding to to barely started on her tack. have kept her course. that the one keeping her course had the right to assume that the ing in the same general direction other would beat out her tack, and close-hauled on the port tack, and that for failure to do so she was

liable.

The Robert B. King, 50

one of them being swifter than the other passed to windward and

Fed. R. 781; The Mary Lymburner, came about on the starboard tack,

id.

a rule of the sea, of long

It is standing, board

that a vessel on the startack, close-hauled, has a

and was struck before she had gathered headway, there being searoom enough, it was held that the

vessel on the port tack had the

as to produce collision was negli

right to continue on her course right to assume that the one comwhen meeting another close-hauled ing about would beat out her tack, on the port tack, and the latter and that for coming about so soon must give way or be answerable for the consequences. The rule, gence. The Mary Lymburner, 50 however, does not apply when the Fed. R. 781; The Alaska, 7 Ben. latter is to the windward, and 183; The Nonpareille, 33 Fed. R. 524. ahead of her in a narrow channel,

where

a strict observance would

1 Rules 1885, art. 14; 23 U. S. Stat. at L. 441; Rules for the Great Lakes,

Where two vessels are approaching each other and both have the wind free, the vessel on the port tack must give way and each pass to the right.1 The same rule governs vessels on the wind and approaching each other when it is doubtful which is to the windward. Where two vessels are approaching each other and there is probability of collision, it is the duty of the vessel on the port tack to give way at once without stopping to consider whether the other may not be a point or two to leeward.

For the safety and protection of life and the great interests that are at stake in the navigation of the great waterways, exceptions to general rules, if there are any, must be clear, definite and intelligible. The courts will not permit the general rule, that, where two vessels are meeting, each shall go to the right, to be violated by allowing the one on the port tack to show that she was a possible point or two to windward of the other, unless she is at such a distance to windward that the fact is open and apparent to both vessels, and so far that the risk of collision would be enhanced by her falling off and passing port to port. It is her duty to observe the general rule and pass port to port.

Sec. 59. Meeting end on.-"If two sail-vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall be put to port so that each may pass on the port side of the other." 2

This rule is undoubtedly repealed by the act of 1885 so far as the high seas and coast waters are concerned, but in respect to the inland waters of the country not navigable by

rule 16; Rules 1890, art. 17; 26 U.S. Stat. at L. 320.

1 St. John v. Paine, 10 How. 579; The Thomas Martin, 3 Blatch. 517, 519; Law v. The Rolf, 47 Fed. R. 220.

Where both vessels are going in the same course in a narrow channel the one to windward is to keep away.

2 U. S. Rev. Stat., sec. 4233, rule 16; The Maggie J. Smith v. Walker, 123 U. S. 349; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185; The Dexter, 23 Wall. 69; The Sylvester Hale, 6 Ben. 523; The Nichols, 7 Wall. 656; The Clifton, 14 Fed. R. 586; The Adolph, 4 Fed. R. 730.