Sec. 128. Excessive length of tow-line.-It is negligence for a tug to tow a vessel, and for a vessel to consent to be towed, on a hawser that is so long that it is unmanageable, and liable to sudden sheer, especially when navigating a narrow channel, where the presence of shipping may reasonably be expected. It is not sufficient that convenience and speed are promoted by length of line. The rights of passing shipping are superior to any inconveniences that may arise from abbreviating a dangerous length of line. It is not negligence under all circumstances to tow a vessel with a great length of line; and, to render either the

tug or tow liable, it must be shown by a fair preponderance of proof that the collision resulted from such dangerous length of line.1 Under all circumstances, however, where the control of the tow is rendered difficult or uncertain by reason of the length of line, great vigilance is required of the tug in situations of difficulty or danger.?

Where a tug is proceeding in foggy or thick weather with a tow on a long hawser, prudence requires the tow to take such means for its safety as it would were it independent and alone. While there is no statute that in definite terms requires this, yet the general maritime law requires a vessel navigating in thick weather to give reasonable notice of its situation; and where it is at such a distance from its tug that a passing vessel may be likely to regard it as being independent, there is every reason why it should be required to use fog-signals. And where the circumstances are such as to make it proper, a tug having a vessel in tow, on a line of such length that the tow is obscured by the thickness of the weather, ought to notify passing vessels of the fact.

3

1 The Ashford, 44 Fed. R. 703. 2 The Percy Birdsall, 55 Fed. R. 683.

A sailing-vessel lay at anchor well over to the western side of the Delaware river, where there was sufficient width of channel, with anchor-light properly set. A tug with a vessel attached to a long tow-line was coming up the westerly side of the river, and collided with the anchored vessel. Held, that both tug and tow were responsible, the tug for running too near the westerly side of the channel, and approaching unnecessarily near the anchored ship; that the fact of having the tow by so long a hawser imposed upon the tug and tow unusual vigilance. The Percy Birdsall v. The Inver

To

trossocks and The James McCauley, 55 Fed. R. 683.

It is negligence for a tug to tow a vessel through the draw of a bridge with a hawser thirty-five fathoms or more in length, at night. Booge v. L'Engle, 57 Fed. R. 306.

In The Josephine B., 58 Fed. R. 813, it was held that it was not negligence for a tug to take a schooner through Hell Gate on a hawser two hundred and fifty feet in length, in the absence of any special regulation to the contrary.

The Peshtigo, 25 Fed. R. 488; The Ludvig Holsberg, 36 Fed. R. 914; The City of Alexandria, 31 Fed. R. 427.

The Jesse Williamson, Jr., 17 Blatch. 106.

tow a vessel in a thick fog on a hawser of great length across a fair-way, in a harbor where the passage of shipping is constant, is such negligence as will render one or both liable. The international rules of 1890 provide that a vessel towed may give a signal of three blasts of its fog-horn in succession, namely, one prolonged blast followed by two short blasts. By these rules the vessel towed is prohibited from using any other signal. The use of the fog-signal is not made peremptory by the rule, further than good seamanship would require the use of such signals.

Sec. 129. Right of way. While a tug and tow are ordinarily considered as one, and that a steam-vessel, subject to the general sailing regulations, yet as between a tug incumbered with a heavily-laden tow, and a steam-vessel whose movements are unhampered, the tug and tow have the right of way and the other should avoid them. As between a tug with a heavy tow and a sailing-vessel, there are exceptions to the general rule requiring it to keep out of the way of the latter; as where a vessel with the wind free, with plenty of

1 The City of Alexandria, 31 Fed. R. 427. In this case it was held to be negligence for a vessel to be towed across a fair-way in a heavy fog on a line four hundred to six hundred feet in length.

226 U. S. Stat. at L. 320, art. 15, F. A tug having two scows in tow on a two hundred foot hawser proceeded down a river where another tow was lying waiting for its tug to move. The tug neglect ing to shorten its tow-line, the first of the scows struck the tow inflicting injuries. It was held that the tug was negligent in attempting to pass where there was not plenty of sea-room, without shortening its hawser, especially where the presence of others was

known. The Tug Sears, 8 Fed. R. 365.

Where a steamer on a clear night met, on converging courses, a tug with two barges in tow on long lines, and the steamer, not discovering the forward tow until well on to it, stopped and backed and came into collision with the second tow, held, that the steamer was negligent for attempting to cross between the tug and the forward barge, even though it supposed the barge was an independent vessel. The Rhode Island, 8 Ben. 50.

3 The Civilito. 6 Ben. 309.

4 The Brothers, 30 Fed. R. 75; The Ontario, 4 Pa. L. J. 312; The Mayumba, 21 Fed. R. 476.

sea-room, meets a tug with a heavy tow, the sailing-vessel, being better able to control its movements than the other, is required to keep out of the way. It may with propriety be said that the meeting of a tug and tow with a sailing-vessel, under such circumstances, is an exception to the general rule requiring a steam-vessel to avoid a sailing-vessel, and falls within the rule of special circumstances rendering a departure from the general rule justifiable.' Tugs with heavy and cumberous tows are not held to that degree of strictness in observing the general rules of navigation that vessels unincumbered are.2

A vessel with a tow passing through a narrow and dangerous channel, with the current or tide, has the right of way over a vessel or tow passing against it; and it is the duty of the latter to remain below, while the other passes, where the channel is so narrow as to make passage abreast dangerous.3

Sec. 130. Obstructing narrow channels.-The navigable highways of commerce are free to the common use of all, and the regulations concerning their use are as liberal as their use is universal. A vessel under ordinary circumstances is not obliged to delay its own movements to facilitate the movements or comply with the convenience of another; at the same time the law requires the navigable channels to be used so that the greatest good may result to the greatest number of persons. An obstruction of navigation by a vessel is not of itself actionable unless wilful and unnecessarily continued. In the absence of local regulations there is nothing to prevent a tug to proceed with its tow, however large, notwithstanding it may obstruct the passage of others and cause inconvenience and delay. Where a tug with its tow finds it necessary for its passage through a narrow channel to do so to the disadvantage of others, pru

The Marion W. Page, 36 Fed. R. 329.

3 The Osceola, 50 Fed. R. 326; The Dasori, 47 Fed. R. 330; The T. W.

2 The Manhassett, 34 Fed. R. 408. Snook, 49 Fed. R. 686.

dence requires it to seasonably warn approaching vessels of the dangerous obstruction, and the passage should be as speedy as circumstances permit. In the absence of necessity a tug should not occupy more of a narrow channel than is absolutely required, when by so doing the progress of another is impeded. A tug with a large tow, in navigating narrow channels, is required to use extraordinary precaution, especially when its tow occupies a large part of the channel.2

Sec. 131. Making up tow. It is the duty of a tug in making up a tow to so arrange the various members constituting it that it can be handled with safety to them and to shipping with which it is liable to come in contact. When the master of the tow has no voice in its arrangement, it is the duty of the tug to see that its members are securely attached and that its lines are sufficient for the purpose, irrespective of the question as to whether they are furnished by the tow or by the tug. Presumably from the nature of its business the officers of the tug are better qualified to judge of the sufficiency and character of the lines than is the tow, and the law imposes upon it the duty of seeing that they are sufficient. While the tug is responsible for the negligent arrangement it makes of its members, when under command of their several officers, the various members of the tow may also be liable in damages where they consent. to an arrangement so negligent in its character that it should be observable by persons of ordinary experience in such matters. But where the arrangement is not so defect

1 The Blue Bonnet, 10 Fed. R. 150; known to be unreliable and subThe Swan, 19 Fed. R. 455. ject to sudden sheer; and the tug

2 The Lucy D., 21 Fed. R. 142; was also held liable for negligently The Brinton, 50 Fed. R. 581.

The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665. The Nettie, 35 Fed. R. 615. In this case it was held that a canal-boat was negligent in permitting itself to be towed with a long line when its steering was

placing the tow on the end of a long hawser, when in a situation where it was liable to produce collision, and for keeping it there when it was known that its steering was uncertain and unreliable.