In the recent decision of the supreme court in the case of The United States v. Rogers,' the question as to the status of the great lakes has been authoritatively settled, that they are high seas. By treaty stipulation between the United States and Great Britain the boundary line between the two countries runs through the center of the lakes and waters forming the boundaries between the two countries; so that all that portion of the great lakes and connecting rivers on the American side are waters of the United States. Though these waters are high seas they still are American waters, and as such are subject to the inspectors' rules. These rules do not supersede any positive statutory rule, and must always be held subordinate to an act of congress on the same subject, which furnishes a paramount rule of decision whenever the supervisors' rules are not applicable.3 When made within the scope of authority, the supervisors' rules have all the force of statutory rules, in so far as they do not conflict with statutory regulations.* Sec. 21. Local regulations. Municipal ordinances: Municipal corporations, when authorized by the state, have the right to make rules and regulations of a police nature in respect to the occupancy and navigation of waters within their limits. They have the right to prescribe at what wharf a vessel may lie and for how long a period, where she may unload or take on certain cargoes, where she may anchor in the harbor and for what length of time, what description of light she may display at 1150 U. S. 249. 2 The Atlas, 4 Ben. 27; The Greenpoint, 31 Fed. R. 231; The John King, 49 Fed. R. 464; The B. B. Saunders, 19 Fed. R. 118; The Morning Star, 4 Biss. 62. S. 31. The Plymouth Rock, 26 Fed. R. 40; The supervising inspectors' rules are not repealed by the act of congress of March 3, 1885, adopting the The City of Washington, 92 U. revised international regulations. United States v. Greenman, 37 Fed. R. 64. 4 The Dentz, 29 Fed. R. 525; The Grand Republic, 16 Fed. R. 424; night, and other regulations of a police nature; and every vessel entering these waters is bound to take notice of these regulations and conform to them. Admiralty courts will observe such regulations when shown, if not contrary to the laws of congress on the subject, and are of a reasonable nature. The extent of their applicability the court will determine on considering the subject-matter before it.1 Rules made by municipal authority governing the navigation of waters within its limits are to be taken as evidence of what the duties of vessels are navigating such waters; and although the mere breach of one or any of them will not be sufficient reason for holding a vessel liable in damages for a collision, if following the regulation rules, yet if that breach occasions or contributes to the collision, the existence of the rule will afford the best reason for holding the ship violating the ordinance guilty of a breach of duty.2 3 Sec. 22. Usage.- Where well-known usage has sanctioned a particular method of navigating local waters, it is competent for the court to admit evidence of such usage; and if it be proved that the matter is regulated by general usage, the court may in its discretion hold the vessel to conform to such usage. When in any case a disputed question of navigation arises in regard to which the general sailing regulations make no provision, the evidence of experts to show a general usage regulating the matter is admissible. The party relying upon a particular custom must, however, establish the usage by clear proof, in order to justify a departure from the general rules of navigation, as the courts look with 1 The Palmetto, 1 Biss. 140; Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 1 Newb. 461; Harbormaster v. Sutherland, 47 Ala. 511; The General Clinch, 21 How. 184; The E. C. Scranton, 3 Blatch. 50; Griswold v. Sharpe, 2 Cal. 17; The Grand Republic, 16 Fed. R. 424. 2 The Raithwaite Hall, 30 L. T. (N. S.) 233; The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 3 The City of Washington, 92 U. S. 4 The City of Washington, 92 U. S. 31; St. John v. Paine, 10 How. 557. H disfavor upon any departure from the rules of established usage and custom.' Independent of statutory provisions, the managers of vessels may, as between themselves, make regulations for the passage of their boats, and may waive their rights under the statute, and adopt a different mode for their navigation; and where particular methods have been agreed upon, the parties thereto are bound to observe the same.2 Sec. 23. State laws.- A state has no power to regulate navigation between the several states; but where a state leg1 The Niagra, 3 Blatch. 37; The among vessel-men navigating the Washington, 3 Blatch. 276. Moore v. Mass, 14 IIL 106, 111; The Milwaukee, 1 Brown, 313; The Thomas P. Way, 30 Fed. R. 207. Where a well-known usage has sanctioned a particular course for a steamer navigating a river, and by reason of obstructions she is obliged to deviate from the customary course, she is bound to resume the accustomed course as soon after deviating therefrom as possible. Failing to do so, and continuing her course directly into that which an approaching steamer is coming, she is not entitled to recover for damages when the approaching steamer did all in her power to avert the collision. The John Hasbrouck, 93 U. S. 405. Where ferry-boats plying between New York and Jersey City had a custom of their own as to right of way, in the event of collision the court held that the rules of the board of supervising inspectors did not apply. The Pavonia, 26 Fed. R. 106. In the case of The Indiana, 1 Abb. Adm. 330, the court found that there was no settled custom Hudson river requiring vessels anchoring over night to anchor within any particular limits as to the shore, and that there was no custom enabling a steamboat navigating at night to dispense with any precautions while running in mid-stream she should employ if running nearer shore. Where it was shown that it was the general custom of steamboats in New York harbor to run in thick weather, the court refused to hold that both vessels were in fault so as to justify an apportionment of the damages. The Sylph, 4 Blatch. 24. It being the usage in Chicago harbor for pleasure boats to carry a single white light forward of the mast, where it could be seen at any point forward of the quarter, a vessel-master familiar with the waters of the harbor, and the fact that such boats carried but one light, is estopped from saying that a collision with such a pleasure boat was caused by its failure to carry the regular lights. The Gazelle, 33 Fed. R. 301. islates on a subject involving the interests of its citizens, the fact that such legislation trenches upon a subject within the federal power to regulate does not of itself render such legislation void, if no law of congress has been passed upon the same subject opposed to the state legislation;1 and until action is taken by congress, the legislature of a state may make laws relating generally to the rights, duties and liabilities of its citizens, in relation to the navigation of waters within its borders, so long as they are not directed against commerce or any federal regulations; and they are of binding force within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, even though they may indirectly and remotely affect the operations of foreign or interstate commerce.? When, however, an act of the legislature of a state prescribes a regulation of navigation repugnant to and inconsistent with the regulations of congress, the state laws must give way.3 When a state statute undertakes to impose any greater burden upon non-residents of the state than is borne by its own citizens, in relation to the navigation of a river running through its borders, such legislation is void; but where its citizens are equally subject with those of other states to any inconvenience following such legislation, and no law of congress interferes, state laws on the subject are valid.1 State statutes requiring the exhibition of lights under certain circumstances, although valid as internal police regulations, are not applicable to vessels engaged in general I The State v. P. & S. Coal Co., 6 So. R. 220; Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. St. 399; The Clover, 1 Low. 342; McReynolds v. Smallhouse, 8 Bush (Ky.), 447; Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. (U. S.) 245; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99. 2 Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99. 3 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69; Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259, 275. Where congress legislates, it does not repeal, but suspends the opera tion of state laws upon the subject; and when the act of congress is repealed, or so modified as to permit the operation of the state law, it again becomes operative and valid. Joseph Henderson v. Spofford, 59 N. Y. 131. 4 Hutchinson v. Thompson, 9 Ohio, 52; Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288; Green & B. R. Nav. Co. v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 10 S. W. R. 6.; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 20. commerce; and a foreign vessel having lights within the requirement of the international rules cannot be held for failing to show a light conforming to local statutes.' Sec. 24. Duty after collision.-The act of congress of September 4, 1890,2 provides "that in every case of collision between two vessels it shall be the duty of the master or person in charge of each vessel, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to his own vessel, crew and passengers (if any), to stay by the other vessel until he has ascertained that she has no need of further assistance, and to render to the other vessel, her master, crew and passengers (if any), such assistance as may be practicable, and as may be The The New York v. Rea, 18 How. 223; Snow v. Hill, 20 How. 543. statute of New York enacted in 1826 and continued in the Revised Statutes, which requires every steamboat navigating the river and lakes of that state in the night-time to carry and show two good lights, one near the bow and the other near the stern, was held valid and obligatory upon all such responsible for the accident. Aldrich v. The W. H. Beaman, 45 Fed. R. 125. A state law which gives a remedy at law in a state court by attachment in rem against the vessel itself for any tort committed while on the navigable waters of the United States within the limits of the state is in conflict with sec tion 9 of the judiciary act of 1789, giving exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty to the district courts. Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., 12 Vessels whether navigating from place to place within the state or from foreign states under a coasting license, notwithstand- Fed. R. 296. ing the subsequent enactment of Congress in 1838 requiring every miralty jurisdiction on the federal steamboat navigating at night to courts in cases of torts. The con carry Fitch 492. One or more signal lights. Wher cause re a collision occurred be- law of New York providing that and State statutes cannot confer ad stitution of the United States confers all jurisdiction in admiralty matters, and the states can neither enlarge nor decrease it. The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. R. 137. 226 Stat. at L. 425; The Kenil the East river between the Battery worth, 64 Fed. R. 890; The Germanica, 21 L. T. (N. S.) 44; The Thuringia, 41 L. J. Adm. 44; The Queen of the Orwell, 11 N. R. 499. navigated Blackwell's Island shall be |