The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 870

                                
250 FEDERAL REPORTER

could and should have so navigated as to avoid collision one with the
other, and that both are reprehensible for failure to do so. There was
a smooth sea, the tide not running sufficiently strong to materially af-
fect the movements of the vessels, light wind, in broad daylight,
and save from the dangers incident to navigation at this point, where
the channel curves, and the harbor generally is, and was at the time,
crowded with other shipping, there was nothing to cause this collision,
save the failure of one or other of the vessels to navigate with the de-
gree of care and prudence required. It is entirely manifest that, if
each vessel did just what in effect both admit doing, that is, each pur-
sued the even tenor of its way without paying serious attention to the
presence and movements of the other, that they would almost inev-
itably come together; and this, in the judgment of the court, is pre-
cisely what they did, with the result that might reasonably have
been anticipated. The down-going tug and tow sought to pass, with-
out materially changing its course, on account of the outcoming ship
from the slip, or reducing its speed, and the steamer launched forth
backwards from the slip into the main channel in apparent disregard
of the rights of the down-going tug and tow.
The Crisfield, having regard to the channel, the deep-water cut be-
ing only 600 feet wide, the bend at or near the point of collision,
and the presence of shipping on the port side of the channel, some of
it swinging out into the channel, must have known that it was at least
dangerous to have attempted to pass down at the speed of 7 miles an
hour, with a tow of over 1,000 feet long (the tug being over 100 feet,
the hawser some 600 feet, and the carfloat 350 long), operated in vio-
lation of law and of the harbor rules and regulations; and to have
attempted to do so, with this large hip apparently backing across its
course, by giving to her passing signals, and receiving what it deemed
an assent thereto, with the outcoming vessel in full view, and continu-
ing its movement across the tow's course, was inexcusable. Indeed, she
should not have attempted to pass over this course on a hawser of
this length at all; the safer, if not the only safe, course being for the
Crisfield to have made fast alongside of the carfloat, where it could
promptly and effectively have controlled the carfloat's movements, and
at least its hawser should have been most materially shortened. Rules
and Regulations Board of Harbor Commissioners,  18; Act Cong.
May 28, 1908, c. 212, . 14, 35 Stat. L. 428 (Comp. St. 1916,  7969),
and regulations duly promulgated pursuant to the statute of Decem-
ber 7, 1908; United States v. Transportation Co., 184 U. S. 247, 22
Sup. Ct. 350, 46 L Ed. 520; The Jamestown, 114 Fed. 596; The Man-
hattan (D. C.) 181 Fed. 229, 233; The Margaret J. Sanford (D. C.)
203 Fed. 331; The Teaser, 246 Fed. 219, 222, -  C. C. A. -.
The Dorset, on the other hand, should not be excused from fault
under the circumstances of this case. She had notice of the presence
of the tug and tow; she was advised of what the latter purposed
doing; and she should not have continued backing out into the stream
without in some manner recognizing the existing conditions, and
certainly she should not have sounded the two blast signal, which
misled the other vessel; and if that signal only meant, as claimed by