If two steamboats approach, they must go to the right of each other. (n) As they can always move in any direction, they are

Emily, Olcott, Adm. 132; The Rebecca, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 847.

(i) The Jupiter, 8 Hagg. Adm. 820; The Ann Caroline, 2 Wallace, 688.

(j) Merchants Shipping Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, § 206.

(k) Chadwick v. City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. 6 Ellis & B. 771.

(l) 8 Kent Com. 280; Abbott on Ship. Am. ed. 284; Flanders on Mar. Law, 807, citing Marsh v. Blythe, 1 McCord, 860.

This case does not support the position for which it is cited.

(m) Whitridge v. Dill, 28 How. 448. This case virtually overrules the case of The Clement, Sprague, 267, 2 Curtis, C. C. 868.

(n) New York & Bait Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia, Ac. Steam Nav. Co. 22 How. 461; Union Steamship Co. v. New York, etc. S. Co. 24 How. 807; Wheeler v. The Eastern State, 2 Curtis, C. C. 141.

considered by law and usage as vessels which always have a free wind. Their extreme power and speed, lay upon them the obligation of extreme watchfulness. (o) 1 Many cases illustrate this; and where the laws of a place forbid a vessel from going * beyond a certain speed, in certain waters, it is no excuse, in case of collision, that the vessel was going within that speed, if its speed was then dangerous. (p) Nor is it an excuse that the vessel was under a contract with the government to carry the mails at that rate. (pp) The American rule permits a steamer to go either to the right or the left of a sailing vessel, which has the wind free; (q) the English statute rule requires her to go to the right, and we prefer the English rule. (r) It has been held in admiralty, that if the boats are running in opposition, both will be presumed to be in fault; at least prima facie. (s) And in Louisiana, evidence that a boat was racing, was admitted to show negligence on her part. (t)

It may be said in general, that rules and usages known and established, should be complied with, because every vessel has a right to expect that every other vessel will conform to them, and may govern herself accordingly. But a departure from a rule or usage, is not only justified when a compliance would be dangerous from special circumstances, but becomes a positive duty when such compliance would endanger or injure another vessel, and then a compliance with the rule or usage would be no excuse. (u)

It has been held in this country, that if two American vessels collide in a foreign port, the rights of the parties, even in an action in this country, will be determined by the law of the place

(o) The Europa, 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 664; The Bay State, Abbott, Adm. 286; McCready v. Goldsmith, 18 How. 80; Steamboat New York v. Rea, 18 How. 228; Rogers v. Steamer St Charles, 19 How. 108; Thomas Martin, The, 8 Blatchf. C. C. R. 617; Northern Indiana, The, id. 92.

(p) Netherland Steamboat Co. v. Styles, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 26.

(pp) James Adger, 3 Blatchf. C. C. B. 515.

(q) The Osprey, Sprague,246; Steamer Oregon v. Bocca, 18 How. 670.

(r) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, § 296.

(s) The Steamboat Boston, Olcott, Adm. 407.

(t) Myers v. Perry, 1 La. An. 872.

(u) Allen v. Mackay, Sprague, 219; The Vanderbilt, Abbott, Adm. 361; The Friends, 1 W. Bob. 478; The Commerce, 8 W. Bob. 287; The Steamer Oregon v. Rocca, 18 How. 572; Crockett v. Newton, id. 588.

1 The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214, declared that it is the imperative duty of a steamer to keep out of the way of a schooner sailing close-hauled in clear weather, and with unobstructed navigation. A tug and vessel connected by a hawser, being in contemplation of law one steam vessel, most keep out of the way of a sailing vessel. The Civilita and The Restless, 108 U. S. 699. But a sailing vessel will not be allowed to unnecessarily deviate from her coarse because a steamer is bound to look out for her. The Illinois, 108 U. S. 298.

where the collision took place. (v) But in England it is held, that in such a case, a party seeking a remedy has that which is given him by the law of the country in which that remedy is given and enforced. (w) It may be added that, in case of collision, it is unquestionably the duty of a ship which is without fault to render all possible assistance to the injured vessel, although that be in fault. (x)

In measuring the damages in case of collision, all di-rect and * immediate consequences are to be taken into consideration, with the losses and expenses flowing from them. (y)

In admiralty, the lien which a ship injured by a collision has upon the ship that causes the damage, continues long enough to give the injured party a reasonable opportunity to enforce his claim. (z)

We have hitherto considered only those questions arising between the colliding vessels. But questions may also come up between the owner of, and the shipper of the cargo in, the injured vessel; for the owner is responsible to the shipper, if the collision was caused merely by a fault of the master, but not if the collision were caused by a peril of the sea. (a) l If, however, it were caused by the fault of another vessel, wilfully, or by mere negligence, and without any violence of wind or tide, or any stress of navigation, we should doubt whether this would be either a peril of the sea, (b) or the act of God, (c) or would excuse the owner,

(v) Smith v. Condry, 1 How. 28.

(w) The Vernon, 1 W. Rob. 316; General Steam Nav. Co. v. Guillou, 11 M. & W. 877; The Johann Friederich, 1 W. Rob. 85.

(x) The Celt, 3 Hagg. Adm. 821.

(y) The Countess of Durham, 9 Month. Law Mag. (Notes of Cas.) 279; The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 7; The Pensher, 20 Law Rep. 471; Ralston v. The State Rights, Crabbe, 22; Steamboat Co. v. Whilldin, 4 Hairing. Del. 233. Compensation is allowed for the injury sustained by the detention of the vessel while repairing. Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. 111.

(z) That the lien exists, and that it will be enforced even though the vessel be in the hands of a bona fide purchaser, provided there are no laches on the part of the libellants, is now well established. The Bold Buccleugh, 8 W. Rob. 220; Harmer v. Bell, 7 Moore, P. C. 267; Edwards v. Steamer R. F. Stockton, Crabbe, 680. But this lien, like any other in admiralty, may be lost by a delay to enforce it. The Admiral, 18 Law Reporter, 91.

(a) Buller v. Fisher, 8 Esp. 67.

(b) Marsh v. Blythe, 1 McCord, 800.

(c) Mershon v. Hobensack, 2 Zab. 372.

1 Where goods were injured by a collision in which both vessels were in fault, and had a common owner, notwithstanding the bill of lading excepted liability for "collision" and "accidents, loss, or damage from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilots, master, mariners, or other servants of the company, in navigating the ship," the carrier was held liable to the shipper, in Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands, etc. Co. 9 Q. B. D. 118.

whether a bill of lading was given or not. It has been intimated, however, that a collision caused by no fault, nor an act of God, or any inevitable accident, is nevertheless, in itself, a peril of the sea. (d)

Cases arising from collision are very frequent in the courts having jurisdiction of them. In our note we give the most interesting among the recent cases. (dd)