Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/926

 ^14 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and crew of his boat, and states affirmatively that the collision was caused by the negligence, want of skill, and the improper conduct of the officers and crew having charge of the Can- non. Many depositions have been taken by each party, and, as is usual in such cases, there is much conflict in the etatements of the witnesses. The Cannon was the fastest and passing boat ; it was, therefore, her duty to pass the Mor- gan at a safe distance. In considering whether or not it was a safe distance to pass, the officers of the Cannon had a right to asstime that the Morgan was well equipped, and was being managed and run with ordinary eare and skill. This being assumed, the rule is that the approaching and passing boat takes upon herself the perU of determining what is a safe distance in passing another boat going in the same direction, and must bear the consequences of a misjudgment in that respect. �Judge Betts, in considering the duty of an approaching vessel in the case of the Steamer Rhode Island, Olcott, 515, says; "The approaching vessel, when she has command, of her movement, takes upon herself the peril of determining whether a safe passage renoiains for her beside the one pre- ceding her, and must bear the consequences of misjudgment in that respect." See, also, Oceanus, 12 Blatchf. 430; Whit- ridge v. Dill, 23 Howard, 454. �There is another rule which is material in this connection, and that is : after the boat which is being passed has replied to the passing boat's signal in the affirmative, she is bound to continue in her then course, if it can be done without im- mediate danger to herself or other boats that may be in or alOng the river. See Eules 22, 23, 24, and section 4233, Eev. St., and Pilot Rules for Western Ei vers. No. 8; The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 202. �In this case there was a collision, and I should therefore assume the officers of the Cannon had misjudged the proper distance in passing the Morgan, unless they show by the evi- dence a want of reasonable care or skill upon the part of those in charge of the Morgan. The burden of proving this isupon the libellant. If, however, he proves that the Morgan, after ��� �