vessel as a deserter, which resulted in his being placed thereon in the custody of the master, where he said he desired to remain and proceed upon the voyage. On the 10th inst., on the petition of Peter Grant, a writ of habeas corpus issued from this court, directed to the said master, commanding him to produce the body of Sutherland before the same, with the cause of his detention. On the 12th inst. the master made a return setting forth the above facts, and the day after made a supplemental return, to the effect that Sutherland had escaped, at Portland, that morning, and he was unable further to comply with the writ. The petitioner demurred to the return, and the case was argued by counsel. The shipping articles were annexed to the return, and made a part thereof. From these it appears that Sutherland "agreed to make the voyage from San Francisco to Astoria, there to join the Invergarry and proceed on her to a port of discharge," as above stated, and to render himself "on board at once," and to be obedient to all lawful commands of the master, "whether on board, in boats, or on shore." It does not appear that the treaty aforesaid, under which the proceedings before the vice consul, at Astoria, took place, has ever been confirmed by the United States senate. The constitution (article 2, § 2) gives the president power to make treaties, "with the advice and consent of the senate," and not without it. So far as appears, the senate not having advised and consented to this so-called "treaty," it has no legal force, and the proceedings taken thereunder are of no avail. But if the seaman was legally bound to render himself on board the Invergarry, as he certainly was, and he afterwards came into the custody of the master, he was lawfully there, and the writ must be discharged. The voyage commenced at San Francisco on the Queen, and the fact that it was to be prosecuted from Astoria onward in the Invergarry makes no difference in the status or obligation of the sailor. A contract is complete when the articles are signed, and, unless they contain a provision postponing his going on board, the seaman is bound to render himself on board at once, or else he becomes a deserter. 2 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 99. These articles required Sutherland to render himself on board "at once," which he did, and afterwards deserted, at Astoria. This was not a contract of shipment on the Queen and to ship on the Invergarry at Astoria after reaching there. Sutherland shipped for the whole voyage from San Francisco to Europe,-from San Francisco to Astoria in the Queen, and thence forward in the Invergarry. By failing to render himself on board of either vessel, or absenting himself therefrom, he became a deserter. The writ is dismissed, and judgment is given against the pe titioner for costs. THE NEW YORK. THE CONEMAUGH. (District Court, E. D. Michigan. November 11, 1891.) 1. COLLISION BETWEEN STEAMERS-MUTUAL FAULT-STEERING AND SAILING RULES. A tow descending the Detroit river, in making a landing, occupied all the channel, except a narrow passage on the Canadian shore. The steamer C., going downward, was approaching this passage, when she saw the lights of the steamer N. a mile below, ascending on the American side, also heading towards the passage. The C. gave the "passing signal," of two blasts, and repeated it twice on nearer approach, but received no answer. As she cleared the end of the tow, she suddenly lost the green light of the N., then a quarter of a mile away, whereupon she sounded an alarm of several short blasts, put her helm hard astarboard, and kept on at full speed, showing her starboard light to the N., which also kept on at full speed under a port helm, showing her port light. Just before the collision the wheel of the N. was starboarded, but too late to prevent her striking and sinking the C.. with small damage to herself, near the eastern side of the channel. The N. did not hear the first or second signals, and did not see the C. until the alarm signal. The weather was favorable to sight and hearing, and the locality called for careful navigation. Held, that it was the duty of the N., on passing the tow, to resume her course upstream, and that the C. was therefore not bound to keep out of her way, by steering and sailing rule 19, (Rev. St. § 4233.) 2. SAME-RULES 19 AND 21. The N. violated rule 19 by not holding her course, and rule 21 by not stopping or reversing, and therefore could not rely as a defense on the failure of the C. to obey those rules. 8. SAME-NEGLECT TO ANSWER SIGNAL. It was the duty of the C., on losing the N.'s starboard lights, to stop and reverse, under rule 21, from which she was not excused by the fact that neglect in answering signals is common. She had no right to assume that her presence was known until her signals had been answered. 4. SAME-FAULT IN EXTREMIS-PREVIOUS NOTICE OF PROBABLE DANGER. The C.'s failure to stop and reverse was not excusable as a fault in extremis, for she had notice of the danger before the N.'s sudden change of course. In Admiralty. On libel and cross libel for collision. Shaw & Wright and H. D. Goulder, for the Conemaugh. SWAN, District Judge. The original libel in this cause was filed by the owner of the Conemaugh to recover damages for the sinking of that steamer by the propeller New York, October 21, 1891, in the Detroit river, a short distance below Sandwich, Ont. The New York also received injury, for which her owner filed a cross libel against the Conemaugh. The cases were heard as one. No proofs were offered on the part of the New York. The circumstances attending the collision were as follows: The Conemaugh, a screw steamer of 1,609 tons burden, (registered,) and laden with 1,800 tons of flour and general merchandise, was on her way from Milwaukee to Erie, Pa. She had a full watch on deck, and her lights were properly placed and burning brightly. Between 7 and 8 o'clock P. M. of October 21, 1891, the night being clear and the weather fine, she had reached the vicinity of the Kasota piles,-the remains of a cofferdam used in raising the steamer Kasota, which had been there . sunk, which were on the American side, near midchannel, and about three quarters of a mile above Smith's coal dock, hereinafter mentioned. At this point the Conemaugh received a signal of two blasts of the steam whistle of the steamer Burlington, which was bound down, having a tow of four vessels, and at that time was rounding to at Smith's coal dock, on the American side, for fuel, and exhibiting her masthead and green lights to the watch of the Conemaugh, who also saw the green light of the first vessel in tow as she followed the Burlington around, and cabin lights on other vessels of the tow. The Burlington and tow, in their evolution, formed a crescent whose westerly point was the coal dock, while its easterly end was further up the river and near the Canadian shore. The Conemaugh answered the Burlington's signal with two blasts. Her helm was put hard astarboard, her speed immediately checked, and she swung across the stream a short distance below the Kasota piles at an angle of about eight points from her former course. Finding that she was heading above the stern vessel of the tow, the Conemaugh's wheel was steadied and then ported to follow the tow, which in circling around occupied most of the navigable channel, leaving a passage on the Canadian or tow's port side. About simultaneously with the steadying of the Conemaugh, her master saw below the tow, and about a mile away, the white and red lights of an ascending steamer, which proved to be the New York, then somewhat on the American side of midchannel, and promptly gave her a passing signal, of two blasts of her whistle. To this no answer was made by the New York. When the two steamers were about three quarters of a mile apart the Conemaugh repeated her signal; the New York then showing her masthead and both colored lights. No reply was made by the New York to this second signal. The Conemaugh, still exhibiting only her masthead and green light, and heading about four points towards the Canadian shore from a direct course down the river, sounded a third signal of two blasts; the New York continuing to show all three of her lights, and being then apparently between and close on the port hand of the second and third The last barge in tow was at this time a little forbarges of the tow. ward of the starboard beam of the Conemaugh, about three lengthssay eight or nine hundred feet-below her, and the same distance from The New York made no answer to the Conemaugh's the Canadian shore. third signal, nor did she reduce her speed. About this time the Conemaugh, still running under check, steadied from the port helm, and almost simultaneously lost the green light of the New York, whereupon she sounded an alarm of several short blasts of her whistle, and put her wheel hard astarboard. The New York, running at full speed, was then about midway between the third and fourth barges of the tow, while the Conemaugh had just crossed the wake of the stern barge, the Ferguson. The two steamers were then on converging courses about a quarter of a mile apart. The Conemaugh kept on at full speed with her wheel hard astarboard, showing the New York her masthead and starboard lights only, while the New York came up the river, still at full speed, under a port wheel, displaying her masthead and port lights to the Conemaugh. Just before the collision which naturally re sulted from these courses, the wheel of the New York was starboarded, but too late to avert the collision, and, stem on, she struck the Conemaugh on the starboard bow, sinking her within 10 minutes. The evidence concurs that the vessels came together on the extreme easterly side of the channel, scarcely a length from the place where the Conemaugh sank, and about 900 or 1,000 feet from, and a little on the port quarter of, the Ferguson,-the stern barge of the Burlington's tow. The amount claimed by the libel for the injuries to the Conemaugh, the expense of raising and repairing her, and the demurrage necessary for repairs, together with the damage done to her cargo, is $70,000. The cross libel alleges that the New York suffered damages to the amount of $3,000. The answer of the New York admits that her watch heard neither the first nor second signals of the Conemaugh. It further states that "when the New York had arrived at a point abreast of the last barge in tow of the Burlington a signal of two whistles was heard; but being unable to see any vessel, and noticing only a white light close on the Canadian bank of the river, the signal of two blasts was not answered, as it seemed intended for some other vessel. * * *"" It is also alleged that the speed of the New York in passing the tow was but four miles an hour, but the proofs establish that she maintained double that speed until the vessels came together. The faults of the New York are so many and flagrant that it may be doubted if judicial records afford a parallel to the negligence and recklessness of her navigation. The admitted facts, that her officers did not even hear the first two signals of the Conemaugh, and, though their attention was challenged to her by her third whistle, did not see her until the alarm whistles were sounded, when the vessels were scarcely a quarter of a mile apart, although the weather was favorable to sight and hearing and the conditions of the locality called for careful navigation, are conclusive that her master and lookout, if she had one, were either incompetent or grossly negligent of their duties. If her lookout saw and reported the lights of the Conemaugh, his exoneration makes the conduct of the master or other officer of the deck, in disregarding that warning, more reprehensible. The Conemaugh's whistle was loud and coarse, and her lights lawfully placed and burning. Nothing can palliate the negligence which failed to notice either. If the master were at his post, or giving attention to his duties, he should have heard or seen the descending steamer, despite the negligence or even the want of a lookout; for the lights were seen and the signals heard by the crews of the Burlington and her barges, and by persons at the coal dock, who were at a greater distance from the Conemaugh than the New York. Even after the Conemaugh was seen and heard, the action of the New York merits the severest condemnation. Invoking against the Conemaugh steering and sailing rules 19 and 21, the New York neither held her course as required by the first, but by porting thwarted the effort of her adversary to keep out of her way, nor slackened speed, stopped, or reversed, in compliance with rule 21, when the course, position, lights, and alarm whistles of the Conemaugh proclaimed the perilous proximity of the steamers, but kept her speed to the very instant of collision. Under the circumstances, these offenses were scarcely less vicious than the criminal negligence which disregarded the lights and signals of the Conemaugh. The temporary departure of the New York from her general course up the river was necessitated by the position of the Burlington's tow. When she passed that, and saw the Conemaugh, it was her duty to starboard and resume her course as soon as possible, having regard to the exigencies of the situa tion. The John L. Hasbrouck, 93 U. S. 405–410. There was ample room for her to have obeyed this requirement, which would have taken her under the stern of the Conemaugh. The master of the Conemaugh had a right to expect that this plain duty would have been performed, for his vessel had then crossed the proper path of the New York. A fitter case for the exercise of the disciplinary power committed to the inspectors of steam vessels than that afforded by the navigation of the New York can scarcely be imagined. Revocation of the license of her master, or an extended period of suspension, would have a salutary effect in promoting the safety of life and property on the lakes. The case of the New York is without the shadow of a defense. Was the Conemaugh guilty of fault contributing to the collision? The argument in her behalf-conceding that if the collision occurred in the proper course of the New York the Conemaugh must be held in fault, because, having the New York on her starboard side, she failed to keep out of her way-insists that, if she was a safe distance from the New York's lawful course when struck, then her measures to avoid the latter were timely and sufficient, and the New York should be held solely in fault for thwarting, by her unlawful change of course to starboard, the otherwise safe undertaking of the Conemaugh; that the presence of the tow, the distance between the vessels, and their positions and courses when the alarm whistles were sounded, justified the Conemaugh in starboarding to perform her statutory duty under rule 19; and, this granted, the place of the collision is conclusive of the sole liability of the New York. While rule 19 is absolute that the steamer having on her starboard hand another, whose course she is crossing, must keep out of the latter's way, it does not define the course to be pursued to effect that end. To diminish still further the risk of collision between steamers thus approaching, the supervising inspectors, under congressional authority, adopted rule 2 of the pilot rules for the lakes and seaboard, prescribing that such steamers "shall pass to the right of each other, as if meeting head and head, or nearly so, and the signals by whistle shall be given and answered promptly, as in that case specified." In the conditions to which it applies, this rule is to be read into rule 19 of the steering and sailing rules, (Rev. St. U. S. § 4233.) Yet, as declared by the inspectors themselves, it is not a rigid and invariable regulation, but is "to be complied with in all cases except when the steamers are navigating a crowded channel, or in the vicinity of wharves, * * *") and is, of course, also qualified by rule 24, (Rev. St. U. S. § 4233,) providing that, in construing and obeying the rules, "due regard must be had to all dangers of navigation, and to any special circumstances which may exist," etc. As it does not abso |