M:LLBANK V. SUHB. "a. p. CEANMliS. 257 �cannot be supposed to be intended to apply to a combined mass of seventeen canal boats and two tug boats; for in the case of siich a tow, although the motive power is steam, the vessel with steam was by no means free, but hampered by connection with canal boats, so that neither the steamboat nor the mass of boats possessed any considerable part of that power to control their own movements which is character- istic of a steam vessel when steaming alone, and is the foundation of the rule that requires steam vessels to keep out of the way of a sailing vessel. This case cannot, therefore, be disposed of by a reference to sailing rule 20, (old article 15,) but must be deoided in accordance with those general princi^les that lie at the bottom of all sailing rules, and are applied by courts of admiralty to cases as they arise. The test of responsibility in this case is, therefore, to be found in the ability possessed by the respective vessels to control their own movements and avoid collision. And when the position of these vessels is considered with reference to this test, it is apparent the schooner could without any considerable diffi- culty bave placed herself sufficiently far to westward of the tow to avoid all danger of collision. If she had a free wind, as several witnesses say, she had only to haul a little nearer to the wind. If, as she contends, her course was close to the wind, she could have worked to windward sufficiently to avoid the canal boats by luffing into the wind. The way was clear, the wind sufficient, the schooner light; and, so far as appears, there was nothing to prevent the successful accomplishment of such a manœuvre, and this was wbat the schooner attempted. She failed in the attempt only because she was caught by the hawser extending from the Sammie to the canal boats — a circumstance attributable solely to the fact that she delayed action until too late. Her fault, therefore, consists in omitting to put her helm down until she was too close to the canal boats. �As Bupporting this view of the duty attaching to the schooner under the circumstances stated, reference is made to the case of The Arthur Gordon and the Independence, 1 �v.l,no.4 — 17 ��� �
