258 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Lusli. 270, cited with approval in the case of The Electra, 7 Ben. 349. But the case of the tow was far different from that of the schooner. On the part of the tow — a mass of boats moving slowly in the tide, and compelled to keep in position — the ability to take effective action to avoid the schooner was small indeed. �It bas been strongly contended that ît was possible for the Nichols, and accordingly her duty, to move "her tow further to the eastward when the near approach of the schooner was observed. But while, in view of the vast amount of property that is moved by tugs in late years, and the care required to preserve the boats from accident, I am not inclined to relieve tow boats from the responsibility of taking ail possible means of avoiding collision, I am not satisfied that in this case there was anything possible to be done by the tug, after the danger of collision was presented to their minds, that would have prevented the collision. If anything was possible, it was to swing the tow a little to east ; but although there is evidence from a single witness, that affords some foundation for the contention that such a movement could have carried the canal boats far enough to the eastward to have escaped collision with the schooner, I am not satisfied that the attempt would have proved of any avail. �My conclusion, therefore, is, that inasmaeh as the tug, wbich had the direction and control of the tow, coùld do nothing after the danger was apparent towards moving the canal boats further to the eastward, and inasmuch as the schooner, when she saw herself in danger of running into the canal boats, could without serions inconvenience have moved further to westward and so have avoided the collision, the schooner alone was in fault, and is responsible for the loss in question. ��� �
