A PPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Claims sustaining a claim for damages to barges by collision with war vessels improperly anchored in a harbor. Affirmed. See same case below, 33 Ct. Cl. 251. conclusions of law in open court before or at the time they enter judgment in the case. Findings of the court amount to nothing more than an order for judgment, and are not of themselves the judgment of the court. Andrews v. Welch, 47 Wis. 134, 2 N. W. There must be either findings by the court entered without either verdict or findings is or the verdict of the jury; and a judgment fatally erroneous, if not absolutely void. Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras: On October 17, 1894, the St. Louis & Missis-98. sippi Valley Transportation Company filed in the court of claims a suit by way of pe tition against the United States, in pursu ance of the provisions of the act of August 3. 1894, alleging that said company was a Stansell v. Corning, 21 Mich. 242; Mace corporation of the state of Missouri, and the v. O'Reilley, 70 Cal. 231, 11 Pac. 721; [248 owner of the towboat Future City, her barges Whittlesey v. Hartford, P. & F. R. Co. 23 in tow and freight earning; that owing to a Conn. 436; Haxton v. McClaren, 132 Ind. collision on May 5, 1888, in the Mississippi 235, 31 N. E. 48; Ferguson v. Seawell, 1 river between said steam towboat and barges Mo. 256; Watson v. Manhattan R. Co. 17 and war vessels of the United States, several Abb. N. C. 289; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. of the barges, with their cargoes and con- Pope, 19 Or. 35, 26 Pac. 622; Stahl v. Gottents, were sunk and wholly lost, and the zenberger, 45 Wis. 121; Pierpont v. Pierfreight earnings of such barges for the voy-pont, 19 Tex. 227; Maryott v. Gardner, 50 age in progress were lost, or not earned and Neb. 320, 69 N. W. 837; Garner v. State paid to the claimant; and that said collision ex rel. Moon, 28 Kan. 790. and the loss and injury resulting therefrom In states in which the court is required by were solely and directly the result of neg.law to state separately the facts found and ligence on the part of those in charge of the said vessels of war; and claimed damages in the sum of $24,308. The United States appeared in said court of claims by its Attorney General, and filed an answer traversing and denying the allegations of the claimant's petition. The case was so proceeded in that on March 21, 1898, the court found for the claimant, and adjudged and decreed that the St. Louis & Mississippi Valley Transportation Company should have and recover of and from the United States the sum of $19,808.85. the conclusion of law, as is required of the court of claims, it is universally held that the failure on the part of the court to make such separate statements in the findings renders its judgment reversible upon appeal. Harris v. Hay, 111 Pa. 564, 4 Atl. 715; Sweigard v. Wilson, 106 Pa. 213; Russell v. Armador, 2 Cal. 305; Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Crow, 20 Or. 535, 26 Pac. 845; Stansell v. Corning, 21 Mich. 244. After the special finding of the court is filed and judgment rendered, the power of the court over it is at an end, except that the court may, at any time before the close of the term at which the judgment is ren On March 21, 1898, the court filed find- On May 21, 1900, an appeal was prayed Prince v. Lynch, 38 Cal. 528, 99 Am. Dec. 427; Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533, 23 Pac. 217; Levy v. Chittenden, 120 Ind. 37, 22 N. E. 92; Hartlepp v. Whiteley, 129 Ind. 576, 28 N. E. 535. 31 N. E. 203; Wray v. Mr. George Hines Gorman argued the ill, 85 Ind. 546; Tarkington v. Purvis, 128 cause, and, with Assistant Attorney Gener-Ind. 189, 9 L. R. A. 607, 25 N. E. 879; Lang al Pradt, filed a brief for appellant: v. Baxter, 69 Fed. 905; Baptist v. Farweil The orders of an executive head of a de-Transp. Co. 29 Fed. 180; Marye v. Strouse, partment, when formulated as regulations 6 Sawy. 204, 5 Fed. 494; Klever v. Seawell, and published under express congressional 12 C. C. A. 653, 22 U. S. App. 458, 65 Fed. authority, are in effect a statutory enact-373. ment, and have all the force and effect of a Law of Congress. Er parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13, 25 L. ed. 538: Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80, 11 L. ed. 884; Maddux v. United States, 20 Ct. Cl. 193; Stotesbury v. United States, 23 ('t. Cl. 292. A court may make such modification or correction of its findings as shall make them conform to the truth and cover the issues in the case. but this must be done before the entry of judgment. Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533, 23 Pac. 217; Calhoun v. Gilliland, 2 Wash. Terr. 174, 2 Pac. 355; Dowell v. Talbot Paving Co. 138 Ind. 691, 38 N. E. 389. 1 fortiori is this true of a rule of the Supreme Court of the United States made under and pursuant to law. Therefore It is the duty of the harbor masters to every judgment of the court of claims must notify a shipmaster of the regulations of a conform to rule 4 of the Supreme Court of port concerning a certain anchorage the United States for the government of ap-ground, and not the business of the shippeals from the court of claims, made in pur- master to inquire concerning it of the harnance of the authority conferred by act of bor master. March 3, 1863, requiring the court of claims make and file the findings of fact and Cushing v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, sub nom. The Jas. Gray v. The John Fraser, 16 L. ed. 106; The Russia, 3 Ben. 471, Fed. Cas. No. 12,168. If a vessel anchors at an improper or unlawful place it is the duty of the harbor master to notify her of that fact, and to require her to move to some place which he considers to be proper and lawful; and if he fails to do so no blame can be attached to the shipmaster for remaining there. Ibid. If a harbor master, or others in authority, are lax or careless in their enforcement of harbor regulations, the courts will not enforce such regulations with any more strictness. Ibid. A vessel anchored about the middle of a stream 1,600 feet wide is properly anchored. The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. 920. To the same effect, see Culbertson v. The Southern Belle, 18 How. 585, 15 L. ed. 493; The Culberg v. The Continental, 3 Woods, 32, Fed. Cas. No. 3,460: The Masters, Brown, Adm. 342, Fed. Cas. No. 9,267; Maltby v. Steam Derrick-boat, 3 Hughes, 480, Fed. Cas. No. 9,000; Mercer v. The Florida, 3 Hughes, 488, Fed. Cas. No. 9,433; The E. A. Packer, 10 Ben. 520, Fed. Cas. No. 4,241; Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 110; The Mary Powell, 31 Fed. 622; Brush v. The Plainfield, 2 N. J. L. J. 331, Fed. Cas. No. 2,058; The D. S. Gregory, 2 Ben. 166, Fed. Cas. No. 4,099. It is the custom in navigating western rivers, including the Mississippi, for descending vessels to navigate in midstream as nearly as possible, and for ascending vessels to navigate inshore. Bates v. The Natchez, Newberry, Adm. 489, Fed. Cas. No. 1,102; The Relief, Olcott, 104 Fed. Cas. No. 11,693; Shaw v. The Bridgeport, 1 Ben. 65, Fed. Cas. No. 12,217; | Shirley v. The Richmond, 2 Woods, 58, Fed. Cas No. 12,795; The Scranton, 5 Blatchf. 400, Fed. Cas. No. 12,558; The Belle, 34 Fed. 669: Barrett v. Williamson, 4 McLean, 589, Fed. Cas. No. 1,051. The custom of navigation on western rivers, including the Mississippi, requires a descending boat to run down the channel where it finds the strongest current and the deepest water, and the ascending boat to keep as close as possible to shore, where the current is less resistful. Keys v. The Ambassador, 1 Bond, 237, Fed. Cas. No. 7,747. Neglect of this custom of navigation will render the one neglecting it, if such neglect produces injury, liable in damages. Sinnott v. The Dresden. Newberry, Adm. 474. Fed. Cas. No. 12,908; Shirley v. The Richmond, 2 Woods, 58, Fed. Cas. No. 12,795. Although the usual rule requires a descending boat to keep in the middle of the river, it may hug the shore so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others; and if an ascending boat is met, and indicates its disposition to hold the shore, the descending boat must give way. Thorp v. The Defender, 1 Bond, 397, Fed. Cas. No. 14.003. The rule is applicable to tows. Snow v. Hill, 20 How. 543, 15 L. ed. 1017. The burden of proof is always on the moving craft to prove by clear and affirmative evidence that the collision was not due to the persons navigating it, the presumption being always against them. The Lady Franklin, 2 Low. Dec. 220, Fed. Cas. No. 7,984; New York & V. SS. Co. v. Calderwood, 19 How. 241, 15 L. ed. 612; The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. 920. See, in accord, The D. S. Gregory, 6 Blatchf. 528, Fed. Cas. No. 4,102; The Virginia Ehrman, 97 U. S. 309, sub nom. The Virginia Ehrman v. Curtis, 24 L. ed. 890; The Batavier, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 25; The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164, sub nom. Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Flushing, C. P. & N. Y. Steam Ferry Co. 18 L. ed. 85; The Girolamo, 3 Hagg. Adm. 169; The Granite State, 3 Wall. 310, sub nom. Wetmore v. The Granite State, 18 L. ed. 179; The Wanata, 4 Ben. 314, Fed. Cas. No. 17,138; The Bridgeport, 14 Wall. 119, sub nom. The Bridgeport v. Shaw, 20 L. ed. 788. These general doctrines of maritime law are emphasized by the provisions of the special act referring this case to the court of claims, wherein it is provided “that no judgment shall be rendered against the gov. ernment unless it shall affirmatively appr from the evidence adduced that such collision was the result of negligence on the part of the officers in command of said vessels of war." A tug having the power of directing her movements is bound to pursue a safe and consistent course, and is not permitted to place itself and its tow in an unnecessarily expo-ed or hazardous situation; and it is no defense that it used all reasonable moins to avoid danger after having placed itself in a dangerous situation. The Osceola, 33 Fed. 719: The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 166, sub nom. The Syracuse v. Langley, 20 L. ed. 382; The Giovanni v. Philadelphia, 59 Fed. 303; The David Morris, Brown, Adm. 273, Fed. Cas. No. 3.596. On approaching a narrow channel or dan- The Osceola, 50 Fed. 326: The Senator D. Extraordinary precautions are required of The Lucy D, 21 Fed. 142; The Iron Chief, 11 C. C. A. 196, 22 U. S. App. 473, 546, 63 Fed. 289. Where in a high and uncertain state of the wind a vessel is approaching a part of the river in which there may be obstructions to navigation, it is her duty to lay by until the wind has gone down and she can pass in safety. The Mohler, 21 Wall. 230, sub nom. The Mollie Mohler v. Home Ins. Co. 22 L. ed. 485. A steamer having a very large tow, approaching a place where, from the number of vessels in the water and the force of counter currents, navigation with a smaller tow would be less dangerous, is bound to approach with great care, and if, within 2 or 3 miles of the place, she can divide her tow, she is bound to divide it. The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167, sub nom. The Syracuse v. Langley, 20 L. ed. 382. A steam tug with a tow in going around a dangerous point where the tide sets strongly across the river is not entitled to occupy half of the river on the right-hand side. The B. K. Washburn, 19 Fed. 788. Mr. James H. Hayden argued the cause, and, with Mr. Joseph K. McCammon, filed a brief for appellee: The amendment of the findings was made prior to the allowance of the application for this appeal, and therefore while the court of claims had control of the case. Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. ed. 131; Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664, 20 L. ed. 632; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699, 21 L. ed. 507. So long as it retained control of the case and the record, it was competent for the court of claims to correct mistakes in the findings, when brought to its notice, so that the findings sent up on appeal should state the truth. Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. ed. 131, 8 Ct. Cl. 118; Kirk v. United States, If a vessel chooses to avail herself of a particular mode of going down a river at à particular time and place, which renders it difficult to escape collisions, and a collision does take place, she must bear the con-28 Ct. Cl. 276. sequences of the contingency to which she has exposed herself. 1 Parsons. Shipping & Admiralty, ed. 1869, p. 575: The Hope, 2 W. Rob. 8; The Nettie, 35 Fed. 615; The Uncle Abe, 18 Fed. 270. Other courts in this country possess and exercise the same power over their records until these pass from their control by appeal, by the termination of a term of court, or by some other limitation prescribed by local statute. A tug has been frequently held in fault North v. Peters, 138 U. S. 271, 34 L. ed. for assuming to tow under circumstances 936, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346; Goddard v. Ordrendered dangerous by its own lack of pow-way, 101 U. S. 745, sub nom. Phillips v. er to handle the tow. Ordway, 25 L. ed. 1040; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L. ed. 872. The Osceola, 50 Fed. 326; The Senator D. C. Chase, 46 Fed. 874; The T. W. Snook, 49 Fed. 686; Miller v. The Argonaut, 37 Fed. 910; Scott v. The Drew, 38 Fed. 858. Precautions not seasonably taken afford no defense against the charge of negligence in cases of collision, where it appears that the disaster might have been prevented by earlier action. The appeal which the United States has taken, of necessity admits the existence and the finality of the judgment. Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. ed. 131: Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664, 20 L. ed. 632: Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699, 21 L. ed. 507. For the purposes of this appeal, the facts set out in the findings "must be taken as undisputed.” The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 225, sub nom, The Vanderbilt v. McKibbon, 18 L. ed. 823; The Teutonia, 23 Wall. 77, sub nom. Sie- United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101, 18 wurd v. The Teutonia, 23 L. ed. 44: The L. ed. 792; McClure v. United States, 116 Connecticut, 103 U. S. 710, sub nom. Schuy-U. S. 145, 29 L. ed. 572, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. ler's Steam Tow-Boat Line v. Caleb, 26 L. 321. ed. 467. See also The Syracuse, 12 Wall. The presumption that where a collision 167. sub nom. The Syracuse v. Langley, 20 L. ed. 382. In navigating in foggy weather near piers, or where the presence of boats may reasonably be expected, or in the navigation of a narrow channel, prudence demands the greatest eave. and the speed should be reduced to a point where the forward direction of the boat may be changed on approach of danger. The St. John, 29 Fed. 221; Gray v. The Jessie Russell, 5 Fed. 639; The Minnie, 20 Fed. 543. Seven or eight miles an hour is too great a rate of speed for a steamboat having harges in tow at a dangerous point on the Mississippi river. Security Ins. Co. v. The Milwaukee, 4 Am. L. T. 147; Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 148. Proof that excessive speed did not contribute to the injury must be clear and positive, and the burden is always upon the party asserting the fact. occurred between two vessels, one of which was at anchor and the other in motion, the latter was at fault, may be rebutted by proof that the moving vessel exercised ordinary care, and that the collision was caused by the fault of the anchored vessel. The City of Macon, 47 Fed. 919; The Florida, 4 Blatchf. 470, Fed. Cas. No. 4,889.a Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 120; The Scioto, 2 Ware, 365, Fed. Cas. No. 12,508. Every vessel, from whatever part of the world she may come, is bound to take notice of, and conform to, local usages of navigation. Cushing v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, sub nom. The Jas. Gray v. The John Frascr, 16 L. ed. 106. In courts of admiralty such usages and local rules sanctioned by authority of a state are taken as evidence of what is a vessel's duty under the circumstances provided for. The Raithwaite Hall, 30 L. T. N. S. 233; The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 225, sub nom. The Vanderbilt v. McKibbon, 18 L. ed. 823; Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 21. Even where a particular custom involves departure from the general rules of navi gation, if it has received general sanction in | in a situation where it received the effect of the locality where it prevails, and has been natural forces, the results of which could found necessary reasonable, it will be re- have been forescen and might reasonably spected in determining the propriety of a have been anticipated. vessel's course. Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 195; Union Spencer, Marine Collisions, § 22; The SS. Co. v. New York & V. SS. Co. 24 How. Favorita, 18 Wall. 598, sub nom. The Fa301, 16 L. ed. 699; Sampson v. United vorita v. Union Ferry Co. 21 L. ced. 856. States, 12 Ct. Cl. 480; The Clarita, 23 Wall. Sailing vessels, especially when descend-1, sub nom. The Clara Clarita v. Cox, 23 ing the river, usually keep well over to the L. ed. 146. western side of the channel, leaving the eastern side of the same for the uninterrupt ed passage of vessels propelled by steam. Vessels of all kinds, whether propelled by steam or sails, are allowed and expected to vary their respective courses to correspond with well-known sinuosities of the navigable portion of the river, and to avoid the dangers of navigation arising from rocks, shoals, and sand bars, as well as from curves and bends in the banks of the river or channel of navigation. The John L. Hasbrouck, 93 U. S. 405, sub nom. Lyman v. The John L. Hasbrouck, 23 L. ed. 962. A vessel cannot be held in fault for proceeding in the manner sanctioned by local custom, and is under no obligation to take the precautions required by a custom prevailing in another port of the same river. The Victoria, 37 C. C. A. 40, 95 Fed. 184. In several cases where the facts were similar to those under consideration, it was held that the moving vessels were blameless, while the vessels with which they collided, having anchored in improper, exposed, or unusual positions, were guilty of fault and liable for the losses which ensued. Fawcett v. The L. W. Morgan, 6 Fed. 200: The Scioto, 2 Ware, 360, Fed. Cas. No. 12,508; Cusning v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, sub nom. The Jas. Gray v. The John Fraser, 16 L. ed. 106. The United States vessels, without necessity or excuse, came to anchor and remained in unusual and improper positions, where their presence rendered the navigation of the river by certain vessels extremely dangerous. In so doing they were guilty of negligence. Cushing v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, sub nom. The Jas. Gray v. The John Fraser, 16 L. ed. 106: The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 225, sub nom. The Vanderbilt v. MeKibbon, 18 L. ed. 823; The Raithwaite Hall, 30 L. T. N. S. 233; Spencer, Marine Collisions. §§ 21-23, 99, 106; The Scioto, 2 Ware, 360, Fed. Cas. No. 12,508; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466, 13 L. ed. 1068; The Jeremiah Godfrey, 17 Fed. 738; Morten v. Five Canal-Boats, 24 Fed. 500; The Margaret J. Sanford, 30 Fed. 714; The Fort Lee, 31 Fed. 570. The United States ships were under obligation to signify their presence to approaching vessels, and to endeavor to avoid collisions by veering chain. The Richmond, 12 C. C. A. 1, 26 U. S. App. 183, 63 Fed. 1020. The defense that a collision was the result of inevitable accident cannot be maintained where a vessel voluntarily put itself It appearing that the future city was without fault, and that the United States ships anchored and remained in exposed and unlawful positions, the burden of proof is upon the latter to show a valid excuse for their conduct. Spencer. Marine Collisions, § 125; The Scioto, 2 Ware, 360, Fed. Cas. No. 12,508; The Great Republic, 23 Wall. 20, sub nom. Thompson v. The Great Republic, 23 L. ed. 55; The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 196, sub nom. Lockwood v. The Grace Girdler, 19 L. ed. 113. The officers of the United States ships were in absolute command of them, and were responsible for their management. Ayers v. Knox, 7 Mass. 310. *Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opin-[248] ion of the court: After the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment were filed by the court of claims on March 21, 1898, two successive motions for a new trial were made on behalf of the defendant. The result of these moticus was that on May 14, *1900, the court [249] filed an order withdrawing its former findings of fact, and filed new and amended findings and opinion; and it is now contended that by such action in amending its findings of fact and modifying its opinion the court must be deemed to have set aside its judg ment. But as the amendments of the findings were made at the request of the defendant in connection with the motions for a new trial, we think that the existing conclusions of law and judgment were not thereby disturbed. Obviously the changes or modifications in the findings, at the instance of the defendant, were intended by the court to enable the case of the defendant to be most advantageously presented for review by the court below on the motions for a new trial, and by this court on appeal. The motions for a new trial having been overruled, the judgment rendered on March 21, 1898. remained as the judgment of the court of claims, and that is the judgment from which the defendant appealed, and which is now before us for review. By taking such appeal, the defendant must be deemed to have admitted the existence and finality of the judgment. Nor is it perceived that the defendant has any reason to complain that the findings, on which the conclusions of law and the judgment were based, were amended at its instance. So far as the amendments were at all material, they were, in some instances. favorable to the case of the defendant, and, at all events, must be regarded as a proper exercise of authority by the trial court in making its findings conform to the truth, while its record had not passed out | collision with the Atlanta, *striking against [251] of its control by the allowance of an appeal. the ram of that vessel broadside on with The material facts found by the court of great force. As a result of this collision claims were as follows: The Future City barge 73 was cut down, and sank, with all and the barges comprising her tow were all her cargo. staunch, sound, and seaworthy, and were fully and adequately manned, officered, and equipped, and the Future City was ample, powerful, and able to handle her tow under any and all circumstances arising in the navigation of the Mississippi river. On May 7, 1888, the Future City with her tow was descending the river and approaching the port. of New Orleans, with the intention of making a landing, and while so descending the river the Future City followed the proper and customary course of navigation for descending towboats with tows. A towboat [250] with *a tow bound for the port of New Orleans, and pursuing the proper and customary course for such vessels, cannot make out and see vessels and other objects lying in that portion of the river below a point of land at Celeste street and between the western shore and the middle of the stream, because that point and the buildings standing upon it, and the shipping moored along its banks, intervene and completely shut off the view in that direction. Thereafter, notwithstanding that the Future City continued to pursue the only course feasible and proper in the circumstances and in any wise calculated to avoid further collisions with other of the United States vessels, and continued to back with all her power, and notwithstanding that she was skilfully managed and handled by her officers and crew, yet her stern having been swung slightly down stream by the collision of barge 73 with the Atlanta, she was unable to check her headway or straighten up, and was carried by her headway and the currents of the river, and barge 68, the leading barge on the starboard side, collided with the Galena, and was sunk with all her cargo. Notwithstanding that the Future City was skilfully and properly handled, and that she and her officers and crew did their utmost to control her remaining barges and to prevent further collisions between them and the United States vessels, barge 50 broke loose and was carried by the current, and came into collision with the Richmond, and thereby sustained great damage and the loss of part of its cargo. Upon rounding the point of land at Celeste street the Future City for the first time sighted five United States vessels, to wit, The United States vessels, as they lay at the Atlanta, Galena, Ossipee, Yantic, and anchor on May 7, 1888, were ranged in an Richmond, lying at anchor below the said irregular line along the western bank of point of land and between the western bank the river, which is the city side, their disof the river and the middle of the stream. tances from said bank varying from 500 to The Future City could not have made out 700 feet. The Atlanta was anchored highest and discovered the United States vessels up stream, and was about 150 feet below before, because the said point of land inter- the Richard street ferry, and the entire fleet vened and, with the buildings upon it and extended down the river for the distance the shipping moored along its banks, com- of about 1 mile the Richmond lying off pletely shut off the view in the direction of and about opposite the barge landing. At the portion of the river where those vessels Celeste street the shore extends into the lay at anchor. As soon as she sighted and river to a sharp point, and the river bends discovered the United States vessels lying from that point to the north. Just below, at anchor in her usual and proper course, the width of the stream is about 1,800 feet. the Future City backed under a full head, The location of the Atlanta, 600 feet, or a working full stroke, with all the power she little less, from the New Orleans shore, put had, thus adopting the only course feasible that vessel in the track of tows entering the and proper in the circumstances, or in any-harbor from above. It was in the pathway wise calculated to prevent her from colliding with the United States vessels. On account of the insufficiency of time and space after she discovered the United States vessels, and notwithstanding that she made every possible effort to keep clear of the United States vessels, and, in order that her tow might extend out into the river as short a distance as its length would permit, backed her stern as close to the New Orleans shore as it was in anywise possible without coming into collision with the shipping moored therealong, and notwithstanding that she was skilfully and properly handled and managed by her officers and crew, the Future City was unable, on account of the short distance intervening, either to check her headway or to straighten up, and still being in a flanking position, she and her tow were carried by her headway and the current of the river, and barge 73, the leading barge of her tow on the port side, came into of a tow of even less length than the plain- The positions occupied by the United States vessels were directly in the track of towboats with tows descending the Mississippi river bound for the port of New Orleans, and pursuing their proper and customary course of navigation, and were thus directly in the track of course of which the Future City and her tow were pursuing when she first sighted and discovered them. The positions thus occupied by the United States vessels were improper and unusual, by reasson of their being higher up stream, too |