842 FEDERAL REPORTER. �to lier red ligbt, and the Dayton appeared to be going be- tween the Bowen and the New York shore, to the eastward, and in a direction which would cause her green light to stili be visible to the Bowen, and her red light to b,e still invisible. This would insure safety and no collision; and to insure it still more the Bowen blew two whistles, and the Dayton an- swered with two whistles. After that the Bowen starboarded. Even if, before so starboarding, and while so starboarding, the Bowen is to be considered as having the Dayton on her starboard side, with the courses of the two vessels crossing, (which is by no means clear on these averments in the anawer of the Bowen,) her answer shows that she took proper meas- ures to keep out of the way of the Dayton ; that such measures were assented to at the time by the Dayton as proper; and that then the Dayton changed her course and went across the bow of the Bowen. Under these circumstances the Bowen slowed, stopped, and backed. The answer of the Bowen states, substantially, that there was imminent danger of col- lision if she kept on. There is nothing in ail this to show negligence in the Bowen. When the Dayton so came sud- deuiy across the bow of the Bowen a case was not made within rule 19, although in that position the Bowen had the Dayton on her starboard side, and their courses were cross- ing; and, even if it were, the answer shows that the Bowen did ail she could to keep out of the way of the Dayton. The libel, so far from alleging that it was a fault in the Bowen to slow, stop, and back, alleges as a fault in her that she did not reverse, or did not do so soon enough. The isolated fact of her slowing, stopping, and backing cannot be taken away from the connection in which it is found in the answer, and separated from the circumstances under which the answer states it occurred, particularly as the libel states distiiictly that it was a fault in her not to reverse. �It is urged that it works injustice to the libellant to compel him to prove anything, because ail bis proof to inculpate one tug must exculpate the other. But that is a position in which he bas placed himself, if it exists. In bis libel, however, he alleges specifie fanlts against each tug, and on them claims ����
