, 926 FEDERAL REPORTER. �I have not overlooked the question of the steamer's speed. She would appear to have been under three bells, at about three-quarters speed, say from seven to eight miles an hour. She was a very small steamer, easily handled, and drawing only from ten to twelve feet of water, and she could, without much risk of grounding, have run outside of the channel on either side. Suoh speed on a clear night, when lights ean be plainly seen, is ordinarily perfectly safe for such a vessel, and I cannot see that under the circumstances it was improper. �I had in the case of AppUhy v. The Kate Irving, 2 Fed. Ebp. 924, to consider the question of speed in these channels, and in that case held the steamer to blame for proceeding at eight miles an hour, which was her full speed. That, how- ever, was a heavily-laden steamer of 1,500 tons, compelled by her draught of water to keep in the channel, and keeping up her full speed with an obstruction right ahead and in full view; and in that case it appeared to me that the collision resulted in part from a sheer the steamer took arising in great part from her high speed and the difficulty of steering her in the channel, and that, as she had timely notice that the approaching vessels must get out of her way in order to avoid a collision, she should have slackened her speed or have been going at a less rate to enable them to do it, and I divided the damages. �In the present case, upon ail the testimony, I am brought to the conclusion, although I confess with some hesitation, that the steamer is not in fault, and that the tug must bear the whole damage. Nothing has appeared to lead me to think that the schooner committed any fault, or that any xnismanagement is to be imputed to her. ��� �
