By the general maritime law, vessels up on the high seas were not ordinarily re quired constantly to exhibit a light ; 2 W. Rob. 4 ; The Delaware v. The Osprey, 2 Wall. Jr. 268, Fed. Cas. No. 3,763 ; but the subject is now regulated by statute in the various maritime countries.
Regulations made by various govern ments are binding upon all vessels within the jurisdiction of that government; Story, Confl. Laws, ch..14 ; 1 Swab. 38, 63, 96; Smith v. Condry, 1 How'. (U. S.) 28, 11 L. Ed. 35; but it is beybnd the power of the legislature to make rules applicable to for eign vessels when beyond their jurisdiction ; that is, more than a marine league from their shores ; 1 Swab. 96. And see The New York v. Rae, 18 How. (U. S.) 223, 15 L. Ed. 359. It has, accordingly, been held that an English rule is not applicable in a case of collision on the high seas between a British and a foreign vessel, and that the latter could not set up in its defence a violation of the English statute by the British vessel ; 1 Swab. 63, 96 ; and it was declared that in such a case the general maritime law must be the rule of the court. See The City of Washington, 92 U. S. 31, 23 L. Ed. 600.
The British Government, by an Order in Council, in 1863, promulgated certain regu lations for preventing collisions at sea. An Order in Council, in 1879, promulgated new regulations, to take effect on September 1, 1880. These were adopted in pursuance of the recommendation of representatives of different nations, and are stated in the last mentioned Order to have been very generally adopted by commercial nations. They were adapted to the United States with regard to vessels on the high seas and in coast waters, in 1864 (R. S. § 4233). A revised code was adopted by England in 1884, and then was adopted by the United States with reference to vessels on the high seas in 1885. (Eng land by Orders in Council in 1896, 1897 and 1906, amended the Code of 1884.) In 1890 under an international agreement adopted a complete system of rules of the road governing vessels both on the ocean and on our own inland waters. These rules consist of : 1. The International Rules agreed upon by all nations, which went into effect July 1, 1897 ; 1 R. S. Sup. 781. 2. Rules for the navigation of rivers, harbors, and inland waters of the United States, navigable by sea-going vessels, which went into effect October 7, 1897; 2 R. S. Sup. 620. 3. Rules to regulate the navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters as far east as Montreal, which went into effect March 1, 1895; 2 R. S. Sup. 320. 4. Rules for the navigation of the Red River of the North and rivers en tering into the Gulf of Mexico and its trib utaries, which are the same as were for merly in use, and are to be found in R. S.
§ 4233 and its amendments, and rules made pursuant to R. S. § 4412 by the Board of Supervising Inspectors of steam-vessels. Copies of all these rules are furnished on application by the Commissioner of Navi gation. These various codes of rules are too long to be set forth here. An act of Jan uary 19, 1907 (supplementary to the act of August 19, 1890), made rules for fishing vessels and boats, and repealed article 10 of the act of March 3, 1885, and also the act of August 30, 1894.
It is evident that these rules and regula tions were intended to supersede all other rules of navigation, and every other system of vessels' lights, wherever they may be adopted. They establish a well-devised and complete system of vessels' lights, and fur nish plain and simple rules of navigation applicable to all the ordinary cases of ves sels approaching each other under such cir cumstances as to involve the risk of collision, —leaving extraordinary cases, such as the meeting of vessels in extremely narrow or other very difficult channels (in respect to which no safe general rule can be devised), to the practical good sense and professional skill of those in charge of such vessels. Un der all ordinary circumstances a vessel dis charges her full duty to another vessel by a faithful and literal observance of the inter-1 national rules; The Oregon, 158 U. S. 187, 15 Sup. Ct. 804, 39 L. Ed. 943. Where there were no positive rules of navigation on a foreign river, but there was a certain prac tice, it was held that a vessel which disre garded the practice was responsible for a collision occurring thereby ; L. R. 15 P. D. 194. A departure from the rules, to be justifiable, must be necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. But that necessity must not have been caused by the negligence or fault of the party disobeying the rule; and courts of admiralty lean against the ex ceptions; Crockett v. The Isaac Newton, 18 How. (U. S.) 581, 583, 15 L. Ed. 492; 1 W. Rob. 157, 478. And see Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674, 14 Sup. Ct. 264, 37 L. Ed. 1218; The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U. S. 349, 8 Sup. Ct. 159, 31 L. Ed. 175. It is no excuse for a vessel, in departing from the navigation rules, when rounding the Battery at New York, that vessels often agree with each other to do so, when it appears that the vessel in question took upon herself the re sponsibility of departing from the rules for her own convenience; The E. A. Packer, 58 Fed. 251, 7,C. C. A. 216, 14 U. S. App. 684.