having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Prom those facts which appear in the answer to the libel, and from the testimony of the pilot of the Columbia, and about which there is very little controversy, it is not difficult to determine where the fault of the collision in this case lies. The propeller was all the time, from the moment she was fhrst seen, off the starboard side of the Columbia.' It was *250 therefore the duty of the latter to keep out of the way. The regulations then existing required .that when two steam vessels were'crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the one which had the other on her own starboard should keep clear. Plainly she had no right to expect the propeller to change her course. It was therefore a fault in the Columbia that she did not port her helm and go astern of the other vessel. And the fault was the more inexcusable because she knew, even before she had settled on her course, that the course of the propeller must take her across any line the Columbia could take in going directly out to sea. There was nothing, then, to prevent her adopting such a course as would have avoided all danger of a collision. Instead of thkt she went straight down the river, in a line nearly parallel with the ends of the piers and very near to them, and, as the vessels approached each other on converging lines, she swung to port, so as to come more directly into the line .of the propeller’s course. This was the exact opposite of what sh$ should have done.

We think also the evidence establishes that the Columbia was the following vessel, and, if she was, another regulation required her to keep out of the way of the propeller. There is no satisfactory evidence to'rebut the testimony of Captain Chadsey as to the positions of the vessels, and it is corrobo-. rated by the testimony of Green, the engineer, Taylor, a deck hand, and of both the shipwrights who repaired the propeller. They both testify that the force of the collision must liave come-from .aft forward. The chain-bolts of the propeller' were bent forward, which could not have been unless the Columbia overtook the propeller and struck her from aft. The testimony-given to prove that the Columbia was not the following vessel manifestly tends to prove the contrary. Maps have been exhibited to us describing the situation of the piers and the course of the propeller from the.coal docks to the place of collision. If they are. to be-relied upon, and if the propeller was not more than a half mile from the Columbia when Kelso (the pilot) saw her, she must have been below pier No. 1, as the evidence for the *251 libellaut shows she was, when the Columbia was.- only one' hundred yards from pier No. 4. It s.eemsdo be satisfactorily established, therefore, that the Columbia was the following-vessel. Of course the fault of the collision was hers. She had two courses before her, either of which would have avoided the disaster. Had she put farther out from her pier, where she had clear water, before heading down the river, or if, after heading down, she had ported her helm, as the regulations required, instead of starboarding, or even if she had stopped when she,.saw danger of collision, she would have passed astern of the propeller and. no injury would have been done. By so doing she would have pursued her most direct course out to sea. But she did neither. She made no attempt to slacken her speed’when the danger became imminent, and by starboarding she precipitated herself, directly upon the libellant’s vessel.

Decree oe the Circuit Court aeeirmed, with interest and COSTS.