would have been a quarter of a mile apart. But the idea that if there were two lights on the Scott, they would appear, under any circumstances, to have been further apart than they actually were, is absurd, from any point of view it is considered. Rays of light do not bend laterally. If they did so, you could see around a hill, and it would be impossible to run a straight line with a compass or transit. It is true that light, in passing through media of different densities, is refracted virtically in a slight degree; but the apparent position of an object in a lateral direction is subject to no change from this cause. If it were otherwise, you could not steer in a straight line to a light at all. So I conclude, from the fact the lookout on the Avon says he saw these two lights so far apart, as an excuse for not giving the alarm in time to avoid running into the Scott, shows that he either saw the light on the tug or else that he has fabricated an attempted excuse for his want of vigilance and intelligence. No prudent seaman, even if he saw what seemed to be two anchor lights 200 or 250 feet apart, would attempt to pass between them, on the supposition that they were on two different vessels; because the anchor light may be on the forward or after part of the vessel,-where, according to the judgment of those in charge of the vessel at anchor, it can be best seen, -and therefore a man in charge of an approaching vessel, when he sees an anchor light, and while the distance or the darkness prevents his seeing the exact situation of the hull, must take promptly the requisite steps to give the light so wide a berth as to pass clear of the vessel it is on. Not knowing which end of the vessel the light is displayed from, his only safety is in going far enough away to avoid a collision with even the largest and longest vessel; and the same may be said if two lights are seen within a possible vessel's length apart, he must go so far away as to clear both, if he shall conclude they are on different vessels.

The proof also shows that it is quite common for vessels at anchor in Milwaukee bay to display two anchor lights, so that those in charge. of vessels in motion in that locality, and acquainted with the usages in that regard, are bound to anticipate that a vessel at anchor may show two lights, even if such showing is contrary to law. But I do not think it can be deemed a violation of the rule to show two anchor lights, because it is possible a vessel lying at anchor may find it necessary to partly raise a sail so as to be ready to get under way in case of a change of wind, or the sudden rising of a storm, which would obscure one light, and make two lights absolutely necessary. It was not necessary on this occasion, it is true; but it is hardly possible that if a vessel situated in this manner should show two anchor lights, it could be brought as a charge against her in case of a collision.

I now come to consider briefly the proposition that the Scott should have shown a torch in time to have notified the Avon of her position; and that her failure to do so is such contributory negligence as excuses the Avon or mitigates the consequences of the collision. I have

only to say that I do not understand that it is necessary for a vessel at anchor to show a torch when it is clear that the approaching vessel, by a vigilant and proper lookout, could have seen her without a torch. Vessels at anchor in the night, with their own light properly set and burning, have a right to assume that an approaching vessel is obeying the law; that it has a proper lookout, and is taking the proper precautions to avoid a collision; and hence, when the watch on a vessel at anchor sees another vessel approaching at a distance of about three-quarters of a mile, and sees all her lights clearly and distinctly, he has the right to assume that the lookout on the approaching vessel sees his lights, and will in due time adopt the proper maneuver to pass clear of him. It is said, however, in behalf of the Avon, that the air was filled with smoke from the rolling-mills, so as to prevent the lookout on the Avon from seeing the barge's lights; but it hardly needs argument to demonstrate that, if a man standing on the deck of the barge could see all the lights of the Avon as she approached him, it was equally feasible for the lookout on the Avon to have seen the lights on the barge. If the rays of light from the green, red, and white lanterns of the Avon were clearly seen on the barge from the time she headed down the harbor, as is most abundantly proven, then there is absolutely no reason why a competent and vigilant lookout on the Avon should not have seen the barge's lights. That there was some smoke on the bay must from the proof be taken as an established fact, but it is evident that this smoke did not materially obscure the lights on the Avon nor the barge; for men on tugs out in the bay in the vicinity of the barge saw the Avon's lights and the city lights from the time she headed down the harbor, while the life-saving station men from the station at the end of the piers, and the men on the tug inside the piers, plainly saw the lights on the barge. Indeed, I can hardly conceive that smoke from these rolling-mills, after drifting a mile and a half over the water, could have retained enough of its soot and body to have obstructed the view of lights opposite the mouth of the harbor; but, if it ever did so, I feel sure from the proof that it did not do so on this occasion, because if there was not smoke enough to obscure the lights of the Avon and prevent them from being seen from the barge and the tugs in the vicinity of the barge, then there was none to prevent the lookout from seeing the lights of the barge from the forward end of the upper deck of the Avon. And if the watch upon the barge had no difficulty in seeing the Avon's lights, he had the right to assume that the lookout on the Avon could and did see his light, and that a torch was not called for.

My own conclusion from the testimony of the respondent is that the lookout and perhaps the captain of the Avon were most culpably negligent, and that the collision arose from this neglect. It must be borne in mind that the Avon had touched at Milwaukee, on her way to Chicago, to land all or a portion of her freight. Her men and officers had all been hard at work for many hours putting off this freight.

Their supper had been delayed until after they left the deck at Milwaukee, and winded the vessel for the purpose of running down the harbor. Supper was then ready, and the mates both went to supper by the captain's direction, although it was the mate's watch, and Joyce, who seems to have been employed on the Avon as a watchman, lookout, and deck hand, being paid extra at the rate of 30 cents an hour for the time he worked as deck hand, was placed on duty as lookout. Joyce had been at work as deck hand helping to unload, and had not had his supper, and just what he was doing during the time the steamer was running down between the piers does not clearly appear from the proof; but, as the mate says, about the time she passed the outer ends of the piers, he (the mate) directed him to take his place as lookout, and told him to keep a bright lookout, and placed an opera-glass on the top of the pilot-house, and called the lookout's attention to it. Shortly after he was thus placed, but how many minutes it is impossible to say from the proof, Joyce seems to have seen one or more of the barge's lights with his naked eyes. Instead of reporting these at once to the captain, he attempted to examine them through the glass, found the glasses were not clean, wiped them and then looked again, and saw two lights, which proved afterwards to be the lights on the Scott. He then reported them to the captain, who, instead of giving any orders to avoid a collision, directed the lookout to bring him the glass. It was handed to the captain, who attempted to use it, found it needed adjusting to his eyes, adjusted it, and then was in the act of looking for the lights, when the lookout, who had gone forward, called out that the barge was right under their bows, whereupon the captain ordered the wheel to starboard, but before any substantial change of course had been effected, he ordered the wheel hard to port, and before she had swung a point to starboard the Avon struck the barge.

The engineer and captain say the steamer was running under check, and not to exceed four miles an hour. If so, it would have taken about seven minutes to have run from the ends of the piers to the barge, as at four miles an hour it would take fifteen minutes to run a mile, and seven and a half minutes to run half a mile. There was certainly ample time for Joyce, the lookout, to have surveyed the entire bay, and taken in all the surroundings, long before the steamer had passed half the distance from the piers to the barge. What he was doing during this time he does not say; but I think I am justified in inferring that the mate having laid the field or opera-glass on the top of the pilot-house, Joyce left his post as lookout, made his way to the hurricane deck where he could reach the glass, and then went back to his place; but whether he went after the glass, after he had seen the barge's light by the naked eye, we do not know; but this does appear, that the mate, after he had directed Joyce to take his station as lookout, brought the glass from his room, put it on tire top of the pilot-house, and called Joyce's attention to it. Joyce may have

at once left his station and gone for the glass, or may not have gone for it until after he saw the lights. In the mean time the steamer was running at the rate of four miles, and perhaps faster, towards the barge. Then, after Joyce had made out the lights, he wiped the glasses, and, we must presume, adjusted them to his eyes, and then reported the lights to the captain. The captain ordered the glass handed to himself, and, after taking time to adjust the glasses to his eyes, gave orders to starboard and then to port the wheel. Here was time enough lost, which, if properly employed, would have avoided a collision; for a steamer like the Avon, in a still night, would readily have swung clear of this vessel, by being properly maneuvered, in going from two to four hundred feet. If Joyce was fit for the duty of lookout, he ought to have been able to have seen the lights on the barge without the aid of a field or night glass. It may, I think, be safely assumed that any man who needs a night-glass to enable him to discover lights in time to avoid a collision is unfit for a lookout. His own natural vision should be sufficient to enable him to perform all the duties of a lookout. The night-glass is part of the outfit of the officer of the deck, and not of the lookout's. The men on the tugs, at the life-saving station, and on the deck of the barge, all saw the city lights, the lights in the bay, the Avon's lights, and the barge's lights without difficulty, and I can, therefore, see no reason why a glass should have been called into requisition to aid the lookout on the Avon. It seems to me to have been a fatal hindrance. While the lookout was getting it from the place where the mate had laid it, adjusting it to his eyes, wiping the glasses at each end, and while the captain was calling the lookout from his place to bring him the glass, the steamer was steadily and surely passing over the brief half-mile between the ends of the pier and the barge, and by the time the glass had told these men what their naked eyes, if vigilantly used, should have revealed to them, it was too late to avoid the collision.

It seems to me that Joyce, fatigued by his extra labors as deck hand in unloading freight, went sluggishly, and perhaps stupidly, to his duty as lookout; that he was not alert and watchful, as he should have been, but delayed and hesitated when he should promptly have given the alarm on the first discovery of the barge's lights; and the captain, for some inexplicable reason, instead of acting on the first information, and either stopping or backing, allowed his boat to keep on her course, while he deliberately attempted to scrutinize the lights reported to him, by the aid of the glass. If there was smoke enough to embarrass him, or render his vision uncertain, which it does not seem to have done for any one else in that locality at the same time, so much the more reason for increased caution on his part. I cannot, therefore, see that there was any fault on the part of the barge which contributed to this collision. If the night had been foggy, so as to make it doubtful to those on the barge whether the barge lights would be seen by those in charge of the Avon, it might have been their duty v.22F,no.15-58

to show a torch; but when there was no circumstance to justify the fear that their lights were not or could not be seen on the Avon, there was no occasion for such a precaution; and if, as already said, the lights of the Avon had been plainly and continuously in sight from the barge, then they could have had no reason to suspect that their lights would not be seen on the Avon. Seeing the Avon's lights, although she was coming directly towards the barge, and knowing that his own anchor light was properly placed and burning, the officer on watch upon the barge would naturally have supposed that the Avon would change her course in time to clear him; and at the time when it became evident that there was imminent danger of a collision, the officer of the watch on the barge caught a lighted lantern from the deck-house and waved it along the deck of the barge, to indicate danger. And comment is made by the respondent's counsel because he did not then show a torch; but it is apparent that the display of a torch at that time would have availed nothing, because the captain and lookout of the Avon at that time had become fully aware of their proximity to the barge, and knew then all that the torch could tell them, but too late to avoid the collision. The commissioner found that the fault for the collision was wholly with the Avon, and found the libelants entitled to recover the amount of the two policies paid, as charged in the libel, together with interest since such payment. The exceptions to his report are overruled, the report confirmed, and decree as recommended by the report.

THE RIO GRANDE.

(District Court, S. D. New York. January 29, 1885.)

SALVAGE-VESSEL ON FIRE-AWARD.

A steamer coming up the Atlantic coast loaded with cotton, about 6 P. M., found her cargo in the lower hold on fire. Her hatches were battened down, and her passengers put on board a bark, and she headed for the Delaware breakwater, where she intended to submerge her hold in shallow water. She arrived there about 7:30 next morning; and, on signals, a wrecking tug and schooner at work there came to her assistance with a steam-pump, the captain designing to use it in an attempt to throw water directly into the compartment where the smothered fire was. Through want of sufficient length of hose, and of sufficient power in the engine, it was found impossible to throw any water directly into the compartment where the fire was, but only into the betweendecks, where it ran aft. Upon finding that no water could be thrown directly into the compartment where it was wanted, the master ordered the two sea-cocks in the ship opened, for the purpose of flooding her, as originally designed, and that the ship, which had previously anchored in about 25 feet of water, be taken by the pilot into 19 feet of water, which was done by the libelant's tug. This was accomplished by about 10 A. M. From that time, the tug resumed the pumping, and continued it till about 6:30 P. M., when the ship was grounded on an even keel, and the fire extinguished, having put into the steamer's hold during that time about one-fourth of the water necessary to submerge the hold. During 36 hours following, the ship was pumped out by other means, and then came