the District Court. Still dissatisfied, the respondents removed the case into this court for re-examination.

Sufficient appears, in the statement of facts exhibited in the preliminary summary of the evidence, to show that the steamship was proceeding westward to her port of destination, and that the schooner, though lying-to when the light of the steamship first became visible, was, in fact, on a cruise in pursuit of employment as a pilot-boat. Pilot-boats, it should be remarked, are required to carry a masthead-light; and the evidence shows that the schooner did not display any such light, as prescribed by the rules of navigation. 13 Stat. 59.

Flash-lights were constantly exhibited by the schooner; and it is fully proved that the steamship showed, in reply, a blue light, to signify that the flash-light was seen, and that a pilot was wanted. These signals having been exchanged, the steamship altered her course to north-west by north, which was a proper manœuvre to meet the schooner; and it appears that the schooner bore away to the southward and westward for the reciprocal purpose of meeting the steamship, to comply with her request for a pilot.

Apparently, each understood the purpose and intent of the other; nor are any remarks necessary to show that the course adopted by the respective vessels, if pursued for any considerable distance, would cross each other as the vessels advanced; and the proofs show, that, when they had approached within a quarter of a mile of each other, the steamship ported her helm sufficiently to make her starboard side her lee side, and that those in charge of her navigation showed a light over her lee side to guide the pilot as to the place where he should board the steamship. Pursuant to that signal, the schooner, as she was crossing the bow of the steamship, launched the yawl, as before explained, and despatched the pilot for the steamship.

Complete success attended the launching of the yawl; and it appears that the pilot, aided by two seamen, rowed the yawl directly for the light suspended over the lee side of the steamship. Equipped as the yawl was with a good light, it was the duty of those in charge of the steamship's navigation to make the necessary preparations to receive the pilot on board: but, before he had time to reach the point of destination in the

yawl, the steamship starboarded her helm; and, failing to stop, she advanced and struck the schooner in the manner antecedently described, injuring her to such an extent that she sank, and became a total loss.

Two faults are charged against the steamship: (1.) That she starboarded her helm, which is admitted; and of course it requires no argument to establish the charge. (2.) That she did not stop, so as to give the schooner the opportunity to send a pilot on board, without being run down while endeavoring to perform that duty.

Argument to show that the faults imputed to the steamship, if proved, were culpable faults, is hardly necessary, as it is clear that each tended, beyond all doubt, to promote the collision. Discussion as to the first charge is unnecessary, as it is admitted; and the evidence to prove the other is too decisive to require comment, when considered in connection with the effects produced by the concussion.

Suppose that is so: still it is insisted by the respondents that the schooner was also in fault; and they make two charges against the schooner, which are the only questions that remain to be considered. They are as follows: (1.) That the schooner did not show any masthead-light. (2.) That she was guilty of negligence in attempting to cross the bows of the steamship.

Masthead-lights should be displayed by pilot-boats in such a case; and it follows that such an omission of duty casts upon the schooner the burden of proving that the omission in that regard did not occasion or contribute to the collision. The Farragut, 10 Wall. 338; The Miranda, 6 McLean, 221; Bulloch v. Lamar, 8 Law Rep. 275; The Louisiana, 6 Am. Law Reg. 422; 1 Pars. on Ship. 577, 595; Waring v. Clark, 5 How. 465; The Vanderbilt, 16 Conn. 420.

Lights of the kind are required as one of many precautions which prudent navigators are expected to provide; but it would be unreasonable to hold that the owners of a pilot-vessel should be adjudged liable for the consequences of a collision by reason of not having a masthead-light, where it appeared, beyond all doubt, that she constantly showed flash-lights, which were seasonably seen by the other vessel, and that the absence of the

masthead-light had nothing to do with the collision. The Panther, Spink's Adm. 31; Morrison v. Nav. Co., 8 Exch. 733.

Sailing pilot-boats are required to carry the masthead-light, besides displaying the flare-up light, in order that they may be seen by approaching vessels, and that the approaching vessel may not be misled in respect to the character of the vessel showing such a light. The Trident, Spink's Adm. 223; The Telegraph, id. 431.

Clear proof is exhibited that the schooner did not carry the required masthead-light; but it is equally clear that she was seasonably seen by the steamship, and that those in charge of the navigation of the steamship were not misled, even for a moment, as to the character of the schooner. The Livingstone, Swabey, 520. Instead of that, the evidence is full to the point that they immediately replied to the signal of the flash-light by showing the blue light, and in due season showed the lee side of the ship, and lowered a light over the rail on that side as a signal to the pilot to approach the ship at that point, in order to come on board.

Proof more satisfactory than what is given in this case cannot be required to show that the absence of the masthead-light did not contribute in any degree to the collision. Such an omission to comply with the rules of navigation, where it clearly appears that it had nothing to do with the disaster, is not sufficient to exonerate the culpable party from any portion of the damages.

Grant all that, and still it is contended by the respondents that the schooner was guilty of negligence in attempting to cross the bows of the steamship. What they insist is, that the schooner, inasmuch as she was on her starboard tack when the steamship approached, should have put her helm up, and gone round on the lee side of the steamship. Difficulty might have attended that manœuvre, as the purpose was to despatch the yawl with the pilot on board to the lee side of the approaching vessel; and, if the schooner had followed the yawl on the same side of the steamship, she might have become unmanageable, as in a calm; or, if the wind continued to fill her sails, she might have run down the yawl, or have prevented the yawl from reaching her precise point of destination.

Opposed to that suggestion, it is maintained by the libel

lants that the manoeuvre of the schooner was in all respects correct, and the most judicious which could have been adopted. Gross fault, it is clear, was committed, either by the steamship or by the schooner. If the manœuvre of the schooner was correct, then it is clear that the steamship ought to have stopped, and backed, if necessary, to prevent her from making headway, to enable the schooner to despatch the pilot in safety and without danger to the steamship.

Reasonable doubt upon that subject, it would seem, cannot be entertained by any one having much nautical experience; and it would seem to follow, if the steamship might, under the circumstances, continue to make headway, that it was bad seamanship for the schooner to attempt to cross her bows, as the attempt, under such circumstances, would expose her in every case to the danger of collision.

Neither party controverts these propositions; but the libellants contend that it was a gross error on the part of the steamship to starboard her helm at that moment, and that it was her duty to have stopped, and backed if necessary, so as to have given the schooner a safe opportunity to despatch the pilot to the steamship, without danger of being run down by the forward movement of the steamship. Apart from that, they also insist that it was proper and customary that the schooner, after she had despatched the pilot, should cross the bows of the steamship and proceed to her windward side, in order to pick up the yawl, under the stern of the steamship, as she moved forward from where she stopped to receive the pilot.

Support to that theory is also attempted to be drawn from the danger, if a different course should be pursued, that the yawl and the schooner would become separated in the darkness, to the great peril of the seamen sent in the yawl to assist in despatching the pilot. Extreme difficulty attends the solution of the question, as nothing is found in the sailing rules enacted by Congress to assist in determining which theory is correct. Questions of the kind, if presented in the admiralty court of England, would doubtless be submitted, in the first instance, to the Trinity Masters for their consideration and advice; and it cannot be doubted that much aid would be derived, in such an investigation, from the experience and nau

tical knowledge of such a board of judicial assistants: but the acts of Congress, regulating the practice and proceedings of the district courts sitting in admiralty, have not made any provision for any such board of assistants, to sit with the district judges, in the adjudication of such controversies. Nor do the rules regulating the practice of the admiralty courts, as framed by this court, make any such provision. Parties litigant, however, are allowed in such controversies to call and examine persons of nautical skill and experience as expert witnesses; and they may, if they can, prove by them what the general usage is in respect to any disputed question of navigation not controlled by the sailing rules prescribed by Congress; and in certain cases, where better guides are not furnished by law, they may inquire of such witnesses what is and what is not good seamanship in a supposed state of the case, if the supposed state of the case is within the general scope and range of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the court. Nor is such a course of investigation without its advantages, even as compared with the foreign system, as it secures to the parties the right of cross-examination, which is always a right of great value, and more especially so where the witness is allowed to give his opinion to influence the judgment of the court in determining the merits of the controversy.

Valuable aid, also, is sometimes obtained, in such an investigation, by referring the cause to a special master, or masters, of nautical experience, with power to examine witnesses, and to report the facts to the court. Such a proceeding, though not specifically authorized by law or the rules prescribed by this court, cannot be considered irregular, as the power of final decision is still in the tribunal to which the report is made.

Expert witnesses were examined in the case. They testified to the effect that the pilot-boat, in such cases, approaches directly ahead of the steamship; that the steamship makes either side of her the lee side, as under the circumstances is most convenient; that the steamship indicates the place on the lee side where the pilot may come on board by suspending a bright light over the lee side at the proper place, down near the water; that the steamship then stops, to enable the small boat to approach the side of the steamship, and to allow the pilot to