the salvor's service was not meritorious since it did not result from a desire to save the property or to benefit the owner.1 A good defense, and one frequently employed, is that there has been fraud, concealment, theft, spoliation or gross neglect on the part of the salvors. The master loses all his salvage because of his embezzling a part of the goods saved.2 If other salvors collude with the master to defraud the owners, their claim is forfeited.3 5 Though salvage is not lost because of honest ignorance, causing damage to the rescued property in saving or bringing it in,4 yet it is forfeited by smuggling or embezzling, spoliation or gross neglect, forcible resistance to authority, etc. But the sailors are not to lose their right by reason of the bad conduct of the captain." And the crew cannot be denied compensation for salvage service because of bad conduct previous to its rendition, in matters not connected with that service. Nor for embezzlement of goods, in an action by the crew against the owner of the vessel, if the owner of the goods has paid to him the entire salvage claim, without any deduction for embezzlement. 8 It is a good defense against a libel for military salvage, that the recapture was that of neutral property, by a neutral, from a friendly power. And the fact that the rescued property has been condemned in a court of nations is a good defense. 10 Where government vessels claim salvage, the statutes limiting their rights in the premises may sometimes be successfully pleaded, 11 § 513. The Adjudication and Amount of Award. Congress has regulated the subject of adjudication, in cases of salvage for recapture. 12 1 Le Tigre, 3 Wash. C. C. 567. 2 Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cr. 240. 3 Cargo of the Schr. North Carolina, 15 Pet. 40. The Rosalie, 25 Eng. Law and Eq. 605. 5 The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152; A Quantity of Iron, 2 Sprague, 51; The Island City, 1 Black, 121; The Rising Sun, Ware, 378; The Leander, 1 Bee, 260; The Barefoot, 1 Eng. Law and Eq. 661; The Boston, 1 7. 6 The Missouri's Cargo, 1 Sprague, 428. 7 The Centurion, Ware, 477. 8 Blake v. Patten, 3 Shep. 173. Peck. Randall, 1 Johns. 165. 10 The Star, 3 Wheat. 78. 11 Id. 12 Rev. Stat. U. S. § 4652; 2 Stat. at L. 16; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1. Under the act of March 3, 1801, one-sixth of the cargo of vessels recaptured was awarded to the salvors, though a different rule was observed with regard to French property, as a matter of amity, and reciprocity.1 Neutral property now is generally restored without salvage. In many ordinary cases there are no means of fixing the amount due for salvage service by any inflexible rule. And where the amount is within the sound discretion of the court, appeals from the award will not be encouraged. The amount proper to be allowed, depends, of course, upon the nature of the service. While one-sixth 2 was awarded as salvage in case of a recapture, one-half is frequently allowed for saving a derelict vessel. 4 But the award for saving derelict property, though usually very liberal, varies with the value of the service, considering the risk, labor, etc.;5 indeed, whether derelict or not, such variation of allowance prevails for such causes. 1 Schooner Adeline and Cargo, 9 Cr. 244. 2 The Sibyl, 4 Wheat. 98; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1. The Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumn. 400; Barrels of Flour, 2 Story, 195; L'Esperence, 1 Dods. 46; The Francis Mary, 2 IIagg. 89; The Reliance, Id. 90; The Eugene, 3 Hagg. 156; The Effort, Id. 153; The Zwei Gebroder, Id. 430; The Brittania, Id. 153; The Waterloo, 1 Black, and H. 128; Cargo of Ship Favorite, 4 Cr. 347. 5 The Barque Island City, 1 Black, 121; Smith c. The Stewart, Crabbe, 218. 6 The John Gilpin, Olcott, 77; The John Wurts, Id. 462; The Pontiac, 1 Newb. 130; The Charles, Id. 329; The John Taylor and Tackle, Id. 341; The Delphos, Id. 412; The T. P. Leathers, Id. 421; The S. W. Downs, Id. 458; The Storm, 1 Newb. 458; Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150; Box of Bullion, Sprague, 91; Barrels of Oil, Id. 91; The Maria Bishop, Blatchf. Prize Cases, 552; The John Clayton, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 372; The Czarina, 2 Sprague, 28; The Anna, 10 Blatchf. 456; The Bowen, Ben. 296; Harley v. 467 Bars R. R. Iron, 1 Sawyer, 1; The John Perkins, Ware, 87; The Minnie Miller, 6 Ben. 117; The Speedwell, Id. 96; The Acorn, Id. 98; The Rebecca Clyde, 5 Ben. 98; The Wexford, 6 Ben. 117; The Anna, Id. 166; The Boliver v. The Chalmette, 1 Woods, 397; The Senator, 1 Brown's Ad. 372; The Michael Grob, Id. 419; The C. W. Ring, 2 Hugh, 99; The Grace Brown, Id. 112; The Wm. Penn, Id. 144; Ten Bales of Gunny Bags, 3 Sawyer, 187; Tyson e. Prior, 1 Gallis, 133; The Brig Cora, 2 Wash. C. C. 80; The Bellona, Bee, 178; British Consul v. Smith, Id. 178; The Boston, 1 Sumn. 328; The Sloop Ann, 2 Pet. Ad. 278; The Priscilla, Bee, 1; The Jefferson and Cargo, 1 Pet. Ad. 45, note; The Ship Cato, Id. 48; Goods saved from LaBelle Creole, Id. 31; Peisch . Ware, 4 Cr. 347; The Ship Blaireau, 2 Id. 239; 514. The Distribution. Congress has fixed the manner of distribution, as to vessels of the navy: "All ransom money, salvage, bounty, or proceeds of condemned property, accruing or awarded to any vessel of the navy, shall be distributed and paid to the officers and men entitled thereto in the same manner as prize money, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy." In ordinary cases of civil salvage, the owner of the ship rendering the service has sometimes been allowed one-third of the whole salvage compensation; but there is no fixed rule on the subject, though Judge STORY, in the case cited, thought onethird should be the general rule. All the facts must be considered. 3 The master is usually allowed twice as much as the mate, unless the services of the latter have been extraordinary. Onefourth the residue, (after fixing the salvage ship's one-third, more or less,) is about the common allotment to the master; one-eighth to the mate, and the balance of the salvage money to the crew. This distribution is in cases where there are no other salvors to be satisfied. Discrimination is made between the different sailors, according to the respective merits of their services, when justice requires it; but invidious distinctions are not made on slight grounds.4 When there are other salvors besides the officers and crew and their ship, such as finders, freighters, passengers, assistants from other ships and crews, who, under the evidence in a particular case, may be entitled to share in the compensation, (though passengers and freighters are not usually entitled,) the court must dispose of the award among them judiciously accord The Messenger, 2 Pet. Ad. 284; Bass . Five Negroes, Bee, 201; Jerby v. 194 Slaves, Id. 226; The Friendship, Id. 175; The Elvira, Gilpin, 60; The Elizabeth and Jane, Ware, 35; 140 Barrels Flour, 2 Story, 195; 340 Pigs of Copper, 1 Id. 314; The Geo. W. Wright, 8 Ben. 219; The Ontario. Id. 500; The Tros, 10 Phila. 223. 1 U. S. Rev. Stat. § 4642. See S 3689. 2 The Blaireau, 2 Cr. 240. 3 Sonderburg v. Ocean Towboat Co. 3 Woods, 146; The Cochrane, Id. 304; The Colima, 5 Saw. 181; Morgan v. United States, 14 Ct. Cl. 442. The Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumn. 400; The Cora, 2 Wash. 80; The Jonge Bastian, 5 Rob. 322. any ing to merit, since it is impossible to lay down inflexible rule. Of course, where such sharers of the salvage come in, the amount that would otherwise have been apportioned to the salvors first mentioned, must be correspondingly reduced, since it would be manifestly unjust to the unfortunate owner of the saved property to have the whole amount of the award increased because of the number of the salvors. But such injustice has been done.1 The lien upon the res for costs is of higher rank than that for salvage, since the services of the court officers is necessary to the recovery of the award; hence, it must be allowed, and first paid; and it should be paid out of the salvage money. Where the services were "below a salvage service," compensation was awarded in one instance. 3 In one proceeding, all rights of salvors, co-salvors, intervenors, claimants, court officers, etc., should be definitely settled, and the respective ranks as lien holders fixed, so that the whole cause may be appealed, if necessary. 4 1 Ryan v. Cato, Bee, 241. 2 The Nat. Hooper, 3 Sumn. 543. The Ship Arctic, Bee, 232. 495. Steamboat New England, 3 Sumn. § 515. Rules of Navigation. For damage by collision, the action in rem lies, (prescribed in the fifteenth of the Admiralty rules,) and it is styled "A cause of Damage, Civil and Maritime." Steam navigation has become so general on lakes and rivers, and has so greatly increased upon the sea; and navigation of all kinds has grown to such extent, that collisions have not ceased to be of frequent occurrence, notwithstanding the tendency of modern appliances of science to prevent them. Regulations have been adopted by maritime countries, which have received general acquiescence, been incorporated into the law of the sea, and applied to steamships and steamboats to determine their relations to each other, and to sailing vessels, and the relations of the latter to steamers. These regulations have as much title to general regard as the nautical rules which have always governed sailing vessels among themselves. Congress has adopted regulations which accord with general commercial usages. A prolific cause of collision is the violation of the regula tions concerning lights. Sometimes the violation consists in the total absence of lights; sometimes in the use of other than the prescribed colors, or from putting the lights in improper positions. Neglect of the required fog signals is another cause; but infringement of the sailing and steering rules is the most fruitful source of collisions. Among the more frequent faults are failure to put the helm to port when in danger of striking |