MAEBHAIiL V. TUÛ CONROY. 787 �they could then do nothing, as they had little more thau steerage -way, and the wharves -were close on their port side; tTiat they saw no light whatever, and were struek by the barge in less than two minutes af ter they heard the bail. The testi- mony of ail on board the schooner is positive that they saw nothing but a dark mass moving down upon them. It is easy to believe that this was the fact. The only lights they could have seen were the two vertical mast head-lights of the tug, and the lantern which had been placed on the port side of the barge, on the platform beside the cars, midway of ber length. It is quite possible, however, that to persons so near the surface of the water as thoso on the schooner these lights also were obstructed when close. But even if these lights could have been seen they would have afforded no suffioient indication of the direction in which the barge was moving, especially when surrounded by the numerous other lights of a crowded harbor. �It has been urged that the tug and tow were in fault in not observing the ninth raie prescribed by the board of super- vising inspectors of steam-vessels, which, in addition to the other regulation lights, requires that on tows of canal-boats and barges a white light shali be carried on the extreme out- side of the tow, and also on the extreme after part; but it appears to me that the fault which led to this collision was permitting the colored side lights of the tug to be so obstructed by the cars as not to be visible to any one low down on the water on her port side. �From these considerations, in my judgment, it results that the tug is to be held liable for the collision, and it becomes unnecessary to discuss the testimony tending to show that, even after the schooner is said to have changed her course, the tug might have avoided her by reversing at once, or going to port instead of oontinuing to go to starboard under a hard a-port wheel. �Proof has been offered showing the total damages to have been $4,501.28, itemized in a statement filed by libellant's proctor. The items of this statement are satisfactorily proved, with the exception of the propriety of the four and ����
