880 ^SDEBAL BDFOBTEB. �that part of the canal on -which the steamer was approaching. The canal is not straight at the place of the collision, but there is no such bend in it as to warrant the conclusion that the steamer was outside of the field of green rays. Experi- menta with the lantern, which was produced in court, have satisfied me that the green rays are not obscured by the illumination of the other parts of the lantern, as claimed for the defence. The only rational explanation of the collision is that the pilot of the steamer, either fromdef active vision or inattention, mistook the light for a white light, and con- cluded that this was one of a line of boats, of which there were several along that part of the canal, showing white lights and drawn up against the berme bank. This mistake as to her position, if he mistook the color of the light, was quite possible on account of the bend in the canal. That he was inattentive to the color of the light appears, I think, from his own testimony; for, whatever may be the effect of this kind of a green light at a distance, he never discovered that it was a green light when close in front of it, where it was most unmistakably green. And the testimony of the man with him in the pilot house also shows that he took no care- ful observation of the light. �The attempt to prove by the pilot of a steamer that passed the canal-boat before the collision that the light was not green failed. It is not at ail clear that the hoat the pilot of this other steamer saw was the S. Craig ; and if it was this boat, the evidence tending to show that her light was green. is too strong to be overcome by his testimony. The rules of the canal require canal-boats in motion to carry a small green light over the stem. The light carried by the S. Craig was a smaU green light, within the rule. No question is raised as to the jurisdiction of the court. �Decree for libellant, with costs, and reference to computo damages. ����
