913 FEDEBAIi REPORTER. �lision, and the evidence shows a failure on the part of the approaching vessel to discharge a statutory obligation, the sole purpose of which is to enable an approaching vessel to be seen, clear proof would seem to be required to justify the conclusion that the collision was in no way attributable to the failure to discharge the statutory obligation. �Upon these grounds, therefore, I find that the collision in question was caused by fault on the part of both vessels, and accordingly the damages must be apportioned. The libel for salvage must, under such circumstauces, necessarUy be dis- missed. �Note. In Fanoell v. The Steam-boat John H. Starin, 2 Fed. Rbp. 100, (S. D. N. Y.,) aad Bchooner Margwret v. Steamer O. Whiting, 3 Fed. Rbp. 870, (E. D. Pa.,) it was held that a failure to comply with the ^tatute did not render the vessel liable, unless the omission tended to produce the collision. In the arst case it was deemed essential that the steamer should be approaching some particular "point" on the sailing vessel in order to render the statute applicable. In Kennedy v. The Steamer Sarmatian, 2 Fed. Rbp. 911, (D. Md.,) it was held that the statute was sufflciently broad to require a light to be exhibited to a steamer coming up astern ; ' while in Brainard v. The Steamer Na/rragansett, 3 Fed. Hep. 2S1, (D. Conn.,) it was further held that the requirement of the statute was not conflned merely to those cases where a steamer was thua approaching a sailing vessel from astern. �In the case of Kennedy v. The Steamer Sarmation, supra, Chief Justice Waite held that the rule contemplated the keeping of a sufflcient watch over the stern to enable the vessel to perform her duty as to the lights ; and that it was negligence in s schooner, under the general mies of the sea, not to show a torch-light, or do something else calculated to glve notice of her dangerous proximity to an approaching steam-vessel.— [Ed. ��� �
