evidence in relation to the place of petitLner's birth could be either corroborated or impeached. The naked testimony of these witnesses, unsupported by any fact or circumstance, does not furnish to my mind satisfactory proof that the petitioner is entitled to remain in the United States. Petitioner will be remanded to the custody whence he was taken, for the purpose of being deported to China.
THE S. W. SCHUYLER. THE NELLIE S. TYGERT. THE (District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 13, 1899.)
SALVAGE-FIRES-AMOUN'r OF COMPENSATION. In Admiralty. Henry C. Boyer and George P. Rich, for libelants. John F. Lewis and Francis C. Adler, for respondent. BUTLER, District Judge. The suit is for salvage services rendered to the respondent when on fire in dock at the port of Philadelphia. There is no question that the services were rendered under the circumstances above stated, and that they were meritorious. The only controversy is about the extent of the services, and the necessities of the respondent at the time. It is admitted that the libelants are entitled to recover something; and $50 have been paid into court. on that account, with costs to the date of payment. The only question, therefore, is, how much should the libelants receive'! A large amount of testimony has been taken on the subject of the responllent's peril, and the value of the se'l'vices, which exhibits the usual amount of contradiction. I have examined it with care, but will not undertake to analyze and discuss it. It is sufficient to say that I do not believe the respondent's peril was great. I think she would have been saved from destruction bv other sources of aid within her reach, though she might, and doubtless would, have suffered greater damage if the libelants had not gone to her assistance. I do not think either of the libelants encountered serious risk in performing the services, though they were both subjected to some danger. In view of all the circumstances I believe they should receive $225. As the tugs Schuyler and Tygert belong substantially to the same owners, it is not important, probahly, to apportion the compensation hetween them. Nevertheless to avoid possible controversy on this subject, I will award $200 to the Schuyler and $25 to the Tygart, whose services were very slight. A decree may be entered accordingly.