The judgment in this admiralty injury case is affirmed.

As a question of negligence, we cannot find the district court’s findings clearly erroneous.

As to any strict liability theory, the circumstance that the district court in its view of the evidence could not connect Bethlehem (the repairs contractor) to missing bolts, which absence was a factor in causation, relieves us of the necessity of exploring the limits of such a theory.

Plaintiff, a sailor of the United States Navy, obviously had a strong case for unseaworthiness against the government except that his injury was one where his status as a sailor denied him the right to sue. (The navy owned the ship.) The government has its own provisions to compensate those in the service injured in the line of duty.

Judgment affirmed.