Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/227

MONONGAHELA NAV. CO. V. TUG "bOB CONNELL." 219 �that a contract for lockage is not specially secnred by »ny statute in Pennsylvania, and hence that the claim here has DO statutory lien. �Nor has it any stronger foothold in the general maritime law. From The General Smith] in 4 Wheaton, 438-443, down through a long series of cases to The Lottawana, in 21 Wal- iace, 558, the supreme court has adhered to the rule that a lien is not incident to materials, or supplies, or maritime service, fumiehed to a vessel in her home port, which is de- fined to he any place within the limita of the state to which the vessel belongs. Eepeated efforts have been made to shake these decisions, as resting upon an irrational distinction be- tween domeatic and foreign vessels, but the court has firmly adhered to them. In The Lottawana, 578, an impressive effort was made in this direction, but the court met it by saying ; "And according to the maritime law,as accepted and received in this country, vre feel bound to declare that no suoh lien exists as is claimed by the appellees in this case. The adju- dications in this court before referred to, which it is unneces- sary to review, are conclusive on this subject; and we see no sufBcient ground for disturbing them." So, also, in Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 69-75, it is affirmed that a lien for wharfage furnished to a domestic vessel does not exist. The court said : "These remarks * * * are abundantly sufficient to demon- strate that the contract for wharfage is a maritime contract, for which, if the vessel or water craft is a foreign one, or be- longs to a port of a state other than that where the wharf is situated, a maritime lien arises against the ship or vessel in favor of the proprietor of the wharf." �It cannot be doubted that lockage is of the same general nature and in the same category with the claims involved in these cases, and hence that like conditions are essential in ail of them to the existence of a lien upon the vessel on whose credit they are supplied. �The vessel in this case was owned at Pittsburgh, and that was her home port. The claim in question is for lockage service in passing the vessel through locks in the Mononga- hela river, within the state of Pennsylvania, erected and ��� �