Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/728

THE BEIG E. A. BABNAKD. 721 �on the argument, I was indisposed to raise it. On a sugges- tion to counsel since, however, it has been carefully examined and discussed, and is ascertained to be well founded. The maritime law of the country is a part of the federal System, administered alone by the federal courts, and a concession of right to interfere with it in any respect by the states, is dif- ficult to reconcile with reason. That they may interfere, however, to some extent, as by creating liens for supplies furnisbed, and repairs made in home ports, is well settled, though the fact is rarely referred to by the courts without an expression of regret that it is so. The Gen. Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; Peyrouxv. Howard, 7 Peters, 324; Orleans v. Phebus, 11 Peters, 175; The St. Lawrence,! Bla.c\, 522; The Lattawanna, 21 Wall. 580. No further interference, however, has been permitted, and no instance is found in which such statutory liens have been allowed to displace or supersede liens created by the maritime law. They are but quasi maritime, have uniformly been so considered by the courts, and are recog- nized and allowed only after ail maritime liens proper are paid. The creditors holding them are citizens of the state, and it is permitted to direct the order in which their claims shall be paid. To allow state legislation a greater effect would be to concede the right to alter and change the mari- time law of the nation in a most material respect. The right BO to change and alter has been most emphatically denied, (as in principle it must be,) whenever the subjeet has been mentioned. The Lattawanna, 21 Wall. 580; The St. Lato- rence, 1 Black, 522 ; and other cases therein cited. �What alteration could be more material than that of divesting, superseding, or in any respect changing the order of satisfying, liens? While the precise question uhder consideration here has rarely been raised, under circum- stances requiring decision, it has in a few instances ; and the cases in which the general subjeet has been incidentally remarked upon by the judges are numerous. Every de- cision, and every expression, found, is in harmony with thô view herein stated. The St. Joseph, Brown's Adm. R. 203; The Harrison, 2 Abb. U. S. 74; The John Richards, 1 Bis». �v.2,no.8— 46 ����