Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/734

EOBERTS V. BARK WINDERMERB. 727 �During the same year, and probably without the knowledge of either of these two decisions, Judge Welker held a steve- dore entitled to a lien. The Schooner Senator, 3 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 430, He cites no case directly to the point, but relies on the authority of The Williams, 1 Bro. 216, where Judge Emmons lays down the general rule, as the resuit of t)ie authorities, that "ail maritime contraots made within the 8cope of the master's authority do per se hypothecate the ship;" and he cites also, with approval, the opinion of Judge Ware, in The Paragon, that "every contract with the master within the scope of his authority binds the vessel, and gives the oreditor a lien for his security." He then adds : "There certainly does not seem to be any difference in prinoiple between this class of service and those performed by the sailors, the lightermen, the man who sets the rigging, who scrapes the bottom or paints the side of the vessel, or him who fumishes supplies, or tows the vessel in or out of port. They are all necessary to the general business of transporta- tion of the cargo, and contribute to the reward of capital em- ployed in the maritime service, and alike should be regarded as maritime service, and fumish a remedy against the ves- sel." �Eecurring to thôse considerations of commercial necessity and convenience, out of whioh it ia supposed that this whole System of tacit hypothecation bas grown, it is difficult, as matter of principle, to limit the range of maritime service and maritime contracts, which carry with them, as an essen- tial part, a maritime lien enforceable in admiralty short of whatever services the master mayrequire, and whatever con- tracta he may find it necessary to make, as the agent of the foreign owner, in the performance of his duty in navigating and condueting the business of the ship, for the sucoessful prosecution of the voyage or adventure upon which she bas been dispatched by the owner; and this doctrine, which is inconsistent with that narrower principle by which the steve- dore's lieij was denied, seems to bave received the sanction of the supreme court of the United States. �Thus, in The Emily Souder, 17 Wall. 669, Mr. Justice ����