IN BE LONG ISIiAND, ETC., TBANSPOETATION 00. 62T �change of language, of the fifth section of the act of Mareb 2, 1Y93. 1 St. 335. The question thus raised, bo far as it depended on the original statute of 1793, is disposed of, so far as this court is concerned, in favor of the power to restrain the suits conformably to the rules of the supreme court by the decision in tho case of The Oceanus, (In re Prov., etc., Steam- ship Co. 6 Ben. 131.) But the question romains whother the change of language efiected in section 720 has taken away this power to restrain suits pending in the state courts. How- ever important this power to restrain pending suits may be as a part of the entire System of relief intended to be given by the statute, as pointed out in the case last cited, yet no Buch restraining order can be granted against the terms of an express prohibitory law of Congress, and if such prohibi- tory law exists the ship-owner must be left to apply to the court where the suits are pending, to give efifect to that pro- vision of this statute which requires that such suits shall cease, and which is alike the supreme law of the land, to be administered in the courts of the state as well as in those of the United States, or at any rate he must in this respect go without this relief if the federal court cannot grant it, whether he has a remedy elsewhere or not. The original act was, "nor shall a writ of injunction be granted to stay proceeding» in any court of a state," As re-enacted the provision is : "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to any proceedings in bankruptcy." The question is whether the introduction of this exception into section 720, as to laws relating to bankruptcy, is to be deemed to take away the power to restrain given in the original act by -what has been held to be the necessary implication of the words "af ter such transfer ail claims and proceedings against the owner shall cease," which were re-enacted without change in section 42SÔ. Whatever the effect of section 720, section 4285 erfectually deprives the state court, before which such olaim or proceeding is pending, of ail jurisdiction. The only question is. On which court is imposed the duty or conferred the power ����
