732 FEDEBAIt SEFOBTEB. �Upon the argument it was also contended by couasel for the claimants that the New York lien act had been declared unconstitutional and void by the courts of that state, and therefore the libellants could aoquire no rights under it; citing The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19 ; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554; Poole v. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 554; King v. Greenway, 71 N. Y. 413. But, notwithstanding some loose and ambigu- ous language in the opinions in these cases, implying the unconstitutionality of the act as a whole, it is certain that nothing was decided in any of them but that so much of the act as gave persons having a lien under it a remedy in the state court by a proceeding in rem against the vessel, to en- force such liens, was void, upon the ground that the contract in such cases was maritime, and therefore exclusively of admiralty cognizance, except so far as the common law could give a remedy ; and that it oould not do by prooess in rem. �These decisions were made in obedience to the authority of the then recently-decided cases, in the supreme court, of The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, and The Hine, Id. 556. �The validity of the provisions of the act giving the lien, �and providing for its registration and effect, were not before �the court, or passed upon by it; and such seems to have �been the opinion of the circuit court in The John Farron, (S. �D. N. Y.) in which Johnson, J., speaking of the decisions of �the New York court in 39 and 43 N. Y. supra, says : �"The state lien law was held to be unconstitutional, because it at- tempted to give process in rem, and thus was held to Invade the graat of admiralty jurisdiction to the United States. The adjudication did not go beyond the validity of the proceeding in rem, and therefore the provis- ion for the lien in the specifled cases remains to be enforced, when the contract is maritime, in the courts of the admiralty." 14 Blatchf. 26. �That is this case exactly. The contract to furnish sup- plies to the Canada was a maritime one, and the lien given by the law of New York to secure its performance may be enforced in the admiralty as an incident, or part of it, wherever the vessel is found. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Mass. 474; The Harrison, 1 Sawy. 353. �It has been held by the supreme court that, nntil congress legislates upon the subject, the state may provide a lien for ��� �
