BKOECK V. BABGE JOHN M. WELCH. 37!? �amend an act in relation to the rates of wharfage, and to regulate piers, wharves, bulk-heads and slips in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, passed April 10, 1860." Section 8 of the act of 1870 repeals ail acts and parts of acts inconsist- ant with its provisions. It does not repeal, in so many words, any part of the act of 1860. In respect to the single and double rates of wharfage imposed by the first and second sec- tions of the act of 1860, and to the rates of wharfage on lighters, canal-boats and barges, the act of 1870, by its first section, alters such rates, and imposes, in certain cases, double rates. But the act of 1870 does not take away any lien given by the act of 1860. The act of 1860, when amended, by inserting in it the rates prescribed by the act of 1870, con- tains a provision for a lien for those rates to the same estent it did for the rates of the act of 1860. There is nothing in the continued existence of such lien, under the new rates, inconsistent with the mere substitution of new rates. The act of 1870 was followed by the act of April 23, 1872, (Laws of New York, 1872, c. 320, p. 799,) which is entitled "An act to amend an act in relation to the rates of wharfage, and to regulate piers, wharves, bulk-heads and slips in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, passed May 6, 1870." Section 1 of the act of 1872 does not vary at ail from the same section as amended by the act of 1875, as before recited, except that that section, as so amended, includes Long Island City as well as New York and Brooklyn. Section 3 of the act of 1872 repeals ail acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. It does not repeal, in so many words, any part of the act of 1860- Being an amendment, on its face, of the act of 1870, and that being an amendment, on its face, of the act of 1860, the ad; of 1872 must be regarded as an amendment of the act of 1860, in respect to single and double rates of wharfage, and as not taking away any lien given by the act of 1860. The act of 1800 is to be regarded, after the passage of the act of 1872, as containing the rates prescribed by the act of 1872, with the provision for a lien. The lien is not inconsistent with the mere substitution of new rates. The act of 1872 was followed by the act of 1875, before recited. It is entitled "An act to ����
