386 FEbEBAIi BEPOBTSB. �any sum as beiiig a reasonable compensation, or any lien for a reasonable compensation, and the only evidence in the case, the agreed statement of facts, is as to the amount of wharfage due, as fixed by the statute of New York, and that statute is the aot of 1875, or the act of 1860, as amended by the act of 1875, it follows, as the statute is invalid in regard to sueh amount, there is no valid statute fixing any rate or amount of wharfage for the John M. Welch, and the libellants hare no lien, maritime or statutory, for any amount of wharfage, which they can enforce in this suit, on the pleadings and the evidence. Although the new rate for the John M. Welch, acoording to the act of 1860, as amended by the act of 1876, is invalid, the old rate for her, found in the act of 1813, as preserved by section 6 of the act of 1860, was repealed by the operation of the enactments subsequent to the act of 1860, because the old rate was inconsistent with the new rate. The repealing clauses in the aots of 1870 and 1872 are not invalid, and they destroyed the operation of the old rates as to the John M. Welch, even though it be held that the new rates are invalid as to her. The holding of the new rates invalid cannot bave the effect to revive the old rates as to her. The old rates are repealed as to her, whether the new rates stand as to her or not. The legislature bas abolished the old rates. The court cannot re-enact them. It can only declare that the new rates cannot apply to the John M. Welch. �These considerations show that the libel must be dismissed, and that no decision need be made, in this case, as to the existence of a maritime lien for wharfage on a domestic vessel, or as to the circumstances under which any lien for wharfage may now exist against a vessel under the statutes of New York. �The libel is dismissed, with costs to the claimants in thia court and in the district court. ����
