122 FEDERAL REPORTER. �by the New York vessel law. It was in evidence that the usual mode of building dredges or steamers of any kind is to build the hull, and to place the engines, boilers, and macliinery in the hull after its launching, thereby saving the additional weight et the machinei-y in the process of launching. The value of the dredge at the date of the hearing (Mardi 3) was estimated at 812,000 to $15,000. io build a new one like it would cost about $18,000. On Janu- , ary 24, 1 881, the dredge was libelled by Theo. Smith & Bro., and the various other parties named above came in as co-libellants and petitioners. The National Dredging Company appeared as claimant and intervenor, �Harmanson d Heath, John C. Baker, and Walke e Old, for the sev- eral libellants and co-libellants. .. Sharp e Hughes, for the olaimants. �(1) Supplies furnished and work done for, in, or about the original con- struction of ships or vessels are not maritime eontracts and not enforced by admiralty courts. 20 How. 393; 22 How. 129; 23 How. 494; 1 Cliff. 46; 1 Woods<290;2Hughes,81. �(2) Not being admiralty contracta, they cannot be made so by state statutes. Such statutes cannot enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction. They cannot change into an admiralty contract what the law meantime declares not to be such. The mere allegation that credit vsras given to the vessel does not give rise to a maritime contract. The subject-matter of the contract must be maritime. If that is the case, then the party will be presumed to have given credit to the vessel, and this presumption will add to his remedy the action in rem. The efEect of a state statute is therefore merely to add to the remedy in personam, which attaches to all maritime eontracts, the additional remedy in rem. This is a mere alternation of the means of enforcing an admiralty contract. It is not an addition to the subjects of admiralty jurisdiction. If the subject-mat- ter of the contract is not maritime, it cannot be made so by a state statute. The folio wing extracts from decisions prove this: �" The alteration [of the twelfth rule] applies to the character of process to be used, not the jurisdiction. * * * The states can neither enlarge nor limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts." 8 Biss. 344, 349, (1872.) �The effect of a state law is merely " to attach a lien to a maritime contract." 5 Ben. 71. �"We have determined to leave all these liens depending upon state laws, and not arising out of the maritime oontraut, to be enforced by the state courts." 21 How. 251. �" The law of the state begins where the maritime law ends," (t. e. the power of a state court to enforce it.) 1 Low. 377. �" It is very obvious that state legislatures have no power to coufer- any additional jurisdiction upon the United States courts, and it is only where the lien given by the state statute is in respect to a suk/ect which is mantime in its nature that admiralty process will lie to enforce it." 2 Parsons, Ship. & Adm. 324. �" There is a wide difference between the power of the court upon a question of jurisdiction and its authority over its mode of proceeding and process. And the alteration in the rules applies altogether to the character of the process to ��� �
