IHE. OLD NATCHEZ. 4T& �about half a mile from the city, Carpenters were put'to work on her, cbanging. ,her decks, erecting a cargo-box, and otherwise remodelling and preparing her for a wharf-boat. These repairs had not been completed on her, and she was engaged in no manner in commerce or navigation, when in the night-time of July 19, 1881, the libellant dis- covered her to b^ on fire, with her watchman on board and asleep, and no other assistance at hand. By the efforts of libellant the hull or hulk, or barge or wharf-boat, was saved. At this time there was> in the interest of claimants, insurance to the amount of $5,000 "on the hull, cargo-box, tackle, and apparel of their wharf-boat Natchez, lying at," etc., conceded to be the same hull or hulk, or whaif-boat, saved by libellant and, libelled herein. �The claimant resists the daim for salvage on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction beeause the -Natchez was a mere hulk, without raotive power of any kind, and was not engaged in com- merce or navigation, and was destined for a wharf-boat. The dis- trict court maintained jurisdiction and allowed salvage on the ground that the Natchez was a floating boat or vesselon a navigable stream, fitted for a wharf-boat, and, as such, intended to aid commerce and navigation, an^supported the decision with the case of The Cheese- man v. Two Ferry-boats, 2 Bond, 363. The claimant relies in this court on the case of The Hendrick Hudsoiv, 3 Ben. 419, and makes the argument that at the time the alleged salvage services were ren- dered the Natchez was not engaged in aiding commerce or naviga- tion, and at that time, or as a wharf-boat, she was not subject to any maritime liens or responsibilities. �The facts of The Hendrick Hvdson are entirely different from the facts of this case. The Hendrick Hudson was aground, destined to continue so, and she had been converted into and used as a "saloon and hotel," and she was only to be floated so as to reach a more eligible location. She was no more subject to admiralty jurisdiction than would be a hotel on a wharf. �The reasoning in the case of The Cheeseman fully sustains the judgment of the district court in this case, and, were it necessary, I might be willing to wholly base my judgment on the same ground. But it is not necessary, as the agreed facts in this case, as I have recited them, show that no matter what may have been the intention of her owners as to future use, the dismantled Natchez still retained all the characteristics and distinctive features of a water-craft, ca- pable of being used in commerce and navigation, and she was afloat on waters over which the courts of the United States have admiralty ��� �
