more general; consequently,tbat.the latter can only apply such colors as are not, mentioned intheeal'lier paragraphs. The rule undoubtedly is that, where a tariff act imposes a duty on an article by a speciftcname or description, general terms in the act,· though embracing it broadly, are not applicable to it, and the .general must give way to the particular. We think the rule has no application to the present case. The case is not one where an article is differently described by different provisions of the act, one general and the other more specific, but is one where the different provisions describe different articles for duty. While the term "artists' colors in tubes or otherwise" describes a class comprehending many colors, it does not describe a class in which the colors of the earlier paragraphs are included. They do not belong to the class, because they are not of the special variety which it embraces until they are prepared fora particular use lind put up in a particular form. Each paragraph has its RPpropriate operation without impinging upon the other. The colors which have undergone the special preparation. necessary to bring_ them within the categorycommerclally known .as "artists'. colors" are made dutiable by paragraph 61. The colors mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, which have not been advanced so as to bring them within that category, are dutiable un,der their respective paragraphs. As we are satisfied that the merchandise was properly classified by the collector, and that the decisions of the board of general appraisers and of the circuit'courtwerecorrect, we·do not deem it necessary to consider the question whether the protests of the importer were sufficiently specific. The ofthecircuit court is affirmed.
THE STARBUCK. EVANS et a1. v. THE STARBUCK. (DIstrict Court,E. D. Pennsylvania. May 4, 1894.) No. 26. ADMIRALTY JURISDIC'l'ION-DRII)DGE AND Scows. A dredge and her scows are to be treated as one concern, and are subject to libel in admiralty for wages.
This was a libel by Evans and others against the dredge Starbuck to recover wages. John Q. Lane and Jos. Hill Brinton, for libelants. Henry R. Edmunds, for respondent. BUTLER, District Judge. The claims a!'e for wages. The reo spondent is a dredge, working in the water with the usual accompaniment of scows. That a dredge and her scows are to be treated as one concern, and are subject to the admiralty jurisdiction has been several times decided, and I think rightly.. To discuss the subject would be waste of time. The question of admiralty jurisdiction has been so fully considered that nothing new can be added. The fol-
THE BIG JIM.
lowIng cases present the subject in every aspect In which It has arisen or is likely to arise: The Pioneer, 30 Fed. 206; The Alabama, 19 Fed. 544; Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. 411; Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers, 36 Fed. 608; The General Cass, 1 Brown, Adm. 334 [Fed. Cas. No. 5,307]; McNamara v. The Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607; Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The Hendrick Hudson, 3 Ben. 419 [Fed. Cas. No. 6,335]; The Alabama, 22 Fed. 449; Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; The W. F. Brown, Id. 290; The Dick Keys, 1 Hiss. 408 [Fed. Cas. No. 3,898]; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60 [Fed. Cas. No. · 7,622]; A Floating Dry Dock, etc., 22 Fed. 685; The Old Natchez, 9 Fed. 476; Cope v. Dry Dock, 10 Fed. 142. The claim of Evans is acknowledged to be correct and is allowed. The claim of Clements will be allowed to date of respondent's seizure.
THE BIG JIM. BAKER et aI. v. THE BIG JIM. (District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. May 4, 1894.)
A marine pump, which is weighted with heavy ballast, so as to rest on piles, but capable of floating and being towed from place to place, and which is used for sucking mud from beneath the water or from scows alongside, and forcing it by steam power onto the adjacent land, is not a subject of admiralty jurisdiction.
This was a libel by Baker and others against the marine pump Big Jim to recover wages. John Q. Lane, for libelants. Henry R. Edmunds, for respondent. BUTLER, District Judge. The claim Is for wages on the "Big Jim" a marine pump, resting on piles, driven in the ground under water at League Island. She was weighted with heavy ballast to keep her in place while at work. She was capable of being towed from place to place, where her services were needed, and had been so towed. She was used to suck mud from the bottom of the water, or from scows alongside, and force it by steam power on the adjacent land. A fuller description seems unnecessary. She had none of the characteristics, and was not capable of performing any of the services of a vessel. In my judgment admiralty has no jUrisdiction -of the libelants' claims. To extend it to such a case would carry it beyond proper limits. For a discussion of the general subject I refer to the cases cited in Evans v. The Starbuck (just decided by the eourt) [61 Fed. 502].