Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/736

 EOBEKTS V. BARK WINDERMERE. ���729 ���a lien on the ship therefor. The Wabam, 1 Pr. adm. Dig. (2d Eng. Ed.) 364. . �It is, therefore, entirely clear that the rulings of this and otlier courts, exeluding stevedores' claims from the class of maritime contracte, can no longer be considered author- ity for the exclusion of services of an analogous char- aeter. If the rule as to stevedores is adhered to — a point which the court is not called on to decide in this case — it must be whoUyon the doctrine of stare decisis, since it isnow out of harmony with the accepted principles of maritime law as declared by the courts of admiralty. This is the view taken of the rule by Judge Benedict. The Circassian, 1 Ben. 209. In the present casethere is, indeed, a very strong simi- larity between the services for -which this suit is brought and the service of the stevedore. The work done is precisely of the same nature. The only distinction is in the subject-mat- ter on which the labor is performed. In the one case it is work done in removing the cargo from the ship ; in the other, it is work done in removing the ballast. This distinction is enough, however, to take the case out of the rule appli- cable to stevedores. �The ballast is not cargo. It is rather a part of the ship, like the beats, the sails, the anchors, the stores, and many other things that go to the f uU equipment of the vessel. The ballast is necessary to the complete and seaworthy ship, thongh unlike them it is so only under certain circumstances. While it is in its place in the ship it is to be regarded as a part of the ship and of her equipment. The service of removing it when she is to take on board her cargo is of the same char- acter as would be the removal of the anchors, or stores, or part of the cargo, if required, for the purpose of lightening her, that she might cross a bar, or come up at the wharf at which she is to discharge her cargo. The facts that the ser- vice is rendered wholly in port, that the vessel is not actually on a voyage, that it may be partly rendered on the land, do not make it otherwise than a maritime service on the forego- ing authorities. �Indeed, I think it may weU be claimed that the service so ����