The opinion
BUTLER, District Judge.
The claims are for wages. The respondent 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 séveral 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 *503 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 Biss. 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.