Even more fundamental to the interpretation of the Lien Act, the Court did not see any conflict between the sec. 788 denial of liens and the SAA provision allowing cases brought on in rem theories to go forward in personam. It specifically addressed the problem stating:
As the Circuit Court of Appeals apparently holds that the Act does not authorize recovery on principles of in rem liability because of the statutory denial of a maritime lien, we turn to the consideration of this holding Although the Public Vessels Act does not have a similar provision [to the SAA which allows a libelant to proceed in accordance with libels in rem], ?2 of the Public Vessels Act expressly provides that 'suits shall be subject to and proceed in accordance with the provision' of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 'in so far as the same are not inconsistent' with the provisions of the Public Vessels Act. Since there is nothing in the Public Vessels Act that is inconsistent with this provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act, we hold that the incorporation clause applies. 107
While noting the idea that no liens exist against a public vessel, the Supreme Court nonetheless found that this clause had no effect on the ability [*20] of plaintiffs to bring claims on in rem theories. 108 The Court found further support for this position in the use of the term "in admiralty" in the PVA and the general history surrounding the act indicating that Congress's only intention was to ensure that public vessels would not be arrested. 109 Thus, the PVA and the SAA both allow actions based on in rem liability principles to be brought against the government in personam.
This interpretation has stood for the last sixty years and was reiterated recently by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Stevens Technical. 110 In that case a subcontractor sued the government in personam for necessaries it had provided to the ship under the older version of the Lien Act. The government contended that because public vessels cannot be seized, no cause of action on an in rem principle may be brought. The court rejected this argument. Following similar reasoning to Canadian Aviator, it found that the "no lien" clause ensured that that there could be no arrest or seizure of a public vessel, but did not take away the plaintiff's in personam cause of action against the government. 111
请不要直接将翻译工具翻译出来的答案复制过来,至少得语句通顺,无明显语法错误,谢谢!