问题描述：
英语翻译
PUBLIC VESSELS AND THE LIEN ACT
The language of the Lien Act exempting public vessels should be read part passu with the no lien clause in the Public Vessels Act.This explanation makes the most sense in the context of the legislative history.In its history and comments,Congress shows no intention to make an exception to or to overrule in any way the SAA or the PVA.In fact,the history noted supra indicates a desire to maintain the status quo under those Acts.Looking to the Department of Transportation letter,117 it seems to indicate a desire to ensure that no liens could arise against government vessels which could be enforced against subsequent purchasers.The remainder of the legislative history indicates a lack of a fundamental understanding of the existing law.Congressman Davis states "the long rule" that no actions under "lien theories" may be brought against the government.118 However the SAA clearly allows actions on in rem theories to go forward in personam 119 and as discussed supra,the PVA has also been interpreted to allow these actions.[*22] Moreover,prior to the passage of the Lien Act,no authority has been found to indicate that the government could not be sued for necessaries supplied to a government vessel in an in personam action.120
Claims for necessaries against the government should be re-examined by the courts in the context of the unique qualities of maritime liens and actions in rem.The non-existence of a lien should only mean that the vessel cannot be arrested; it should not be equated with the non-existence of a cause of action in personam.
PS：请不要将翻译工具上的答案直接复制过来,至少得语句通顺,无明显语法错误.
PUBLIC VESSELS AND THE LIEN ACT
The language of the Lien Act exempting public vessels should be read part passu with the no lien clause in the Public Vessels Act.This explanation makes the most sense in the context of the legislative history.In its history and comments,Congress shows no intention to make an exception to or to overrule in any way the SAA or the PVA.In fact,the history noted supra indicates a desire to maintain the status quo under those Acts.Looking to the Department of Transportation letter,117 it seems to indicate a desire to ensure that no liens could arise against government vessels which could be enforced against subsequent purchasers.The remainder of the legislative history indicates a lack of a fundamental understanding of the existing law.Congressman Davis states "the long rule" that no actions under "lien theories" may be brought against the government.118 However the SAA clearly allows actions on in rem theories to go forward in personam 119 and as discussed supra,the PVA has also been interpreted to allow these actions.[*22] Moreover,prior to the passage of the Lien Act,no authority has been found to indicate that the government could not be sued for necessaries supplied to a government vessel in an in personam action.120
Claims for necessaries against the government should be re-examined by the courts in the context of the unique qualities of maritime liens and actions in rem.The non-existence of a lien should only mean that the vessel cannot be arrested; it should not be equated with the non-existence of a cause of action in personam.
PS：请不要将翻译工具上的答案直接复制过来,至少得语句通顺,无明显语法错误.
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读