Polynesian., 1861-01-12
Ghe Aolpnesia1r,
SUPREME COURT.---In Admiralty

W. E. HALLIDAY rss WILLIAM SroTr-- On Appeal
| ROBERTSON, JUSTICE:
The libel alleges, in substance, that Michael
Morton Webster, late of Honolulu, was and still
is indebted to the libellant in the sum of sixty
four dollars that on or about the 9Th of Septem-
Der last, the libelant having previously filed
tihcation at the Custom House to prevent the said
Webster from obtaining passport to leave the
Kingdom, the respondent did, as master in COM
mand of the bark Comet, trading to California,
convey the said ebster out of the Kingdom with
out passport, contrary to law and that the re-
spOndent has thereby rendered himself liable under
the statute to the payment of the debt so alleged
to be due from Webster to the libellant.
A motion was made by respondents counsel be-
fore the single Justice to dismiss the libel on the
ground that did not set forth marine tort COM
ing within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
of the Court, but case on which the remedy must
be sought at common law. The Justice sustained
the motion, and the ibellant appealed to the full
Court, before whom the question has been again
argued.
The statutory provision upon which the libel
lant's claim is founded is contained in Section 65I
of the Civil Code, and reads as follows Sc Every
master, or commanding officer of vessel, who
shall convey out Of this Kingdom any person not
having passport shall be subject to a fine of fifty
dollars, and be liable for all debts which such per-
son may have left unpaid in this Kingdom and if
he shall fail to pay such fine and debts such vessel
shall be subject to SEIZURE condemnation and sale
for the payment thereof"
1t is commended the part of the respondent
that the act complained of is not, properly speak
ing, tort, although it may be act of such
nature would support action at common law
for the recovery of consequential damages that if
it is tort, it was created by statute since the
adoption of the Constitution, and is not embraced
in the last clause Of the S4th Article, which de-
carpS the ndIcIa IN extend all n
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction - that the
extent of admiralty jurisdiction is to be meas
ured by the general maritime law, and not by Ha-
waian statutes, and that, admitting that the Leg
islature might make additions to the jurisdiction
by express enactment, it has not done so in this
instance.
The clause of the Hawaiian Constitution con-
ferring admiralty jurisdiction is literal transcript
of the corresponding clause in the Constitution of
the United States. In discussing the construction
of the latter Mr. Benedict in his valuable treatise
says: Every maritime nation has certain rules
or laws in relation to ships, shipping and maritime
matters which are peculiar To itself-such as Its
navigation acts, its municipal regulations of its
harbors, creeks, and lays, and navigabe rivers,
and of its own vessels, its rules in relation to
drowned persons, wrecks, distractions in rivers,
prohibited nets, royal fisheries and other drOis of
the admiralty, constituting its maritime police.
These were originally enforced by the Admiral
ercising in part high executive and administrative
Junction. which was portion of the royal preroga-
tive, and was in substance confined to the waters
and the vessels of his own nation. The Admiralty
Court was the forum through which, and by the
aid of whose process, when necessary, these local
municipal and administrative laws were enforced,
and their volatOrs punished. These are, properly,
the admiralty law of any country. Cases arising un
der these laws of purely admiralty jurisdc-
ton. Each nation has its own system of admiral
ty law, which it changes and modifes at pleasure.
90 So the word maritime is also to have Its ap-
propriate meaning-relating to the sea. The
words admiralty and maritime, as they are used in
the Constitution and acts of the Congress, are by
no means synonymous, although able lawyers, on
the bench as well as at the BAR seem sometimes to
have so considered them. The word admiralty and
the word maritime were evidently both inserted to
preclude narrower construction, which ight be
given to either word, had it been used alone
g Maritime cases more properly those aris-
ing under the maritime law, which is not the law
of particular country, and does not rest for its
character authority on the peculiar institutions
and local customs of any particular country, but
consists of certain principles of equity and usages
OF trade, which general convenience and common
sense Of justice have established to regulate the
dealings and intercourse of merchants and mariners
in matters relating to the sea in all the commercial
countries of the wOrd."-[ [Benedict's Admiralty,
Sections 80, 40, Al.
In giving q construction to- the constitutional
provision above quoted, we cannot in my opinion
follow a safer guide than the decisions of the
Courts of the United States relating to this subject.
Those decisions are understood to have established
that the grant in the Constitution, extending the
judicial power to all cases of admiralty and mari
time jurisdiction, is neither to be limited to- nor to
be interpreted by, what were cases OF admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction in England when the
Constitution was adopted that the American Ad-
miralty has general maritime jurisdiction, en-
bracing all maritime causes of action, well In
matters of contract in matters Of tort. That in
matters of tort the jurisdiction depends upon the
locality, and embraces all damages and injuries
upon the That in matters of contract the
jurisdiction depends upon the subject matter-the
nature of the contract-and embraces all transac-
tions and proceedings relative to naval commerce
and navigation. That the jurisdiction is not affect
ed by the question whether the courts Of common
law have Jurisdiction in like cases, whether the
matter may have arisen within port or harbOr.
And that the Admiralty has jurisdiction of all
cases of maratime lien. [See Benedict's Admiral
ty, Section 26l.
regard the Admiralty and maratime jurisdic-
tion of this Court as co-extensive, generally speak
ing, with that of the Admiralty Courts of the
United States, except far the exercise OF our
jurisdiction may have become limited in certain
cases by treaty. This is in accordance with the
Judgment of Chief Justice LEE, in the case of Fes-
sender RS. the ship Charles, Hawaiian Reports,
page "a; and in the case of Spencer rs. Bailey
and Gilbert, page los. ThejurisdictiOn, so under
stood, embraces two great classes of cases, viz
torts and contracts the jurisdiction in the first
depending upon locality, (almost universally and
in the last upon the nature of the contract. Again,
the jurisdiction comprises cases arising under the
general maritime law of the world, together with
those appertaining especially to the admiralty ju-
risdiction of the nation; and the last branch may
be enlarged circumscribed by the Legislature
enacted affecting ships and seafariDg persons;
and new maritime ofenses or torts may be created
by statute.