Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-11-06
AniOu and 9ispatfh.
WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBEH q, 1897.
Largest Circulation in City and Stat
Srra,In0AT Law suIrs.

The late convention OF steamboatmen ~
Cincinnati called attention TO the following
in reference 10 the powerof local courts, or
Justices, 10 seize. or detain a steaE1boat,
when in the prosecutions Of a voyage, in
order TO satisfy. some claimant for debt,
either large or small BY the annexed il
win be seen that the United States Conri
has, and takes, jurisdiction, and We re-
publish it for the benefit Of all our readers I:
at has long been source Of complaint
among river men and shippers, that con-
Aicting local legislation in the West has
proved aerionslg detrimental TO all parties
in interest. THE recent decision in the " Ad
| Hine" case by the Supreme Court OF the
United States, goes far toward iull rem
edy. The points settled are substantially ::
.'First-That by the constitution OF the
United States and the act OF. 1889, United
States District Courts have exclusive orig
inal jurisdiction 10 all admiralty and marl-
time cases.
Secofd-That the various steamboat
acts passed by State Legislatures TO gave 10
State conrts jurisdiction directly against
boats aud vessels on nayigable rivers, are
unconstitutional and veid. tf5
/ 4 aThose acts provide for proceedings
s,,bstaptially in rem, which are OF admi-
raltv and not common law oognlzance:
Tbird-Tbe exclusive jurisdiction oil
| ITn;ted states Courts extends TO all rivers
| navipsl,Ie from the sea by vessels OF ten
tons burden, and it is determined soieIy Dy
the nayigability Of the rivers: IL appiles
as we'll 10 a navigable river wholly "l'hih
one State az 10 a Eiyer separating or pass
ing through several States. FOURTH nat
/ the saving to State courts oil their common
| law Jurisdiction has reference solely to
| suits brought against persons by name.
IA suit by attachmen: or Judgment
AGAINST an owner, for instance, viii author
I ise lew against his interest in vessel,
bnt tho suit Is conclusive only against the
narties and their privies, and the levy and
sale Hereunder, DO not divest maritime
liens In other words, nothing is reached
bpt the defendanrs individual interest in
The vessel. subject to all the liens existing
nnon ii. The practical effect Of this i'm
nnrtant decision is to oust State courts OF
ali authority to proceed directly against the
vessel. and. consequently, it places the nav
igaiion of all Western rivers under the gen.
eraI rules of maratime law, instead of SUBJ
iecting IT, as hitherto, to the conflicting
and shifting contrivances, restraints and
embarrassments of local legislation.
A yessei is TO be always subject to th'
same legal rules, whether on the ILLINOIS
river between Peoria and Peru or onth'
Mississippi. between New Orleans ard st
PauI. Her voyage cannot be broken NJ
or interrupted by warrants from Justices
of The Peace or State courts at every or any
landing place. The officers and crew mus
look 10 the maritime rules for their author
;tv and protection. Their disputes, ant
ali controversies concerning her employ
ment whether between the shipper am
. owner, or others-in short, all martini
, contracts and torts must be litigated exclu
siyeIy in the United States District Cour
, where the legal principles applicable al
. Uniform for every part Of the country, an
! for all voyages, and conclusive upon
persons interested IN the vessel
"a vessel navigating Western Watei
. pursnes her voyage nnder the marltlm
: law. unaffected by mischievous and col
! Aictine local legislation. While her owl
= era NAV be sued in State courts for any ol
: location due from them, the boat, as sue
|. cannot be arrested and proceeded agaln'
Al least there is one code for AmerlcS
II commerce, a code known to all martin
~ nations, and equally applicable to sea vo
aces and the vast internal navigation
the country. The tribunals for the admi
|. ;stration Of that code are not local, b
re national. -.-,s-.
"The supposed necessity for the steaI
: boat acts passed by the States sprang fro
? the early and continued rulings of {
no limited States Supreme Court concerni
4. home supplies. These rulings were IN
N cordance with the restricted doctrir
- forced on British Admiralty Courts
N nrohibitions from Kings Bench--doctrlr
J. springing from a controversy among IN
!. lish courts concerning their respective
=. thority within the realm-but doetrlT
wholly unknown, "a thus restricted, to
civil or general maritime law. Althou
The recent decision does not state whetl
the former adoption Of the narrow BRIT
of doctrine concerning home supplies If 10
I'D oyerruled, yet the logic OF the views
m. pressed leads TO that result.
ed 'If the rule he that of the civil Law
,e- the general maritime doctrine-that VII
Of ever supplies are necessary to enable
his vessel 10 pillow the seas give taclt ny.
to thecation or lien, whether those suPpi
bt- are furnished at home or foreign port,
nv creditors will stand on the same foot
ing and be equally protected. The inter
,ew and external commerce of the country
ted be subject to Just and uniform PrinclI
Is of law. beneficial alike to every inte
of concerned in, or affected by, the steamh
at. or shipping interests of the American |