The national Republican., 1867-01-08

OF soniert-in ssnss apsnes ef he great nunber OF
steersgs passenger more than the steamer was
allowed By iaw 70 o. could properly cary.
Ths .n.ysr e.. q Isaac K; Robert, ,s.ns for u.
Of the complaint, ssd alleged that TIE court hsd no
Jurisdiction Of the Of action set out In the
complaint nor Of the vsisel Moses Taylor. because
as avsrred tbs cause Of action. % against the VS.
sel, wss cause Of setion Of which the courts Of
admiralty have exclusive that The vss
sel was sxelniiysiy used In nsviFstins ths high
seas and that the present cause Of action II any,
sross on the high seas. .. OIL. . ..,. Do .sr.0I
The esuss was tried In the Justices Court, and
afterwards appealed 70 The county court, and upon
the trial the PLAINTIFF gave svidenos tsuding to
prove the allegations Of The oomplaint sud rested
bis osss. Dsf.udsnts counsel thsrsupon moved
the court 10 disuiss the case, on the ground that
the court had no Jurisdiction; that By the Const.
tuition and laws Of the United States the Federal
courts Of admiralty had exclusive iurisdlction Of
the case % against the steamship Moses Taylor.
The court denied the motion, and rolled and de-
oided that u had 1awfal jursdiotion OF tbs cause
and the defendant excepted The trial then pro.
oseded, and after hearing and due deiiberation the
court rendered decision sgainst the vessel In favor
Of the plaintiff for two hundred dollars the amount
claimed, damages, and costs.
Appeal was then taken to this court counsel for
the plaintiff In error oontending that this 10 ease
within the admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction Of
the federal courts and that such Jurisdiction s ex.
elusivei and II h said DEGREES in admiralty are
respected everywhere II the township Justice and
the United States judge should issue process against
the Cunard steamer Persia on the same day, tho
justice would pronounce his dsorss In SIX days and
,el the ship, and leave the slower judgment Of the
United States court . barren remedy In such .
case this concurrent Jurisdiction, Il 10 submitted
would be found inoonvenisnt, and forsigu nations
might complain that the admiralty learning OF the
village justice Of the peace was not quite adequate
to such high jurisdiction whilst Il iod TO conflicting
judgment and intolerable uncertainty. b. a.
An agreement to transport man or a horse over
the ocean 10 q "maritims contract" and comes
under the admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; and
II matters not whether the ship on her voyage stops
at Bermuds, Cape Horn or Panama The priuci-
pie 10 the same whether the passenger goes from
Liverpool to San Francisco on the Ps,sia or from
New York to San Francisco on the Moses Taylor.
On tbi. point see the schooner ssltou, Is Mason,
465O Plummer vs.. Webb, a Mason, 88oiI Drink
water W. the brig Spartan, WARES Rep, 491.) A
number Of other cases are also cited. The Con.
stitution has vested "the judicial power Of the
inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
tms ordain and establish" and extends the judicial
power ito all csses Of admiralty and maritime ju-
risdiotion." This exclusive jurisdiction has for
seventy years been the settled law, and has been
repeatedly affirmed BY the courts. Csisf Jus.
tios Marshall, slooum vs. Maybsrry. q Wheat ,9)
and Justice Story, Gelsou vs. Hoyt, (3 Wheat, ,246
Martin vs. Hunter, Il Wheat, 3S7)
Tho defendant In error contends that this IL not
q case Of admiralty or maritime jurisdietion, be.
cause the contract 10 an entirety, to come from
New York To San Francisco, requiring two steamers
and railway. Carriage BY land Is a substantial
part Of the voyage, and II 10 Of no consequence
whether the land transit between the two oceans bo
long or short II this contract 10 Of admiralty cog
niIanee, 90 would be an agreement for the trans.
poration Of passengers from Liverpool to San Fran
cisco, via New York, Chicago, and Salt Lake, and
Mr.. Justice Nelson has said Il Blotch, 1851 that q
contract must DO tchoiy Of admiralty cogntancs or
else II 10 not at all within II.
The grant Of admiralty and maritime jurisdic
| tion Ia the Constitution 10 not exclusive In its
terms Il s not prohibited 10 the State courts and
II intended TO be exclusive, such intention must be
found In some repuguauoy or inoompaubility In
the exercise Of like powers by the State tribunals
II not intended to bs exclusive, Congress cannot
make Il so II tho result would be TO divest the State
Gsarts OF any part Of their primitive Jurisdiction
This proceeding In the State courts falls within
| the exceptions contained In the judiciary act oI
lT69, saving to suiton q common Law remedy In all
cases who're the common law Is competent to give
IL. The Judiciary act has generally boon under,
stood rsssrvipg 10 the States all the concurrent
cogniIsnce OF admiralty and maritime eases, there.
tofors exercised BY the courts Of common law.
Cashmere vs.. Deixoy. 2 Sand, Sup, @. R ny.
S79; Psrcval va Hicky. ID Johns, 29li Blake VS..
Patton. Is Maine, lT3.) .....0 0... .rrfaI
wm N Rvarts and Edward Pisrrepont foi
plaintiff In error h'a %. 0.ft