Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-11-20

MANY amusing STORES are tOLd about this
Pot by those living en- the banks of the
river, in Marion county. One dark night
a hatbOatnan from Jefferson county
was floating down the river, when
he came to a log cabin on the bank.
from which proceeded the sounds
Of mnsie and dancing. Tying up his boat,
he iOined the merry party, drank a few
h ,, ms of whisky, and started on his jour
Il y. Having hOated about fifteen min
ules, be passed what he supposed to be
another cabin, where a similar frolic was
in progress. The third party that he en-
~countered he o another social glass
with, and then continued his Journey,
passing a log cabin every half mile, from
which the sounds Of music were issuing,
The scene in the morning, when ne saw a
man come from the cabin to the river to
wash himself, and remarked the 1iveliness
ofthe country, and WIS told that instead Of
having made 80 miles he had been Swing
ing round the circle Of the "POt," was
very amusing.
There are some maritime cases OF which
State courts may have jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court Of Missouri. in the case Of
Robert Mitchell ct al, Res, VS.. the steam
boat Magnolia, appealed from the st.
Louis Circuit Court, has 80 decided re-
Gently. The following opinion was rem
dered by David Wagner, 3. j.:
1.-THE whole controversy In this case de-
ponds upon the jU risdictiOn Of the State
courts. The action was for materials fur
nished Ia fitting out and equipping the
steamboat Magnolia, a vessel used in nav
igating the waters of this State, and duly
enrolled at the port OfSt. Louis. II was a
proceeding pursuant to the statute
directly against the boat by name.
It is supposed that by the Constitution
and laws Of the United States, and under
recent decisions of the national ribuuaI
Gsafa eaurfg - HOO a. ell -
ceedings ofthis nature, and on that theory
the defense is based. state statutes au-
th9riztng proceedings az rem against YES
sells for causes cognizable in admiralty,
are statutes comforting admiralty iuris-
dictiOn, and 10 is conceded that they are
therefore unconstitutional. Maritime con-
tract, in h sense used in admiralty prac-
tice and marine courts, in cases where a
maritime lien arises, belong to the exclu-
siVe and original Jurisdiction of the Dis
trict of the United States. and there
fore, those provisions of the statutes Of
this State, Whirh authorize actions IN
rem against vessels by name ia
such eases, arc not sustainable.
The question then arises, is the subject
matter on which this suit is founded a
maratime contract which could only be
prosecuted directly against the boat IN the
admiralty Ourts Ofthis Union? The ar
tieles were furnished and used in equip
ping the vessel and getting her ready TO
be put in service, and We're a part Of the
necessary material for hsr c0nsiruc-
ton. BY necessary and fair i'm
port they should De classed with
in the designation of buiiding material.
IL Is said by a learned writer that the ad-
miralty jurisdiction, In cases of contract,
depends primarily upon the nature Of the
contract, and is limited to contracts,
claims and services pnreiy maritime, and
touching rights and duties appertaining 10
commercial navigation a COncki. NJ. L..
i9l. Accordingly, it has been held by the
Supreme Court Of the United States thai
the admiralty jurisdiction does not ex-
end TO cases where a lien is claimed by
lie builders Of a vsssel for work lone and
materials found In its construction. tPeo-
pies Ferry Co. VS.. Beers ct al, ID Hon. ,Sg5.)
In this last ease in which this yexed ones
lion WAS brought ia review. the Supreme
Court of the United States used the fol
lowing language: Authority does not
exist in the State Courts to hear and de-
termin0 q snit in rem in admiralty to
enforce a maritime lien. Such a lien
does not arise in a contract for materials
aud supplies furnished to a vessel in her
home port, and in respect to such con
tracts il is competent for the States
under the decision of this court
la create such liens as their Legis-
latures may deem Just aud ex-
pedient, not amounting to a regulation
Of commerce, and to enact reasonable
rules and regulations prescribing the
mode OF their commerce. Contracts for
s~hip-building are held not To be maritime
contracts, and Of course they fall within
the same category; but in all cases where
a maritime lien arises, the original juris-
dictiOn to enforce the sanie by a proceed
ing in rem Is exclusively in the Dis
trict Court of the United State :.
a. provided in the ninth section of the
Judiciary Act.'"(Fhe Belfast Wall. GA
such is the ultimate conclusion OF the SI-
pFeme Court OF the United States, after a
most exhaustive consideration Of the
whole subject. The furnishing Of the ma
terials Of Iho equipment and outfit Of the
boat in this case was not a regulation Of
commerce, nor a maritime contract, but
il vas such "A contract as the court holds
IL IL competent for the States To act upon,
and 10 create such liens ~ their Legisla-
lures may deem just and expedient. |
am accordingly Of the opinion tina the
court below had Jurisdiction, aud advise
that the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.
The other judges cOneurTing."
a. Il. Wolf and ID. BtgleY, of 81. Louis,
publish the following card in reference to
the Daniel Watts, lately stolen at hat
port and recaptured: Captain Austin
authorized Captain Bagley ON the Satur-
GAY BTtNlpuS 10 tnt bpdL lbhNllE, 10 get
her away by any possible means, and that,
in case he succeeded before his return
from Keokuk, he would meet the boat at
Cairo or Memphis with ample means to
run her wherever they considered il advi-
sable. captain kenworthy took the or
der releasing the boat from the sherih7s
custody. aud presented it to the watch
man In charge and had her released, aud
moreover helped to pump the boats
boilers, and staid on board all
night, only leaving when steam
was up and the boat ready to back
out, and the understanding between him
and the crew on board was that be should
meet the boat at Sulphur Springs with
more hremen and stores to run her to
Memphis. The boat ran down to Sulphur
Springs, and was laying there waiting for
Kanworthy, when he came with two con
stables, and warrants for each of rs. There
was no violence offered nor loud words
spoken, and IL was at our instigation that
the boat was brought baek-althaugh
Captains Austin aud kenYHrthY took
care to laud the boat on the Illinois
shore, in place Of the Missouri side, where
she was taken fron.n
2