New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-26

II|1 % I|ii1i I51l
M MIL - Stip1 X u i = bslvs
teers, are not employed ct the time IN the
busihe0 cfcommerce and nAvieation. We
think ifaIso ms of grave doubt if the
act confcrs jurisdiction in cages Of salvage,
jettison or. general average. These are not
matters Of contract, according to the most
eminent commentators ON the subject Il
Story's Equity Jurisprudence, 49; Kent,
2i6), and they are certainly not cases Of
tort.
One question, and very important one
is, whether since the decision. of the &C.
nesee Chief which opens the lakes and the
waters connecting them to the general ju-
risdictiOn of the district courts in admiralty,
they can entertain this jurisdiction in cases
outside of that conferred by this act. If
the affirmative of this question should be
sustained, although the system would be
disjointed and homogeneous, yet it would, in
it's results, remedy most Of the difficulties
and Inconvenience now existing. But the
opinions of the judges OF this court, as ex-
pressed in several cases, though the ques-
ton has never been directly before the
court for decision, are that the act should
be regarded as restrictive Of the general
jurisdiction of these courts. This was the
opinion expressed by the Chief Justice in
the case of the Geresee Chief, and has been
followed by other justices in this court who
have had occasion to express any opinion
on the subject. The history and operation
of this act of lSi5 are peculiar.
1t is can act extending the jurisdiction of
the district courts in certain cases upOa the
lakes and navigable waters connecting the
same" At the time 1t was enacted it had
the effect expressed and intended, and go
continued for some seven years, when the
case of the Genesee Chief was decided. From
that time its effect ceased as an enabling
act. and has been no longer regarded as
such. 1t is no longer considered by this
court as'conferring any jurisdiction in adj
nliralty upOn the district courts over the
lakes, or the waters connecting them. That
is regarded as having been conferred by the
grant of general admiralty jurisdiction, by
the ninth section of the act of 1889 to these
courts. The original purpose Of the act,
therefore, has ceased, and is of no effect;
and in order to give it any, instead Of con-
STRUNG it as extending the jurisdiction in
admiralty, it must We construed as limiting
1.-THE very reverse of its object and intent,
as expressed ON its face.
In the case Of the Hine Trevor a Wallace
555), it is said by the learned justice in de-
livering the opinion of the court. that the
jurisdiction in admiralty on the w estern
rivers did not depend ON the act of 1915.
but was given by the original act Of 1889;
and he minated further that the jurisdic-
ton on the lakes was also founded on this
act, though governed in its exercise by the
act of 1915. The case then before the court
did not arise on the lakes. buts on the Mis-
sissippi river, and the remarks made in re-
spect to the jurisdic1 son upon the lakes was
an answer to an impression very general. as
is said, among the profession in that section
of the country, and even Of the learned
Judge. whose Judgment the court was re-
viewing, that the jurisdiction upon the
rivers depended on this act Of lS45. That
case, not as all involving the question Ofjuris-
dictiUn upon the lakes, but simply upon the
interior rivers, did not receive that fall de-
liberation in respect to this question which
in the present case is called for. We have
now examined it with care, and .given to it
our best consideration. and are satisfied,
that since the decision Of the case of the
Genesee Chief, the court must regard the
district courts as having conferred upon
them q general jurisdiction in admiralty
upon the lakes and the waters connecting
them, by the ninth section of the original
act of 1879; and the enabling act Of l845,
therefore, has become imperative and inef-
fectual as grant of jurisdiction; and, as it
was an act, on the face of it, and as in
tended, in its purpose and effect, to extend
the admiralty jurisdiction to these waters,
We can not, without utterly disregarding
the purpose and intent, give effect to it as o
limitation or restriction upon it. We must
therefore, regard it as absolute and of no eff
feet, with the exception Of the clause which
gives to either party the right of trial by
jury when requested, which is rather a
mode of exercising jurisdiction than any
substantial part of it. The saving clause in
this act as to the concurrent remedy Of
common law is, in effect, the same as in the
act of 1889, and is, therefore, Of necessity,
useless and of no effect. z Wall, 624, GA.
The ninth section Of the judiciary act of
1889 cOnters exclusive original cOgnizance Of
all civil causes Of admin atty Jurisdiction
upon the district courts, ''including all
seizures under laws OF impost, navigation
or trade of the United States, where the
seizures are made on waters which are
navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or
more tons burden, within their respective
districts as well as upon the high seas" !
This court must coincide with the cOnclu-
sion of the Supreme Court that the act of
1916 was passed in error; that it was in
tended to extend the jurisdiction of the
courts of admiralty. and that it resulted in
restraining such jurisdiction, and that,
therefore, it h imperative and void, with
the exception of the clause which gives to
either party the right of trial by jury when
requested. But this acts is confined in its
regime to tae LAKES and the navigable
waters connecting the same, aud ii now held
to he in full force the trial by jury which it
gives is confined to certain cases arising on
the lakes and the navigable waters connect.
ing the same. shall not extend that pro-
vision to cases arising in localities other
than those which are included within the
regime Of the law of 1915. 1t ia true that
the Chief Justice in his remarks touches the
trial by jury given by the act Of lS45,
speaks as if the provision was of general
application. but all that he says upon the
subject is not at all necessary to the decision
of the case before him, and is therefore
mere Obiter dicta.
think that trial by jury in admiralty
cases would generally hinder the object and
end proposed in the creation of admiralty
courts. They were intended, among ether
matters, more especially to assert and pro-
tect the rights of seamen, including under
that name those who traverse the seas and |
those who labor on inland waters. To al |
lowea trial by jury in every case where
small amount of wages was involved or
petty injuries to be compensated in money,
would be tantamOunt to denial of Justice. |
In these cases the witnesses are ever upon |
the move, and the large costs involved in |
such trial would greatly overtop the |
original Demand The Judge in admiralty |
may, in his discretion, make up an issue Of |
facts and cause the same to be tried by jury,
whose finding shall be certified to in his |
court, to be- adopted or rejected, as in courts |
Of chancery, but am of opinion that the |
The United States has not given to its courts