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

5|}jA 8 e. e z ~ y -
nnrfed aaso REGULATES r. oqmnefoe. The
fsiSf ySGti6S, ~ A11torpd H. tpfnion,
| then entered into 5 inAsterly analy6is Of the
i argument BY which twas maintained that
the admiralty power conferred by the fed
eral constitution. did mot extend beyond
| tide-water in our rivers and lakes.
The argument assumed that, In deter
mining the limits Of those powers, we were
| bound by the rule which governed the Ad-
miralty Court of Great Britain, ON the same
| subject, at the time our constitution was
adopted. And it was said the limits of the
courts power in that country was the ebb
and flow of the tide
This was conceded to be true as Q matter
of fact; but the Chief Justice demonstrated
that the reason of this rule was that the
limit of the tide in all the waters Of England
| was, at the same time, the limit of practical
bic navigation, and that as there could be
no use for an admiralty jurisdiction where
| there could he no navigation, that test
of the navigability of these waters be-
OF the navigability itself. Such a rule, he
showed, could have no pertinency to the
rivers and lakes Of this country, for here no
suoh test existed. Many Of our rivers could
be navigated as successfully ami prOfitabIy
for thousand miles above tide-water as
they could below, and he showed the alb
surality Of adopting, as the test of admiralty
jurisdiction in this country, an artificial
rule, which was founded on reason in
England that did not exist here. The true
rule in both countries was the navigable
capacity of the stream; and, as this was
ascertained in England by q test which was
wholly inapplicable here, we could not be
governed by it. The cases Of the Thomas
Jefferson and the steamboat Orleans, al
| ready referred to, were then examined and
Overruled.
This opinion received the assent of all the
members OF the court except one. AL
though the case arose under the act of
iS45, already cited, which in its terms is
expressly limited to matters arising upon
the lakes and the navigaDle waters con.
! Meeting said lakes. and which, the Chief
Justice said. was a limitation Of the powers
conferred previously on the federal courts,
it established principles under which the
district courts of the United States began
to exercise an admiralty Jurisdiction Of
| matters arising upon all the public navi-
gable rivers OF the interior of the country.
This court also at the same term in which
the case Of the Gcnesee Chief was decided,
held. in Fretz vs.. Bull, in which the point
was raised, in argument that the federal
courts had Jurisdiction according to the
principles of that case in the matter of a
collision on the Mississippi river above tide
water.
/ As soon as these decisions. became gen.
orally known admiralty cases increased
rapidly in the district courts Of the United
States, both ON the lakes and rivers of the
West. Many members of the legal profess
sion engaged in these cases, and some Of the
courts have, from this circumstance, as
stunned, without examination, that the juris-
dictiOn in admiUlty cases arising on the
rivers of the interior of the country is
founded on the act of l845, and such is, per-
haps, the more general impression in the
West. The. very learned court, whose
judgment We are reviewing, has fallen into
this mistake,in the opinion it delivered in
the case before us, and it is repeated here
by counsel for defendant in error.
But the slightest examination of the Ian
guaga of that at will show that this can
not be 30. as it is confined, as we have
already said, to cases arising ION the lakes
and navigahle waters connecting said
lakes" The jurisdiction upon those waters
is governed by that statute, but its. force
extends no further.
The jurisdiction thus conferred is, in many
respects, peculiar, and its exercise is, in
some important particulars, different under
that act from the admiralty jurisdiction con-
l. 1t is limited to vessels Of twenty tons
burden and upward, enrolled and licensed
for the cOasting trade.
2. To vessels employed in commerce and
navigation between ports and places in diff
ferent States.
3: 1t grants a Jury trial, if either party
shall demand it.
4. The jurisdiction is not exclusive but is
expressly made concurrent with such rene
dies as may be given by State laws
But the true reason why the admiralty
powers OF the federal courts began now to
be exercised. for the first time, in the inland
waters, was this: The decision of the Genesee
Chief having removed the imaginary line of
tide-water, which had been supposed to cir
cumscribe the jurisdiction Of the admiralty
courts, there existed no longer any reason
why the general admiralty powers conferred
on all the district courts by the ninth Sec
ton of the judiciary act should not be ex-
ercised wherever there was navigation that
could give rise to admiralty and maritime
causes. The Congress which framed that
act, the first assembled under the constitu-
ton, seemed to recognize this more extended
view Of the jurisdiction in. admiralty, by
placing under its control cases of seizure of
vessels, under the laws of impost, 'naviga-
ton, and trade Of the United States, when
these seizures were made in waters naviga-
BILE from the sea by vessels of ten tons bur-
den or upward.
The case of the Magnolia, 20 Howard 900,
is another important case in the line of
decisions which we have been considering
1t was case Of collision occurring on tue
Alabama river, far above the ebb and flow
of the tide, on a steamer whose course was
wholly within the limits of the. State which
bears its name. This was thought to pre-
sent an occasion when the doctrines an
nOunced in the case of the Genesee Chief
might properly be recOnsidered and modi-
fed, if not Overruled. Accordingly, we
find that the argument in favor of the main
proposition decided in that case restated
with much force, in the opinion of the
court, and that very elaborate opinion
was delivered ON behalf of three dis
senting judges. The principles estab-
lished by the case Of the Genesee
Chief were thus reaffirmed, after a
careful and full consideration. 1t was
also further decided that the jurisdiction in
Admiralty in the great Western rivers did |
not depend upon the act of February 3,
1845, but that it was founded on the act Of |
September "a, 1889. That decision was
made ten years ago, and the Jurisdiction,
thus firmly established, has been largely add |
ministered ~ al. the district courts Of the |
United States ever since without question.
In the case Of the Eagle, 8 Wallace, page |
%, Mr.. Justice Nelson, delivering the |
opinion of the court, says:
IAN objection Is also taken that the case |
was not brought within the requirements Of |
the act of 1845, SO as to give the district |