The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-05
BROOKLYN COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

Tho Navigation Laws Of the United States
-Imp0rtnnt Decisions OF Judge Benc-
dict - The Astoria Ferry Company
Claiming Not to be Subject to the Law
OF Congress.
The United States vs. The Steamboat Sunswick,
Ac,-rhe following decisions have been rendered
by Judge Benedict In actions against the steam
boat Sunswick, of the Astoria and New York Ferry,
Instituted by the government for the recovery OF
penalties incurred through noncompliance with
the navigation laws OF the United States the
vessel having been used upon the ferry mentioned,
without previous Inspection, under the act of Feb
eruary %, 1871, without a United States license,
under the act of February l5 1893
The defence rested chiefly upon the ground that,
under the provision Of the constitution limiting the
power of Congress to the regulation OF commerce
eating waters within the boundary of single State
were relieved from the statutory requirements Of
the United States navigation laws.
The Court in this instance holds otherwise. The
decisions are es f0llOws:-
This is q proceeding in rem. against the steam
billy for $500, under the provisions OF the act Of
Congress entitled IAN Act to provide for the better
security Of life on board OF vessels propelled In
whole or in part by steam and for other purposes"
passed February %, 1871.
The charge is that the boat was engaged in navi-
eating public navigabe waters Of the United
States, to wit, the harbor and bay OF New York.
without having her boiler inspected as required by
the eleventh section OF the statute above re-
The defence is that the boat is not shown to be
subject to be inspected under the laws of the United
commerce Of the State Of New York that the vessel
had failed to comply with the section of the statute
referred to Is conceded, and It cannot be disputed
that she IL vessel within the description given
BY the act OF vessels to which the law Is declared
to be applicable.
the act It's provisions are made applicable to every
ferryboat, and BY section Al all steamers 'nav-
q tne s
where such waters are common highways OF COM
mercc or open to general or competitive navga-
TOM made subject to the provisions OF the act,
and in nv opinion she must upon the
evidence. be held subject to the act,
guage. il be considered imperative as against
q vessel exclusively engaged in purely internal
commerce. The evidence shows that at the time
complained OF the Sunwck was steam ferryboat,
used rs one OF the erryboats employed to operate
the Astoria ferry, and ran between Astoria place
q place on New York Island carrying passengers
and freight 1t also appears In evidence that the
Astoria ferry Is public ferry, established by
to all, and used for the transport
ing or all passengers and freight, which
may be taken OF the that Astoria is on an island
which contains q large population and has numcr-
GUS and extensive manufacturers and large cities
within Its bounds-that Its inhabitants have COM
mereal relations with various States OF the Union,
and use the ferry boats as the ordinary means
the main land; that upon these boats large
quantities OF merchandise and numerous
passengers, destined to places In different States,
are necessarily transported In the ordinary course
of daily business; and that 1t Is principally by
means or these ferries that the commerce between
Long Island and other States Is carried on. The
East River Is an arm OF the sea and navigable
water OF the United States and. by the decision OF
the Supreme Court In the case OF the Daniel Ball
no Wal. $50, vessel employed In transporting
on such waters goods destined for other
States IL engaged In commerce among the States,
and however limited that commerce may be, she Is,
50 far 1t goes, subject to the legislation OF Con-
gress, although her route may lie wholly within
single State and she docs not run In
any line or steamers or any line Of railway. The
ferry boats on the East River come within the scope
OF this decision, and consequently must be subject
70 the provisions OF the act OF Febru-
AIRY 49, 1871. The only doubt In this particular
action arises from the absence OF any evidence
showing transporting on this ferry boat, at any
particular time, OF either merchandise which had
begun TO nave as an article OF trade from one
State to another, or Of passengers having similar
destination. But my conclusion Is that proof that
the vessel was one Of the fcrryb0ats engaged on
such ferry as above described, and that while so
engaged she did actually transport the ordinary
load OF passengers and freight which compose
che cargocs Of those ferry boats, and was held out
a. ready to transport on sucl thoroughiare
all passengers and freight that might offer, Is
su<ioicnt to SHIFT the burden OF proof and, In the
Absence OF any evidence from the claimants OF the
vessel will warrant the inference that the vessel
was being used as an instrument for interstate
commerce, as defined by the Supreme Court In the
case OF tile Daniel Ball. She was therefore sub
iect to the laws Of Congress, and must be held
liable for the omission Of the proper Inspection