New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-08

State vs.. Jordan Allen-M ansfaughter.
| Bail fixed at $500. accused to sign his own
| recognlzauce.
SENTENCED.
State vs. Mary Francis and Lena Moore.
| Burglary and larceny. Each one year in
the Penitentiary.
Importans to Steamboat Men.
The following highly important decision
was rendered on the fourth instant in The
United States District Court in ST. Louis, by
Judge Treat:
In re steamboat Continental-Since the
| last change of rule II in admiralty, the
United States District Court for the eastern
| district of Wisconsin wolf VS.. Scow Self,
5 Chicago Legol Neps 1897, and the United
| States District Court for the southern dis
trict of New York tWickers VS.. steamboat
| Circassian, S Chicago Legal Ne,rs, l46),
| have expressed their views upon the legal
effect of said change, and as to the practice
in admiralty Hereunder.
The proposition now to be considered was
not directly involved in those cases, viz:
Whether by force of said changed rule and
the recent decisions of the United States
Supreme court concerning the exclusive
Jurisdiction of admiralty courts, the earlier
doctrine of the Supreme Court rs to home
supplies and State liens therefor are 10 be
considered as still in operation or to be
recognized.
1t might be OF interest to trace the his
tory of Judicial action on this class OF ques-
tons, but this court ID so pressed with
business that only a brief reference thereto
can be made. The early decisions in the
case of the Thomas Jefferson, etc, and
later decisions of Thomas va. Osborne,
Pratt vs.. Reid, etc, followed what may be
termed the narrow and restricted English
rule instead Of the general rules known to
maritime powers in admiralty and mari
time causes. Without Analysing the sew
eral decisions in this country and in con-
tinental European courts, and the effect OF
the twelfth rule, it may be stated that the
English rule as to the home port supplies
should no longer be held to obtain in
United States courts.
As early as 1857 the United States CIRCUIT
Court for this district, in tue case OF Hill &
Conn vs.. the Golden Gate tI6 Am. Law
Reg, 2i7l, reviewed the law as then az
knowledged aud enforced in the United
States admiralty courts, and pointed ont
the supposed iurisdictional and other diff
culties sprnging from recognition 81 liens
on vessels created by State statutes, and
from a refusal 30 recognize the broader
rules known and upheld generelly by the
maritime world. Since then many changes
have occurred, whereby the exclusive juris-
dction of United States courts in admiralty
has been asserted and entorced also the
doctrine exploded that the admiralty juris-
dction of those courts rested on or was
restricted by the constitutional grant to
Congress of the power TO regulate
commerce among the several States. Now,
the true constitutional construction is
maintained in full vigor. viz, that the ad-
miralty and maritime jurisdiction OF United
States courts rests not on said grant OF
~ l,,4
tcle three. concerning the judiciary. viz.
that "the judicial power shall extend to All
cases Of admiralty and maritime jurisdic
ton" That grant, it has been held, Tlsed
er industrial the word "maritilne" SO as to
exclude the narrow and restrictive English
doctrines. 1t is well known that ameng
the most potent causes leading to the f0rma.
ton and adoption of the United States con-
stitution were the restrictions and counter
restrictions on freight ard Interstate co.l-
merce, which by way of local interests, Or
for purposes of retaliation, the various
States had enacted and were enforcing.
Nothing was more essential than that the
new government, common to all, should
have vested in it full and exclusive author
ity over all the foreign and inter State re-
lations of commerce. The reasons for the
English rule springing from Magma Charta,
writs of prohibition from the Kings Bench,
etc, had no force under our form of gov
eminent. Nay, the United States consttu-
ton expressly conferred the power tor the
general good, which the English Magma
Charter denied under the jealousies ont OF
which it sprung.
Taking, therefore, the recent decisions of
the United States Supreme Court as
guide, whereby exclusive jurisdiction OF
admiralty and maritime causes is vested III
the United States judiciary, how is it to be
;nta cd tbat ~ moi bt the leccrJntInD
named fall within that clause of the consti.
tuition! The jurisdiction of the United
States judiciary can not be enlarged or re-
stricted by State statutes, nor can such
iurisdictional result follow from a mere
change of rule of practice. The COM
ments Of the various counts on the changes
OF the twelfth rule, wherein these changes
are said to be mere changes OF practice, DO
not reach the main point under considera-
ton. If the jurisdiction exists under the
constitution, rules of practice for its en-
forcement may be formed, but if no such
jurisdiction is granted. then no rule OF prac-
tice can give it.
Ii the United States courts III admiralty
can maintain jurisdiction IA rem or IN per-
S0Ham over supplies furnished III the nome
port, its authority SO to do can not rest
upon mere rule OF practice, but must be
based on the constitutional grant-a grant
linen can NOT 90 enlarged or ulDlulsu6u
nv State legislation or modes of practice.
When, therefore. the United States Su-
preme Court, by the last change made in
rule twelve, recognized that lin all suits by
material men for supplies or repairs or other
necessaries, the hbellant may proceed
against the ship and freight IN rem, or
against the master or owner IN personom,"
that court must have recognized that the
distinction between supplies furnished in
the home and in a foreign port was no
longer to be observed. Certainly that court
did not intend to state, or admit even by
implication, that the admiralty grant IN the
constitution existed or ceased to exist Ill Its
entirety, dependent on State legislation.
No State and no rule of mere practice In
courts could alter or work an amendment OF
the United States constitution. A recogni-
ton that all suits by material men were to
be enforced in the same way in United
States courts of admiralty, when taken IN
connection with previous decisions anu
changes OF the twelfth rule, indicates that
of necessity the rights of material men
should no longer be supposed to rest on
State liens or State legislation, but on the |
true admiralty doctrine, wherein no dis |
tinctiOn as to supplies in home or foreign |
ports is known. 1t it is necessary to pre-
vent the vessel from laying by the wharf |
instead of blowing the seas, that supplies I
should be furnished, the same rules obtain, |
whether they are furnished ut home Or |
abroad; that il, the supplies must be neces-