, 1876-09-22
OPINION OF JUDGE LEWIS.

The =. steamer City of Panama" by reason Of
the employees of the steamer carelcssly leav-
ing "a hatcnway open and ungarded, whereby
the said Mary Phelps fell therein into the hold
of the shin. and was injured
MrSsrs. Mcknight & Haller, Proctors for the
p. NJ. : :. Co, claimants, move 10 quash
proceedings, and file their exceptions and de
murer to the libel for several causes, among
which
l. That this Court has no Jurisdiction in
Admiralty.
,. The facts set forth in the Libel do not con-
stitute a cause OfactiOn in admiralty in rem.
3. There is defect of parties plaintiff. The
claim for damages is common, proper, under
the Statute, Tor which The husband alone must
sue.
4. The Admiralty rules Of the United States
Courts under which the proceedings are hele,
are not in force within this Territory.
Questions touching the jurisdiction and
practice Of Territorial courts have been of
frequent occurrence for nearly half CEN
tury. The first decision on the subject
made by the Supreme Court of the United
States, at the January term, 1928, deter
mined the following points among others:
l. That the provisions of the Sth section
of the organic act of Florida did not con-
feI on the Superior courts ofthat Territory
jurisdiction IN Admiralty.
2. That case in Admiralty does not in
fact arise under the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
3. That Admiralty cases are as old as
navigation itself, and the law admiralty
aud maritime, as it has existed for ages, is
applied by our courts to cases as they arise.
4. Jurisdiction in Admiralty was exer-
cised by the Florida courts by virtue of the
provisions of Section of the Florida Act,
to-wit: Each court shall have jurisdic-
"tiOn in all civil cases arising under and
"cOgnizable by the laws of the Territory
Eksg a. 81 a. Al
Usage OF the Act"
Chief Justice Marshall In announcing
the opinion in that case, says. THAT all
1.-THE laws which were in force IN Florida
"while province OF Spain remained
"ih force until altered by the Government
"Of the United States" Congress recOg-
nizes this principle by using the words
claws OF the Territory now in force there
in" No laws would have been in force
but those enacted by the Spanish gov
eminent. II among these a salvage law
existed, and it IS scarcely possible there
should not have been such a law, juriSdic-
tion over cases ''aFising under it was en-
''forced IN the Superior courts. Am. Ins.
Co.. Carter, ]. Peters, 5l1.
Section 1911 of tile Revised Statutes. con-
ferring jurisdiction OH this court, differs
materially from Sec. OF the Florida act,
aud Sec. 1910 Of Revised Statutes confer
ring jurisdiction OIL the District Court Of
the other Territories.
Sec. 1910 of Revised Statutes Is Identical
with Section s of the Florida act Ia that
regard, to-wit: Each of the District
Courts lin the Territories Except wash
''ington) shall have and exercise the same
"jurisdiction in all cases arising under the
Constitution and laws OF the United
'' States rs Is vested in the CT emit and
"District courts of the Ugited States" !
But the law as to this lei ritOry goes |
further, to-wit, Sec. l9ll-"Each of the |
"District Courts in Washington Territory
''shall have the same jurisdiction IN all |
ceases arising under the Constitution and |
'slaws of the United States aud laws Of the |
'.1erritOry As is vested IN the Circuit and |
"Ii trict courts Of II United Stltes., ;,
The provisions therefore OF SIC. 1911 |
Revised Statutes Includes sub tantlaliy tile
jurisdictional clauses Of both secil lOns seven |
and eight OF the Florida act.
Chief Justice Jacobs In announcing the |
opinion Of the Supreme Court of this Ter
htOry in Griffin VS.. Nickols. December
term, 1872, In discussing the meaning of /
the words :. Laws of the Territory. - says:
The Admiralty law Of the United States
(which WAS then and had been admins
"tered ia the courts OfOregon since lS4S,
:. was not Only in oree-Operative-in
"this Territory. but was administered BY
"the courts Of Oregon a. a part OF the jn-
g 'risprudence OF the country
This decision OF our Supreme Court de-
termined the exact question that the adj
miralty and maritime law was Ia force
In this Territory at the time Of its organ
lzation. and was therefore ''law OF the
Territory" within the meaning OF the
phrase as used IN section 1911 OF the Re
vised Statutes. 1t It further said by Chief
Justice Jacobs, IN the case of. Griffin vs..
Nikois: Gases arising under the above
enumerated laws lamOng which Is the
:. s.admiralty rs above cited) are Of Federal
" "cognizance In the States, aud jurlsdic-
" tion the same as that vested In the Cir
"cnit and District Courts of the United /
" States, Is given to tue District Courts Of
" the Territory"
That the admiralty law was In force In
this Territory at the time Of its organizl-
tion. may be determined by the same
course OF argument as that used by Chief |
Justice Marshall in Peters.
Washington Territory Is part Of the |
Louisiana purchase. When Louisiana |
was a provfhce Of France the maritime |
law was doubtless In full force therein, aud |
at the date Of its acquisition such law was |
administered In the Federal Courts In ac-
cor1anee with the general law maritime ;
hence, when Louisiana was ceded to the |
United States the law maritime was In
force in all parts of that Territory. No
legislation by the Congress was necessary
In order to carry the admiralty law into
the ceded Territory.
1t being understood, therefore, at the
time Of the organization that 1t would be
necessary to administer the maritime law
within this Territory, and that there was
no Courts here 70 administer 1t, Congress
in addition to its Jurisdiction given to the