, 1876-09-22

United States are lot vested with any
jurisdiction under the laws of the lerrilo
~, but the maritime law was here in
force at the time as one OF the laws of the
Territory. The maritime law was admin
iStered in the States hy the Circuit and
District courts of the United States, where
fore the power conferred is as il it had
been said that the District Courts within
the Territory shall have aud exercise the
same jurisdiction in cases arising under
the law maritime, then in force, as is exer-
cised by the United States District Courts
within the several States.
1t is unfortunate that Congress has not
deemed it proper to confer this Admiralty
jurisdiction on this court in express terms.
controversy has and will exist on the sub
ject until there is further legislation. The
Jurisdiction here is most important one.
We have within our Territory the most
extensive inland seas on the globe, with
numerous forests, coal and iron fields ad-
joining thereto; our ships are engaged in
carrying lumber and coal to all parts of
the world, hence the importance that this
Admiralty jurisdiction should exist here
without question, and under the same
rules as in the several States. 1t is unsat-
isfactory that In order to convince the ju-
dicial mind that this jurisdiction exists
that we have to go into so extended dis
cuSsiOn; and, finally, the conclusion is
doubtful as to the jurisdiction and practice
IN tine Disei let and Supreme Courts within
the Territory III Admiralty. The argu-
ment OF the learned counsel for claimants
has received much consideration, and is of
such force as to leave the question in
doubt. In cases of doubt, | think the
Court should exercise the jurisdiction.
1t would be much more satisfactory to
my mind to sustain this Jurisdiction upon
tile theory announced by Justice Bradley,
Ia the case OF HOrnbucke VS.. TOOmbs, Is
Hol., tO-wit:
Gases in Admiralty, on cases arising
under the Constitution and laws of the
United States" and as surh, jurisdiction
is expressly declap in the above case
perhaps it is ''dictum.' AS the point was
not ra Sed. II i, however, exactly in COLI
tlict with the ruling of the same court in
|. Peters, above cited; yet inasmuch as
that court in the case la Is Wall. express
ly Overruled all of its former decisions as to
practice IN this Court, would 1t not be rea-
sOnable to conclude that they intended to
Overru;e their decisions in |. Peters, aud
hold that case in Admiralty does in fact
arise under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. Should this be the cor
rect view, then our jurisdiction here would
be undOubted.
Couoeding our jurisdiction, by what
practice are we to be governed? This
Court has adopted no rules of practice la
the Admiralty. The rules adopted by tue
Supreme Court Ofthe UnitefStates are not
ih express terms made applicable, neither
hua tho fHorrsifnrial I .ofci oFs,s.feI
any rules or laws upon the subject, our
civ code being, In my view, solely a ,JpI-
cable TO actions at law and suits la eq Try.
The QUESTION as TO whether or hot these
here are United States courts is of but little
practical importance; call them bywhatever
name you choose, and their jurisdiction Is |
the same. They are created by an Act OF
Congress, and as we have seen their juris- |
diction in Admiralty is granted them by
the organic act. When transacting busi- |
ness Under the Constitution and laws of the |
United States they have, and exercise. all
the powers OF the Circuit aud District |
Courts of the United States. and when In |
the exercise of their jurisdiction as such
Courts. by what rules Of practice they are
to he governed was point not decided In |
the "a Z la Is Wall.-"it was not In ques-
tiou.''
Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy is conferred
upon this Court, but find 10 provisions |
OF law which make In express terms the
rules OF practice of the District Courts of
the United States here applicable, yet who |
will question that such rules are here In |
fDrce?
So IN criminal causes, this Court has never
followed the practice adopted by the Leg
islaulre. but rather the practice Of the
United Suites Courts.
When sitting Ia admiralty this Court has
all the powers and jurisdiction Of u Dis
trict Court OF the United States. By the
decisions OF the Uni'ed States Courts the
laws of Congress and rules Of practice
adopted by the Supreme Court OF the Uni
ted States "is builded" the system of
s. American Admiralty" which within the
States Is enforced and administered ONLY |
IN the United States courts. This juris-
diction Is here exercised in this Court In |
pursuance of law Of Congress, and there
no reason apparent why the laws aud
practice are or should be locally inappli- |
cable. On the other hand as a part ofthe |
American system, they are 10 all respects
applieable here, and such has been the |
practice since the organization Of the Ter
ritory.
The point as TO defect Of parties Is not
well taken, by the provisions of Sec. II OF |
the act In question; its provisions are lin |
tied to persons married here prior to Its
passage, and to those who are married
without the Territory and who reside In |
and acquire property here.
The action Is basel upon a contrast, and
upon the case IS made In, the libel, am |
satisfied that tine ''ship" Is liable in |
rem. Questions as to the measure Ofdam-
ages will be determined at the trial. Ex-
ceptions and motion will be denied.
J. r. LEWIS, Judge.
Dennison & Bingham, for Libellants.
McNaught & Haller, for Claimants.