The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-11

tndt lney ndd IN tDe IOnB interval Deer
scattered by the winds to the four-quar-
tiers OF the earth.
IL can harry be pretended that the late
Chief Justice fancy. who for maintain
ing the supremacy OF State laws in a
matter within the proper sphere OF State
authority I'm a memorable case. was the
best abused judge that ever sat upon the
bench, was capable Of disparaging the
authority OF a State court. in the case
In which he delivered the opinion from
which the foregoing extracts were made.
The only question In that case Of Tay-
Tor w. Carryl. which was before the
Supreme Court, was not. whether the ar
rest and sale OF the ship by the com
mon law court In a suit against the
owner by creditor at large could be
ordered at all: but simply whether the
admiralty could interpose TO subject the
ship 10 a maritime lien during the pen
! dency OF the common law suit. Five OF
the justices held that the admiralty
could not interpose; four OF the justices
| dissenting from that ruling, and holding
that the admiralty court could not be
thus delayed in the exercise Of its es-
pecial and exclusive powers
The practice Of the Kings Bench OF
England. tribunal supported by law
yers who have not kept pace with the
! progress Of legal science in modern times,
! TO be especially hostile TO the admiralty
! Jurisdiction is different from that estab-
! lished by the Supreme Court Of the
| United States in Taylor VS. Carryl Not
only in the case OF The Flora, cited by
Judge fancy, did it give way to the ad-
miralty, but IT is the practice Of that
| court in like cases TO do so.
Nor are the other courts of England
any longer Influenced by the passionate
invectives Of Lord Coke against the ad-
m.ralty IT. the case Of Harman VS..
| Bell, reported, In this country, 22d En-
glish Law and Equity, g. we find case
heard on appeal In privy council, SINH
lar in principle 10 the one at bar.
quote and condense from the syllabus:
~ Scotch steamer ran down an En-
glish vessel in the Humber. suit was
commenced by the owners OF the English
vessel against the owner Of the steamer,
the court Of session in Scotland for dam
age, and the steamer was arrested under
process Of that court Afterwards, and
pending these proceedings, the steamer
was sold by the Scotch court without
notice TO the purchaser Of this unsatis-
fed claim against her. TIE prOcee 1ingS
in the court of session were still pend
ing when the steamer, having come with
in the jurisdiction Of England, was again
arrested Under process OF the hlgh court
of admiralty in England. and an action
for damages commenced In that court
for the same cause of action as was
still pending in Scotland. The owner of
the steamer. who had purchased her. APP
peared under protest in the admiralty
court, and pleaded first lis alibi pendens,
and, secondly, that ne was purchaser
for value without notice.
Held, first. that the plea Of lis alibi
pendeps was bad as the suit of Scotland
was in the first instance in personam.
the suit being commenced by process
against the persons of the owners OF the
vessel (the defendants). and the arrest
only collateral TO secure the debt; while
the proceedings in tn admiralty court in
Engiand were in the first instance l.
rem, against the vessel, and, therefore,
the two suits. being in their nature diff
ferent, the tendency OF one suit could not
be pleaded in suspension Of the other.
Secondly, that. as, by the civil law,
maritime lien does not include or require
possession, but being the foundation ot
proceedings in rem. such lien travels with
the thing into whosesoevsr possession it /
may come, and, when carried into effect {
by a proceeding In rem, relates back 10
the period when it first attached; the |
steamer was liable for the damages com /
mitted by her, though in the hands Of a
purchaser without notice of the damage, |
or Of the proceedings instituted against |
her"
l think it is plain from what has been !
said that a maritime lien cannot be di- /
vested by any proceeding in civil action .
in a common law court that such court |
cannot exercise jurisdiction over the lien /
either directly or indirectly; and that a
State of this Union cannot under the Con-
stitution confer jurisdiction to diyest this
lien, the lien attaching at the moment of
the contract or tort in which it originates,
and travelling with the ship wherever it
may 90, into wEosesoever possession II
may come, by whatever right or accident.
Nor can it be adjudicated, in the United
States, by any other court than those
upon which by the Constitution and laws
of the United States, the exclusive juris-
dictiOn over it is conferred.
The State of Alabama once passed a
law by which she aimed to confer on GER
tain State courts as to certain maritime
contracts a jurisdiction over ships pre-
cisey the same as that possessed by the
United States courts of admiralty. But
the law became a nullity under the de-
cisOn of the Supreme Court OF the United
States in the case of The Belfast, 8 Wal
lace, 624, in which it was held that
In all cases where a maritime lien
arises, the original Jurisdiction TO enforce
it by proceeding in rem. is exclusive in
the District courts Of the United States,
as provided by the ninth section Of the
Judiciary Act of 1852. State legislatures
have no authority to create maritime
liens; nor can they confer jurisdiction
upon a State court TO enforce such a lien
by a suit or proceeding in rem. as prac-
iced in admiralty courts. The statute
Of 7th OF October, 1864, of the State Of
Alabama is, therefore, unconstitutional
and void"
The admiralty Jurisdiction under the
Jaw Of nations is criminal as we'll as civil.
The States in cedlng, by the Constitution,
20 the judicial power Of the United States
he cognizance of all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction" retained no
part Of the Jurisdiction, either civil or
criminal; and when Congress created GER
ain courts as admiralty courts, the adj
niralty jurisdiction passed extensively
o them, by virtue Of the Constitution and
I was unnecessary for Congress to enact
n express words, as 1t did, that this jur-
sdicton in civil causes should be excu-
i've.
The jurisdiction In rem, belonging 10
admiralty courts. that is to say. the power
o deal with ships by name as sentient
beings, irrespectively of ownership or
,ther condition of circumstances, belongs
exclusively and peculiarly to the ad-
niralty, and cannot be conferred. either
or civil or criminal purposes. by State
egislaton, upon the common law courts
" a State. so as 10 operate in derOgation
n exclusion Of the power of the admiralty
o enforce maritime liens in due course Of
procedure.
In evasion Of these settled principles OF