The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-11
THE TIMtss-RICHMOND VA. SUNDAY DECEMBER III 1887

/
| the time of her arrest. and also the rights
| Of the owner Of the vessel, whether ne
| be innocent OF her offense or not, may De
| eonfiscated in due coUsc Of proceeding DY
| tic common law courts OF the States as
| well as OF the United States. L. D. VS..
| The Malek Abdel. 2 Howard ZO9-
The cases OF Voorhees, VS.. Bank. 10
Peters. A; Faux VS.. Zimmerman. a wal
lace. 113: NcNitt VS.. Turner, Is i'd, $50;
McCready VS.. Virginia, "a Il. S.. 3yl; and
Boggs VS.. Commonwealth, rs Va, jSJ, are
rot In point They would be In point II
the regularity Of the proceeding in the
common law court only was in question
Where a court OF common law, having
replete Jurisdiction of a suit has pass ID
final decree or judgment, the regularity
Of its proceedings cannot be examined
conateraiiy. But where their jurisdiction
is confined within certain limits. by the
Constitution OF the United States, their
prijurisdiction may be examined collater-
ally, so far as they transcend the limits
Of their constitutional powers.
None will deny the competency OF the
State Of Virginia to pass laws of forfeit
ure and confscation effectual for the i'm
portant purpose OF protecting her OYSTER
beds from piraticai depreciation. Such
laws, as far as they can be operated.
should be upheld and respected by the
public and by the courts The question
here is, not upon the policy Of such laws,
or upon the competency Of the State to
enact them, but simply whether whel en-
acted they can be made 70 empower the
common law courts TO exercise admiralty
jurisdiction in prejudice Of maritime
hens; the States having, as the Supreme
Court OF the United States says in L. S.
VS.. Beavans, Wheaton, 1885, and in Jones
VS.. League, Is Howard 76. parted with
the power 50 10 legislate as to conflict
with the admiralty Jurisdiction or laws Of
the United States" Having parted with
that power. the State of Virginia cannot
exercise ii 10 the divesting and destruc-
ton Of maritime liens, resting upon YES
sells seized and cOnliscated under her laws
for the protection Of oyster-beds; where
the seamen. material men, and others
holding these liens are innocent of par !
ticipation in the acts for which the yes
sells are confscated.
It is urged by the Attorney General of |
vlrslnia that the oyster fundum of the |
state II liens arising anterior to confis- !
cdtloh were given precedence over for
Ielture, would be destroyed: as vessels !
would go upon voyages of tTespass "Dlas- |
tered all over with liens" But maritime |
liens are few, OF definite character and !
difficult 10 counterfeit
~ F"iiu IHty must De or recent orr |
gin; staleness destroys them. The court
would stultify itself to admit the nossi-
DlIity or such abuses as this learned
officer apprehends.
Besides. il must be remembered that
constitutional rights cannot be brushed
away by mere suspicious OF fraud The
admiralty court will always lean towards
the state in adjudicating these liens. and
Will risidly serutinize all such claims.
come, therefore, to the examination of
the claims Of the libellants and petitioners
In the three cases at the bar
In the case Of the schooner Elexena
there are two claims of material men.
That Of s. f. Hastings for $685. for
sails and repairs of sails, &c. is stale as
to $3.50 only $13 is therefore allowed.
That Of Crockett & Connorton. for SG2. 81.
FOR supplies furnished within six months
before the seizure Of the vessel by the
state Of Virginia, is allowed. Decree will
be entered for these sums. AS 10 the
claims Of seamen filed In this case.
amounting TO Sl26.G3, it appears from the
imperfect papers presented in their be
half that they We're on board of the
tleXena at the time Of her CAPTURE i'm
ielicto, presumably participating with the
'essel in her violations of the laws Of
he State. These, claims are, therefore,
iisaiowed.
AS 10 the case or the schooner Alice j.
Ienable, the claim Of the libellant. ]. r.
gibbons, Is for sails and repairs OF sails,
furnished within six months before the
eizure Of the vessel, amounting TO sGS59
which is allowed. That Of Prendergast q
sons, for sails and other material fur
ished within six months before the selz-
ire Of the vessel, amounting 10 1865. is
liOwed. As TO the claims of seamen
referred in this case. amounting to
l00G, it is almost a necessary presump-
Ton from the papers evidencing the
laims. that the seamen were on board
he offending vessel at the time Of her
eizure, aud they are, therefore, disal-
owed
In the case Of the schooner Samuel T.
White, the claim Of the libellant for sails
nd tackle, amounting to $i6S. furnished
,iJhin six months before seizure is al
owed. That Of Ernest Parsons, amount
lg TO $20870. is disallowed in part and
flowed i'm part. Items to the amount
{ 5000 are disallowed as stale. Items
. the amount Of $l3 for sails furnished
fter the seizure OF the vessel are disai-
,wed as not within the cOgnizance Of the
Sc OF the vessel. amounting to 5000. is
lowed. Decree will be entered accord
lgly