The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-11
A LIEN In ADMIRALTY.
THE OPINION or JUDGE HUGHES
IN TIE CASE or VESSELS SOLD
Under Forfeiture Proceedings by the State
of yirginia-Jurisdiction of tho
United states Courts.

cases OF three vessels arrested, cOndenn
cd and sod under forfeiture proceedings
Instituted by the State of Virginia FOL
violation Of the oyster laws:
u. S. District Court at Norfolk
November 30, 1892.
S. r. Hastings VS.. Schooner "Elexena -
Libel Of material men and petition OF
material men for materials furnished
libellant and petitioners being ciuzens
OF Maryland. Also a claim OF several
seamen for arrears Of wages
j. T. Gibbons VS.. Schooner Alice }. ven
able."-Libal OF material man and petit
tion OF material men for materials fur
nished, the libsllant being citizen OF
MAJ yland. Also claims Of scamen for
wages.
D. T. Gibbons vs. Schooner Samuel T.
WLite"-Libel and petition Of material
men for materials furnished, the libel
liant Being a citizen Of Maryland.
On Admiralty
The answer OF present owner and
claimant I'm each case AYERS that the
vessel was seized and sold by the state
of Virginia, and that a. such sale ne
became purchaser and now holds the
same under a bill Of sale, executed by a
fheriff Of the State.
Opinion Of the Court.-These vessels,
arrested. condemned and sold under for
fciture proceedings Instituted by the State
OF Virginia for violations OF laws enacted
fo- the protection Of oyster beds belong
ing to the State. have been libcllcd In
this court for claims Of material men
and seamen. which constituted liens
in admiralty uron the several vessels
before their seizure by officers OF the
State
Some of these claims will be allowed
by this court. some OF them disallowed;
but the question in the case of each will
remain, whether penal and forfeiture pro-
ceedings prosecuted by the State to
sale of a vessel arrested in delicto divests
a lien in admiralty previously resting
tpon that vessel. Inasmuch as ii is eX-
pressly enacted by section 2l8 OF the
Code of Virginia, that such sale shall
vest in the purchaser a clear and abso-
lutte title TO the property sold. the ques-
ton already stated takes the adltonal
form. whether that clause Of the section
Is operative or null and void, as 10 pre-
yiously subsisting admiralty liens.
These libels were not filed In eltner
case during the tendency Of the forfeiture
prosecuted by the State.
They were each Of them brought after
the final confscation of the vessels, and
after their coming into the hands Of
the purchasers. There was no actual
conflict of Jurisdiction between the court
I'm which the criminal proceedings were
had and the admiralty court. II was not
until the conhscation Of the vessels was
finally consummated that suit in ad-
miraty was instituted here to enforce
the respective maritime liens. So that
another form Of the question which has
been stated is, whether an admiralty lien
can be Invested under proceedings, even
criminal in character, by a common law
cCurt.
The provisions Of the Code authorizing
khe arrest and confscation of vessels
for violations Of oyster laws are such as
exclude all rights Of inno-
cent creditors Of the vessels sold. The
hosting of a notice Of the information
fled for the forfeiture Of the offending
Vessel. on the front door Of the court
house at which the proceeding is conduct
I'd, and its publication in a newspaper Of
the State. such posting and publication,
ii is enacted, shall be sufficient GeTvice
bf the notice on all persons concerned in
Interest" II is further enacted that, 'ig-
noi ance of the respondent or other con-
testant that the property seized was
being used in violation of law, shall be
no defense. Nor shall it be ground Of
defense, that the person by whom the
said property was used n violating the
law has not been convicted Of such viola
ton"
The sale OF a ship by an admiralty
court for the satisfaction of maritime
lens in due course of a suit In admiralty,
gives the title to the purchaser against
all the world; IL gives such title by virtue
Of the maritime law, which Is part Of
The law of nations,
The provisions OF the Code Of Virginia
rs 10 the trial, the notice OF trial, and
he sale Of a vessel arrested for violations
IF the oyster laws, are intended, without
he sanction of the maritime law, or of
he law Of nations, to make the sale of
vessel under the proceeding of the local
court as conclusive against the world
Is a sale in admiralty. So that the ques-
ion already stated assumes the additional
'orm, whether the rights Of maritime
,reditors in a ship can be Invested by
local court by O proceeding unknown |
o the maritime law.
Let It be promised that II is declared by
he Constitution OF the United States, |
hat Congress shall have power to con- |
titute tribunals inferior to the supreme |
ourt"; that the judicial power OF the |
United States shall be vested in one su- |
Is Congress may from time to time or |
lain and establish; that "the judicial |
'ower shall extend TO all cases Of ad- |
niralty and maritime jurisdiction; that |
no State shall pass any law imparing |
he obligation OF contracts; and that \
no person shall be deprived of property |
Without due process OF law"
Let 1t be also promised that Congress
n exercising its powers derived from |
he Constitution has provided that the |
district Courts OF the United States
hall be courts Of admiralty, and has,
" the ninth section OF the Judiciary |
shall have exclusive original cognizance
( all civil causes of admiralty and mari
ime Jurisdiction"
The precedent principally relied upon |
y the respondents 10 the libels pending |
a this court is that OF Taylor VS.. Carryl, |
Howard. 5S3. In that case a creditor
{ large Of the owners of the barque
loyal Saxon, Of Londonderry Ireland,
hen lying in the port OF Philadelphia.
hose claim was not maritime, sued out
foreign attachment at Philadelphia.
nder which the ship was arrested and
ED TO answer the judgment Of the court
common law from which the attach
tent issued. While this suit was pending.
he seamen on board the ship filed libel
'r their wages in the admiralty court
tting at Philadelphia, process under
hich was duly served by it's marshal
lille the suit at common law was still
ending, the admiralty court pronounced
decree In favor Of the libellants. Under
us decree execution was issued and the
mp SOLD by the marshal and delivered
the purchaser.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in the common
W SUIT replevied the ship in the suit
sututed in the common law court.
noer order OF this court the sheriff