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

He says among other things:
"There are some principles OF law which
have been so long and so well estab
lished that IL is sufficient TO state then
without referring TO authorities: The Her
NJ seamen for their wages is prior and
paramount TO all other claims on the
vessel and must be first paid.
"By the Constitution and laws OF the
| United states the only court that has
jurisdiction over this lien, or Is authorized
! 10 enforce Il, Is the admiralty court, and
II is the duty Of that court TO do so.
| The seamen, as a matter Of right, are
entitled 10 the process Of the court to
enforce payment promptly, In order that
they may not be left penniless and with
out the means of support on shore, and
| the right to this remedy is as well and
| 6rmly established as the right to the
paramount lien. No court OF common
| law can enforce or uIsplace this lien II
| has no Jurisdiction over ii, nor any right
| 20 obstruct or interfere With the lien or
the remedy which is given TO the seamen.
"a general creditor Of the ship-owner
| has no lien on the vessel When she Is
attached by process from court Of
common law nothing is taken, or can be
taken but the interest Of the owner re-
naming after the maritime liens are
satisfied. The seizure does not reach
them. The thing taken is not the whole
interest In the ship, and the only in
terest which this process can seize is
secondary and subordinate interest. sub
feet 60 the superior and paramount claims
Of the scamen's wages; and what VIII
be the amount Of those claims. or whether
anything would remain to be attached
the court of common law cannot know
until they are heard and decided upon H.
the court Of admiralty. ! do not under
act 10. a1
Under the attachment. therefore, which
issued from the common law court OF
PENNSYLVANIA, nothing was legally in the
custody of the sheriff. but the interest Of
the owner, whatever 1t might prove TO be,
after the liens were heard and adjudiC ated
in the only court that could hear and de-
ternnine them The question
then is simply this: can court Of com
mon law. having jurisdiction Of only
subordinate and inferior interest, shut the
doors of justice fer TWELVE months or
more against the paramount and superior
clainnn of seamen for wages due, ard pre-
vent them from seeking a remedy in the
only court that con give it? l think not;
and it is equally a denial Of the
right Of the court Of admiralty TO eXer-
else the jurisdiction conferred on it Icy
the Constitution and laws Of the United
Stltes.
Now it is very clear, that If this snip
had been seized by process from a COM
mon law court Of the United States for
a debt due from the owner, the possession
Of the marshal under that process would
have been superseded by process from
the admiralty upon preferred maritime
lien. This / understand TO be admitted
And if it be admitted, | do not see how
the fact that this process was from
common law court Of a State. and served
by it's own officers, can make any differ
ence; for the common law court OF State
has no more right TO impede the admiralty
in the exercise Of it's legitimate and ex-
elusive powers, than a common law court
of the United States.
and the sheriff. who is the mere min
isterial officer Of the court Of common
law, can have no greater power or juris
diction over the vessel than the court
whose process he executes. He SEXES
what the court has a right TO seize; he
has no right Of possession beyond it; and
if the interest over which the court has
jurisdiction is secondary and subordinate
to the interest over which the admiralty
has exclusive jurisdiction, his possession
is secondary and subordinate in like man
ner, and subject 10 the process on the
superior and paramount claim. 1t is the
process and the authority of the court
to issue it that must determine who has
the superior right. In the case
of Flora, / Haggard, 29S, the vessel had |
been seized by a sheriff upon process from |
the court Of Kings bench. She was at |
forwards and while in possession of the
sheriff, arrested upon process from the |
admiralty on a prior maritime lien. and |
was sold by the marshal while the sheriff |
still held her under the common law pro- |
cess. The sale by the marshal was |
hold m he valid nv KINGS hpnph |
= That court sanctioned the sale |
upon the ground that the marshal |
acted under a court of competent au-
thority (see note BOD, and they refused to |
interfere with the surplus which remained |
after payment Of the seamen's wages,
which had been paid into the registry of |
the admiralty, even in behalf Of the credi-
tor who had seized under their own pro-
cess 1t was conceded on all |
hands that the possession Of the sheriff
was no obstacle TO the arrest by the mar
shall.
1T seems however, to be supposed that
the circumstance that the common law
Of State and not the United States dis
tinguishcs this case from that Of The !
Flora, and is decisive in this controversy.
And it is said that the Royal Saxon was
IN the possession of another sovereignty |
and in the custody of its law, and that no
process could be served upon her, issuing
from the court Of a different sovereignty
without infringing upon the rights OF
he State, and bringing on unavoidably a
conflict between the United States and the
State. If by another and different sover-
eighty 1t is meant that the power of the
state is sovereign in its sphere Of action,
Is marked out by the Constitution of the
United States, and that no court Or officer
u the United States can seize or interfere
With property in the custody Of an officer
II State court, where the property and
Ill the right in ii are subject to the con-
rol Of the authorities of the State, nobody
Will dispute the proposition, But If It is
Intended TO say that, in the administra-
ion OF judicial power, the tribunals Of the
state and the United States are to be le-
arded as the tribunals Of separate aud in
dependent soyereignties, dealing with each
'ther In this respect upon the principles
Which govern the comfy of nations, an
lot assent TO 1t. The Constitution Of the
United States is as much a part Of the
aw OF pennsylvania as its own Constitu- |
ION; and the laws passed by Congress
pursuant TO the Constitution are as oblig-
tory upon the courts of the State as
lpon those or the United States; ad they
re equally bound 10 respect and uphold
he acts ana process of the courts IF the
United States, when acting within the |
cope OF their legitimate authority.
The Constitution and laws which es-
ablish the admiralty courts and regulate
helr jurisdiction are part Of the SUI
rene law Of the State and that State
QUIZ lot authorize its common law courts
issue any process or its officers TO ex-
cute 1t. which would impede or prevent
he admiralty court from performing the
utes imposed upon il in exercfsfne, +ba |