New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-27
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Federal Courts Haze Jurisdiction
OUer the Erie Canal.

WASHINGTON. Oct 25-Justice Brown to-day deliv-
cred the opinion Of the United States Supreme
Court IN the case Of Clara Perry against Cornelius
!. Haines Involving the question as to whether
the admiralty jurisdiction OF the federal courts ex-
tends 20 canals and canalboats. The court held
that Il old. Justice Brewer delivered n dissenting
opinion IN which he said thai the position taken
fv the court is an undue expansion Of admiralty
jurisdiction The Chief Justice and Justices Har-
Ian and Peckham Joined in this opinion The case
arose over repairs a boat the Erie Canal. and
grew out OF an effort 10 enforce the State Con-
tract Lien law. This was resisted, on the GROUND
sSat the contract was maritime one. and, there
fore exempt II being asserted that only federal
oeu~ts have jurisdiction in al admiralty eases.
Justice Brown held that canalboats are ships
within the meaning OF the admiralty law ana Nna|
therefore the case was one in which only the ma
rionsl courts have jurisdiction. He held that al
miraltv jurisdiction extends 10 canals and s.ild
the fact that cana lboats are drawn 10y horses and
not propelled by steam did not alter the case i1e
declared that the line could be drawn only At row"
boats de held that the fact that the contract ior
repairs mace IN the pending case was drawn on
land and that the repairs were made in a orA dock
could not affect tho validity Of the federal Jursdc
tion and added: Neither size form. equipment nor
means OF propulsion are determinatiFe FACTORS
upon the question OF jurisdiction. which REGARDS
ONLY the purposes for which the craft was con-
et--,cte6 anc the business in which X Is engaged
The present employment Of horses. he continued
was merely an accident. and the motive power NiS
lfrely TO be changed with The contemplated en-
lsrgenneut OF The canal. The only distinction be
tween canals and other naviCable waters. ne ADD
cd .is that thev are rendered naviEable 10y aTti-
.o.sl means. and sometimes. though by no means
always are wholly within the limits OF a particular
state We fan TO see. however, that ms creates
any distinction IN principle Canals, thoush IRE
ouently within the limits OF a single State gen
orally connect waters lying outside The state. III
This case the Erie Canal though wholly within
she State OF Nezy-York is great highway OF com
-erce between ports IN different States ana ioreis
countries aud il is nal1gaple 10y os I5i,r NH
Justice Brewer in his. dissenting opinion took ule
ground that maritime law v as oLlslliiS N ne sri
gable streams meant 10 cover Only =
which are navigated by ocean going vessels. Il
ferpretation OF the CONSTITUTION. the admiralty Ja
rfsdction Of the federal courts extends 10
Tor me repair Of vessels engaged wholly IN com
Trerce within state. The lsr1e CanaI vas blt' ~ ~
the state is owned by the state and II Cill.l LOT
one moment be assumed that the national govern
interfere 10 restrict ne Sla.e a 20 o.1o
size Of the canal, the oeptn OF ne w. ~ 70
structon Of bridges, or other thlIEs - IeslSt -
which Il has rull conlIo over 49,, ,5e SITE
hflds 8 waterway. and owns waterway. ana has
general control over that waterway, IL cannot pro
vide Il sees n Tor eiorclng cairns loI We ~
vessels navigating such highway: Nltn ne Nessl $3.50
are Of character which prevents their pelhs Useu
for any foreign commerce ... 49, -,
He referred TO the possible deterTalnailon on 1he
mart Of the people Of the State OF New-A YORK az
next weeks election 10 enlarge The canal afo SAG
that Il such control was gwen 10 the o'a'e Il que III
The court denied the motion made last Money
10 unite the cases Of Jackson W. Giles attacklrg
Alabama constitution with the case OF Dan ttos-
s-s q murder case The Giles cases were advanced
- be beard an January ! and the Rogers case
also coming from Alabama 10 De heaIo lilliieul
TIE Solicitor General entered motion to advance
che hearing OF the case Of the ChlckasaN
,1ei11ine he question as 10 whether the freedmen
are citizens OF the Chckasaw Nation ana thsIei9I
eTssnst the freedmen by the Court CT Claims.