The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1903-11-11
CONTROL Of ERIE CANAL
FEDERAL Courts Have Jurisdiction
Supreme Court Declares.
CANALBOATS SAME AS SHIPS

C,ur Dissenting Justices Declare the Po-
sition an Undue Expansion of Federal
Authority - Sweeping Decision Which
Vests Supervision of Inland Water
ways in the National Government.
Washington. D. G.. - The Supreme
Court. by q divided bench, has de-
clared that the Erie Canal, although
built by the State of New York, aAd
wholly within it's borders, is under the
maritime jurisdiction Of the Federal
Government. Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham
dissentcd.
The controversy arose over repairs to
a canalboat. The owner, Mrs. Clara
Perry, in the suit brought to enforce
the lien contended that the New York
statute under which il was brought
was an infringement upon the Admir-.
atty jurisdiction of the Federai Coy
ernment over the navigable waters OF
the United States. and that the lien
therefore could not be enforced.
The Supreme Court of New York de-
MED this contention and upheld the
statute. whereupon Mrs. Perry ap-
pealcd to the Supreme Court Of the
United States on constitutional
grounds.
The opinion Of the court was deliv-
cred by Justice Brown. The argu-
mcnt that the jurisdiction Of the Gov
ernment did not apply to artificial wat
erways. he said. had been decided in
several cases, both in this country and
Canada. There was no question. he
asserted. as to the Federal Jurisdiction
over the great lakes and it would be
ridiculous to deny it's jurisdiction over.
for instance, the st. Clair Canal. which
connected two Of the lakes. srd was
but mile long. solely on the ground
that it was an artificial waterway.
AS to the contention that maritime
Jurisdiction did not apply to canal
boats Justice Brown said the means Of
propulsion was not material. it having
already been decided by the Supreme
Court that it applied to all kinds of
vessels except rowboats. which were
not included. That the boats on the
Erie Canal were drawn by horses did
not matter. for the enlargement Of the
canal was in contemplation. when they
would be propelled by steam. and 1t
would. Of course, be futile to hold that
jurisdiction did not apply now and
then change that decision.
The dissenting opinion was delivered
by Justice Brewer. Until 1910 the Su.
preme Court had held. he said. that
Federal maritime jurisdiction extended
only to tide water. With the use of
steam. however. the limits of naviga.
tion were extended to include the
waters which could by that means be
reached by ocean vessels. The deci
sion in this case extended it further. so
that it included not only ocean com.
merce for which it was intended. but
also took possession of all the inland
navigation upon waters connected in
any way with the ocean, including
waters wholly within the boundaries
Of Il State.
TIE Erie Canal said Justice Brewer.
was built and owned by the State of
New York. and the Federal Govern
ment could not. of course. interfere to
restrict the size Of the canal. the depth
Of it's water or the construction Of
bridges. and how. then. could it inter-
fere in a case like that at bar?
In his opinion the grant to the na.
tons Government over Admiralty and
maritime matters was in furtherance
of commerce between the United
States and foreign nations and de.
signed to secure uniformity in respect
thereto, and did not extend the con.
tracts made in respect to vessels which
were incanacitated from foreign com.
merce designed and used exclusively
for all local traffic within q State.