The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1903-10-28
UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW
Opinion of Supreme Court as to
Canals and Canal Boats.

WITHIN meaning OF Admiralty Law
Not Subject to State Contract Lien
Law-Four Judges Join In Dis
senting Opinion.
Washington, Oct 27.--Justice Brown
Df the United States supreme court
delivered the opinion of the court in
the case of Clara Perry VS.. Cornelius
L. Haines, involving the question as
10 whether the admiralty jurisdiction
of the federal courts extends to canals
and canal boats.
The court held that it did. Justice
Brewer delivered dissenting opinion
The chief justice and Justices Harlan
and Peckham joined in the dissenting
opinion.
The case arose over repairs to a
canal boat plying on the Erie canal
and grew out of an effort to enforce
the state contract lien law. The en-
forcement was resisted on the ground
that the contract was maritime one
and therefore exempt, it being claimed
that only the federal courts have jur-
isdiction in all admiralty cases.
Justice Brown in delivering the
opinion held that canal boats are ships
within the meaning of the admiralty
law and that therefore the case is
one in which only the national courts
have jurisdiction. He held that ad-
miralty jurisdiction extends to canals.
He declared that the line could be
drawn only at rowboats.
He also held that the fact that a
contract was made on land and the
repairs were made in drydock does
not affect the validity of federal jur-
isdiction. The present employment OF
horses, he continued, is merely an ac-
cident and the motive power was like
ly to be changed with the contem-
plated enlargement Of the canal.
THE only distinction between ca
nails and other navigable waters" he
added, SIS that they are rendered nav
gable by artificial means and some
times, though by no means always,
are wholly within the limits of par
| ticular state.
I'VE fail to see, however, that this
creates any distinction in principle.
Canals though frequently within the
limits of a single state generally con-
meet waters lying outside the state
In this case, the Erie canal, though
wholly within the state of New York,
Is a great highway of commerce be-
tween ports in different states and
foreign countries and it is navigable
| by vessels which also traverse the
waters of the Hudson river"
Justice Brewer in his dissenting
opinion took the position that the mar
thine law was originally meant to
cover the sea only and that its ex-
tension to navigable streams was
meant to cover only streams which
are navigated by ocean going vessels.
'1 do not" he said, believe that un-
der the true Interpretation of the con-
stitution the admiralty jurisdiction of
the federal courts extends to contracts
for the repair of vessels engaged
wholly in commerce within state.
"The Erie canal was built by the
state, is owned by the state, and 1t
cannot for one moment be assumed
that the national government can In
terfere to restrict the state as to the
size of the canal, the depth of the wa
ter, the construction of bridges or
other things in respect to which it has
full control over the natural navigable
waters. It seems an anomaly that
when the state builds a waterway
and owns a waterway and has general
control over that waterway, it cannot
provide as it sees fit for enforcing
claims for work on vessels navigating
such highways when the vessels are
Of a character which prevents their
being used for any foreign commerce
He referred to the possible deter
mination on the part of the people OF
election to enlarge the canal and said
that If such control was given the
state it ought also to be given juris
liction of it.
Justice Brewer further emphasized
his views in the case by referring tc
the insignificant character of the boat
On which the repairs were made, say
Ing that while repairs cost Sl54, the
vessel was sold for $155. This fact
also was used to show that the vesse
was practically rebuilt and the con
clusion drawn that on that account
The state courts should have iurisdic
ton.