The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-10-27
CONTROL or ERIE CANAL.
Federal Courts Have Maritime Jurissilc-
ton. supreme Court Declares.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2e-The Supreme
Court, by divided bench, declared
to-day that the Erie Canal. although
and wholly within it's borders il under
the maritime jurisdiction OF the Federal
Government. Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harlan, Brewer aud Peckham dis
sented
The controversy arose over repairs tc
q canalboat The owner, Mrs. Clara
Perry, in the suit brought to enforce the
lien, oontended that the New York statute
under which it was brought was an in
fringement upon the Admiralty jurisdic
ton of the Federal Government over the
navigable waters OF the United States. and
that the lien therefore could not be en-
forced.
The Supreme Court OF New York de-
MED this contention and upheld the statute
whereupon Mrs. Perry appealed to the
Supreme Court Of the United States on con-
stltutional grounds.
The opinion of the court was delivered
the jurisdiction Of the Government did
not apply TO artificial waterways, lac 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
1t would be ridiculous to deny its juris-
diction over. for instance, the St, Clair
Canal. which connected two OF the lakes
and was but a 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 propul-
sion was not material, 1t having already
been decided by the Supreme Court that
1t applied to all kinds Of vessels except
r,x N hi0h NOV I'M IaI @hot hn
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, snd II would
Of course. ts futile to hold that jurisdiction
did not apply now and then change that
decision.
The dissenting opinion was delivered by
Justice Brewer, Until 1870 the Supreme
Court had held, he said, that Federal mari
time jurisdiction extended only to tide
water. With the use Of steam, however,
the limits OF navigation were extended to
include the waters which could by that
means be reached by ocean vessels. The
decision In this case extended it further
40 that it included not only ocean COM
merCs, for which 1t was intended, but also
took possession of all the inland naviga-
ton upon waters connected in any way
with the ocean, including waters wholly
within the boundaries of State
The Erie Canal. said Justice Brewer,
was built and owned by the State Of New
York. and the Federal Government 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 1t interfere In case like that
at BARI
In his opinion the grant to the nations
Government over admiralty and mari
time matters was In furtherance OF COM
merce between the United States and
foreign nations and designed to secure
uniformity in respect thereto, and did not
extend the contracts made in respect to
vessels which were incapacitated from
foreign commerce designed and used ex-
clusively fer all local traffic within State.