The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-11-30
\ NM PoINT IN ApM1RALrY.
Comment Upon it by Attorney J. D.
 DeWelI. Jr. .----.. "


 Attorney J. D. DewelI. IT.. the well known Admiralty lawyer Of this city. in commenting on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Rlaekheath. an English steamer, said: This decision estab- lished a new precedent in admiralty procedure in holding that the federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction in an action where the injury is eonsum- mated upon the land. The case grew out Of a collision by the steamer "Blaekheath" with beacon or channel light in the Bay of Mobile, as a result of which collision the beacon was se- verely damaged. The structure from which the beacon light was suspended was built upon piles sunk in the bottom of the bay several feet below the sur face and was immovable.
 A libel was brought by the authori- ties against the steamship, and the question of Jurisdiction was at once raised by the owners of the Black heath that inasmuch as the injury was consummated and the damage re- ceived upon land, the admiralty had no Jurisdiction. This proposition being in accordance with the rule as laid down in the Federal courts in this country for many years, the judge adopted this view and dismissed the li- bel. The "Blackheath, 122 Ted. Rep. 112 The case was then taken to the Supreme court, and the Supreme court, in reversing the decision and sustaining the libel, has reversed the previous de- cisions and practice of this country, and has recognized the principle adopt ed by the English Admiralty law ex- tending Jurisdiction to damages done by vessels to bridges, wharfs, etc.
 The case further decided that in or der to establish jurisdiction it would make no difference whether a structure be fixed to piles or to a stone projecting from the bottom, or how many feet of water it was surrounded by.
 It may be better seen how far reach- ing this decision is from a brief review of some of the cases in which the Ad- miralty Jurisdiction was deaied.
 In the John E. Sweeney, 55 Fed. Rep. $40, a case where a schooner ran into a drawbridge and damaged the bridge considerably, the admiralty jurisdic- tion was denied upon the ground that courts of admiralty have no jurisdic- ton to entertain a libel for tort com mitted on the water. but resulting in damage on land. Tn this case if the bridge had damaged the schooner. the schooner could have proceeded against the municipality by a libel in per- sonam, because in that event the dam age would have started on the land, but would have been consummated on the water.
 In the H. s. Pickands. 43 Fed. Rep. 2ss, a laborer was engaged in repairing steam barge which was lying at a wharf at Detroit. Attempting to de- scend a ladder connecting the wharf with the vessel, the ladder slipped and the laborer was thrown upon the wharf and injured. It was held in that case that inasmuch as the consummation of the injury was received upon the land, not on the water, admiralty had no ju- risdiction.
 To the same point is the Mary Gar rett, a California case. found in 65 Fed. Rep. 1909.
 Another interesting case in point is Hermann vs. Port Blakcly Milling Company, California case found in 69 Fed. Rep. 646. In this case the fine point which the admiralty has made of Jurisdiction is very apparent, for in this case the tort was committed part ly on land and partly on water. A la borer, working in the hold of a vessel was struck and hurt by a piece of lum- Der sent without warning down through a shoot by a person working on the pier. It was held that the ad- miralty hud jurisdiction. inasmuch as the injury was consummated on the water.
 The case just decided by the Supreme court therefore upsets all these deci- sions and will enable bridge owners and wharf owners to bring actions in admi- ralty in rem against vessels damaging their property.