Source: https://openjurist.org/244/us/205/southern-pacific-company-v-marie-jensen
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:50:41+00:00

Document:
By § 9, Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. at L. 76, 77, chap. 20), the district courts of the United States were given 'exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, . . . saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.' And this grant has been continued. Judicial Code, §§ 24 and 256 [36 Stat. at L. 1091, 1160, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1916, §§ 991(1), 1233].
Exclusive jurisdiction of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is vested in the Federal district courts, 'saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.' The remedy which the Compensation Statute attempts to give is of a character wholly unknown to the common law, incapable of enforcement by the ordinary processes of any court, and is not saved to suitors from the grant of exclusive jurisdiction. The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 571, 572, 18 L. ed. 456; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 644, 19 L. ed. 266, 272; American S. B. Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 531, 533, 21 L. ed. 369, 371, 372; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, 623, 42 L. ed. 296, 302, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930. And finally, this remedy is not consistent with the policy of Congress to encourage investments in ships, manifested in the Acts of 1851 [9 Stat. at L. 635, chap. 43] and 1884 (Rev. Stat. 4283-4285, Comp. Stat. 1916, §§ 8021-8023; § 18, Act of June 26, 1884, 23 Stat. at L. 57, chap. 121, Comp. Stat. 1916, § 8028), which declare a limitation upon the liability of their owners. Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96, 104, 56 L. ed. 110, 113, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27.
Now, however, common-law principles have been applied to sustain a libel by a stevedore in personam against the master for personal injuries suffered while loading a ship. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 58 L. ed. 1208, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1157, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733, and The Osceola recognizes that in some cases, at least, seamen may have similar relief. From what source do these new rights come? The earliest case relies upon 'the analogies of the municipal law' (The Edith Godden, 23 Fed. 43, 46),—sufficient evidence of the obvious pattern, but inadequate for the specific origin. I recognize without hesitation that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions. A common-law judge could not say, 'I think the doctrine of consideration a bit of historical nonsense and shall not enforce it in my court.' No more could a judge, exercising the limited jurisdiction of admiralty, say, 'I think well of the common-law rules of master and servant, and propose to introduce them here en bloc.' Certainly he could not in that way enlarge the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts and cut down the power of the states. If admiralty adopts common-law rules without an act of Congress, it cannot extend the maritime law as understood by the Constitution. It must take the rights of the parties from a different authority, just as it does when it enforces a lien created by a state. The only authority available is the common law or statutes of a state. For from the often-repeated statement that there is no common law of the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 658, 8 L. ed. 1055, 1079; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Call Pub. Co. 181 U. S. 92, 101, 45 L. ed. 765, 770, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561), and from the principles recognized in Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek having been unknown to the maritime law, the natural inference is that, in the silence of Congress, this court has believed the very limited law of the sea to be supplemented here as in England by the common law, and that here that means, by the common law of the state. Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 104, 23 L. ed. 819, 820. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, 598, 15 L. ed. 1028, 1033. So far as I know, the state courts have made this assumption without criticism or attempt at revision from the beginning to this day; e. g., Wilson v. MacKenzie, 7 Hill, 95, 42 Am. Dec. 51; Gabrielson v. Waydell, 135 N. Y. 1, 11, 17 L.R.A. 228, 31 Am. St. Rep. 793, 31 N. E. 969; Kalleck v. Deering, 161 Mass. 469, 37 N. E. 450, 42 Am. St. Rep. 421, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 672. See Ogle v. Barnes, 8 T. R. 188, 101 Eng. Reprint, 1338; Nicholson v. Mounsey, 15 East, 384, 104 Eng. Reprint, 890, 13 Revised Rep. 501. Even where the admiralty has unquestioned jurisdiction the common law may have concurrent authority and the state courts concurrent power. Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118, 26 L. ed. 95. The invalidity of state attempts to create a remedy for maritime contracts or torts, parallel to that in the admiralty, that was established in such cases as The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 18 L. ed. 397, and The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. ed. 451, is immaterial to the present point.
The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified; although some decisions with which I have disagreed seem to me to have forgotten the fact. It always is the law of some state, and if the district courts adopt the common law of torts, as they have shown a tendency to do, they thereby assume that a law not of maritime origin, and deriving its authority in that territory only from some particular state of this Union, also governs maritime torts in that territory,—and if the common law, the statute law has at least equal force, as the discussion in The Osceola assumes. On the other hand, the refusal of the district courts to give remedies coextensive with the common law would prove no more than that they regarded their jurisdiction as limited by the ancient lines,—not that they doubted that the common law might and would be enforced in the courts of the states as it always has been. This court has recognized that in some cases different principles of liability would be applied as the suit should happen to be brought in a common law or admiralty court. Compare The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1, 34 L. ed. 586, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29, with Belden v. Chase, 150 U. S. 674, 691, 37 L. ed. 1218, 1224, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269. But hitherto it has not been doubted authoritatively, so far as I know, that even when the admiralty had a rule of its own to which it adhered, as in Workman v. New York, 179 U. S. 552, 45 L. ed. 314, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212, the state law, common or statute, would prevail in the courts of the state. Happily such conflicts are few.
As to the specter of a lack of uniformity, I content myself with referring to The Hamilton (Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore) 207 U. S. 398, 406, 52 L. ed. 264, 270, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133. The difficulty really is not so great as in the case of interstate carriers by land, which, 'in the absence of Federal statute providing a different rule, are answerable according to the law of the state for nonfeasance or misfeasance within its limits.' Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 408, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1545, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18, and cases cited. The conclusion that I reach accords with the considered cases of Lindstrom v. Mutual S. S. Co. 132 Minn. 328, L.R.A.1916D, 935, 156 N. W. 669; Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co. 89 Conn. 367, L.R.A.1916A, 436, 94 Atl. 372; and North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Commission, Cal. ——, 163 Pac. 199, as well as with the New York decision in this case. 215 N. Y. 514, L.R.A.1916A, 403, 109 N. E. 600, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 276, 9 N. C. C. A. 286.
From the language quoted from the Constitution, read in the light of the general purpose of that instrument and the contemporaneous construction found in the Judiciary Act, with regard also to the mischiefs that called for the establishment of a national judiciary, and from what I believe to be the unbroken current of decisions in this court from that day until the present, I draw the following conclusions: (1) That the framers of the Constitution intended to establish jurisdiction, the power to hear and determine controversies of the various classes specified,—and not to prescribe particular codes or systems of law for the decision of those controversies; (2) that the civil jurisdiction in admiralty was not intended to be exclusive of the courts of common law, at least not until Congress should deem it proper so to enact; (3) that by the law of England, and by the practice of the colonial governments, the courts of common law, of equity, and of admiralty, were controlled in their decisions by separate, and, in a sense, independent systems of substantive law, and the constitutional grant of judicial power in 'all cases in law and equity,' and in 'all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,' was no more intended (in the absence of legislation by Congress) to make the rules of maritime law binding upon the Federal courts of common law when exercising their concurrent jurisdiction, than to make the rules of the common law binding upon the courts of admiralty; (4) that, if not binding upon the Federal courts, it results, a fortiori, that the rules of maritime law were not intended to be made binding upon the courts of the states; (5) that it is not necessary, in order to give full effect to the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to imply that the rules of decision prevailing in admiralty must be binding upon common-law courts exercising concurrent jurisdiction in civil causes of maritime origin, and to give such a construction to the Constitution is to render unconstitutional the saving clause in § 9 of the Judiciary Act, and also to trench upon the proper powers of the states by interfering with their control over their water-borne internal commerce; and (6) that, in the absence of legislation by Congress abrogating the saving clause, the states are at liberty to administer their own laws in their own courts when exercising a jurisdiction concurrent with that of admiralty, and at liberty to change those laws by statute.
And it is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, familiar with the institutions and the principles of the common law, by which the admiralty jurisdiction was allowed on sufferance, and with a degree of jealousy born of the fact that the courts of admiralty were not courts of record, that they followed the practice of the civil law, allowed no trial by jury, and administered an exotic system of laws (3 Bl. Com. 69, 86, 87, 106-108),—it is not to be supposed, I say, that the framers of the Constitution, in granting judicial power over cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, along with like power over all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States, intended to exclude common-law courts, state or national, from any part of their concurrent jurisdiction in cases of maritime origin, or to deprive them of the judicial power, theretofore existing, to decide such cases according to the rules of the common law.
Before the Revolution, courts of admiralty jurisdiction were a part of the judicial systems of the several colonies. Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 454-456, 12 L. ed. 226, 232-234, Benedict, Admiralty, §§ 118-165. Upon the outbreak of the war questions of prize law became acute, and the colonial Congress, by resolutions of November 25, 1775, passed in the exercise of the war power (Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80, 1 L. ed. 507, 518), made appropriate recommendations for the treatment of prizes of war, but remitted the jurisdiction over such questions to the courts of the several colonies, reserving to itself only appellate authority. This system continued until the year 1780 (after the submission of the Articles of Confederation, but before their final ratification), when the Congress established a court for the hearing of appeals from the state courts of admiralty in cases of capture. The opinions of this court are reported in 2 Dall. 1-42, 1 L. ed. 263-281, and numerous cases decided without opinion, as well as some of those decided by committees of the Congress prior to the establishment of the court, are referred to in the late Bancroft Davis's 'Federal Courts Before the Constitution,' 131 U. S. xix.—xlix., Appx. The weak point of this system was the want of power in the central government to enforce the judgment of the appellate tribunal when it chanced to reverse the decree of a state court. There were some curious cases of conflicting jurisdiction, illustrated by Doane v. Penhallow (1787) 1 Dall. 218, 221, 1 L. ed. 108, 109; Penhallow v. Doane (1795) 3 Dall. 54, 79, 86, 1 L. ed. 507, 517, 520; and United States v. Peters (1809) 5 Cranch, 115, 135, 137, 3 L. ed. 53, 59, 60.
In other words, the general effect of the question upon interstate commerce rendered it one of the class that called for the application of general principles; nevertheless, state legislation would be controlling—in in the absence of valid legislation by Congress, of course.
There is no doubt that, throughout the entire life of the nation under the Constitution, state courts not only have exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of admiralty in actions ex contractu arising out of maritime transactions, and in actions ex delicto arising upon the navigable waters, but that, in exercising such jurisdiction, they have, without challenge until now, adopted as rules of decision their local laws and statutes, recognizing no obligation of a Federal nature to apply the law maritime. State courts of last resort, in several recent cases, have had occasion to consider the precise contention now made by plaintiff in error, and upon full consideration have rejected it. Lindstrom v. Mutual S. S. Co. 132 Minn. 328, L.R.A.1916D, 935, 156 N. W. 669; North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Commission, ——Cal. ——, 163 Pac. 199; Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co. 89 Conn. 367, 373, L.R.A.1916A, 436, 94 Atl. 372. See also Walker v. Clyde S. S. Co. 215 N. Y. 529, 531, 109 N. E. 604, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 87; Jensen v. Southern P. Co. 215 N. Y. 514, L.R.A.1916A, 403, 109 N. E. 600, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 276, 9 N. C. C. A. 286 (this case). I have found no case to the contrary except a decision by the United States district court for the northern district of Ohio in Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co. 216 Fed. 566, now under consideration by this court. The reasoning is unsatisfactory, and it was repudiated in Keithley v. North Pacific S. S. Co. 232 Fed. 255, 259.

References: § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 8028
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.