Слике страница
PDF
ePub

42

JURISDICTION AFFIRMED.

overruling the decision given in The Thomas Jefferson, reported in 10 Wheat. 428; over collisions within the ebb and flow of tide on the Mississippi River, even if "infra corpus comitatus:" 5 Howard, 441, Waring et al. v. Clarke. This case was the colliding of the Steamer De Soto with The Luna, first tried by the District Judge, McCaleb, at New Orleans, and, on appeal, finally determined by the Supreme Court in 1847.

[ocr errors]

In the year 1850, by the decision of the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, admiralty jurisdiction, under the Constitution, was adjudged to be extended to the navigable lakes and rivers, without regard to the ebb and flow of the tides of the ocean. It was also determined that Congress had power to pass the act of 26th February, 1845, under the provisions of the Constitution; and that the judicial power of the United States extended to all cases of "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" and as regulations thereof.

In L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238, it was decided that, in prize questions, the Federal courts of admiralty will inquire, if the alleged wrongdoer is duly commissioned; or, by the use of our territory to increase his force, has trespassed on our neutral rights; and that the exclusive cognizance of prize generally belongs to the capturing power. Accordingly, courts of other countries refrain from extending redress for alleged torts, committed by public armed ships, in asserting and vindicating belligerent rights; yet, notwithstanding the general rule, that the right of adjudicating, in prize questions, belongs to the courts of the captor's country exclusively, it appears, by the case of The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298, that when the captured vessel comes voluntarily within the territory, or when brought infra præsidia of a neutral

JURISDICTION AFFIRMED.

43

power, that neutral power, through its established courts, may inquire if its neutrality has been violated by the capture; and if so, it becomes obligatory upon such courts to make restitution of the property. But this, however, is an exception, and so probat regulam.

When belligerents violate our neutrality, if the prize comes voluntarily within our territory, it is restored by the courts to its original owner: La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385; but restoration is confined to the specific property, with costs and expenses pending suit; not inflicting vindictive damages, or awarding compensation for plunderage, as in cases of ordinary marine torts. If the original owner shall seek restitution upon the ground that our neutrality has been violated by the captors, the burden of proof is thrown upon the owner; and should a reasonable doubt remain as to the fact, jurisdiction would not be entertained or exercised by our courts.

Under the general law of nations, the Federal courts, without any specific act of Congress on the subject, would have ample authority to decree restitution of property, captured in violation of the territory: The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298.

Jurisdiction of the Federal courts in admiralty and maritime causes is given by the Constitution, in general terms; its extent, therefore, is to be ascertained by a reasonable and just construction of the words used when taken in connection with the whole instrument: 1 Black. U.S. Rep. 522, The Steamer St. Lawrence. Chief Justice Taney, in giving the opinion of the court, in this case, says: "The court could not, consistently with its duty, refuse to exercise a power, with which the Constitution. and laws had clothed it, when its aid was invoked by a

44

JURISDICTION AFFIRMED.

party who was entitled to demand it as a matter of right."

In The Propeller Commerce, 4 Wallace, 411, the court determined that the transportation of passengers by sea is as much a maritime contract in its nature, as is that for the transportation of merchandise; and, as such, would be cognizable in admiralty.

But, without being restricted in the citation of cases to such only as may have been finally determined by the United States Supreme Court, civil jurisdiction in admiralty, in general, is founded on the subject-matter; though, in torts, locality may still be a test. If the subject-matter of a contract relate to marine navigation, then the admiralty has jurisdiction, even though the agreement were entered into upon land: 4 Wash. C. C. 453, Zane v. The President; Paine, 671, The Mary.

Over ransoms, admiralty has exclusive jurisdiction: 2 Gall. 325, Massonnaire v. Keating; and, generally speaking, over all seizures for forfeiture: 2 Wheat. 1, Slocum v. Mayberry; 3 Wheat. 246, Gelston v. Hoyt; 4 Cranch, 443, United States v. The Betsey; 7 Ib. 112, Whelan v. United States.

Jurisdiction, however, was divested by a release and restoration of the property seized, before any legal proceedings were had resulting in any adjudication: in such case, the court, when once divested of its jurisdiction, could not be again invested therewith, or legally reinstated, but by a new seizure.

Although but one remedy is possible for a party, still the right to proceed in rem, in cases of maritime torts, is cumulative; and a party may, for remedy in tort, resort to process in personam as well as process in rem. 1 Pet. Adm. 94, 95, Brevoor v. Fair American.

JURISDICTION AFFIRMED.

45

A parent may recover in admiralty damages for a wrongful abduction of his minor son, upon a voyage; and also wages for maritime service. 4 Mason, 380, Plummer v. Webb.

Displaced owners, by petitory suits, may be reinstated in the possession of their vessel. 5 Mason, 465, The Tilton.

Owners may sue their master for damage, consequent upon a wrongful capture, made by him. Bee, 369, Dean v. Angus.

Our courts may decree sale of ship and cargo if in their custody. 4 Cranch, 2, Jennings v. Carson.

Admiralty has cognizance over matters on land, if they be incident to those at sea. 2 Pet. Adm. 309, 324, Moxon v. Fanny.

Bottomry bonds, given by master or owner, and claims for supplies, furnished in a neutral port to a foreign vessel, are cognizable in admiralty: 2 Gall. 191, The Jerusalem; Paine, 671, The Mary; Bee, 78, The Eagle; Ibid. 116, The Rainbow.

And under appropriate heads, will be found proper references, indicating how far the admiralty courts have assumed, or may now rightfully exercise, jurisdiction over particular matters of a maritime nature; whether those matters have to do with the navigation and preservation of ships and shipping; the carriage of goods by sea, freight, bills of lading, charter-parties, the transportation of passengers or merchandise, or, generally, affect incidentally or directly the rights of shippers, freighters, owners, consignors or consignees, merchants, masters, mates or mariners.

But on the contrary, there are other decisions of our highest tribunal, by which the United States district

46

JURISDICTION NOT AFFIRMED.

courts are restricted in the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction; and the Federal courts refrain from exercising such jurisdiction.

4

Such are the cases of The Thomas Jefferson, in 1825; The Steamer Orleans,2 in 1837, and 350 Chests of Tea, and Ramsey v. Allegre, in 1827; Cutler v. Rea, in 1849; Minturn v. Maynard, and Steamer John Jay, in 1854. The case of The Thomas Jefferson, continued to be the established law, until the decision in The Genesee Chief and Fretz et al. v. Bull et al., in 1850; when it was overruled; having stood twenty-five years uncontrolled by any adverse decision. Those of 1827 and 1837 still stand; that of 1849 is expressly disavowed by Mr. Justice Wayne, because it was not argued at Washington; while those of 1854 are recognized at the present time as declaratory of the true and just principles of admiralty jurisprudence in the United States.

The Thomas Jefferson was a case for wages, earned above the ebb and flow of tide, upon the Missouri River; the employment of The Orleans was deemed not substantially maritime: in the case of the 350 Chests of Tea, the attempt was to enforce, by libel in rem in admiralty, a lien for duties on imported goods: in Ramsey v. Allegre, to maintain a suit in personam against an owner of a vessel, where he had given his note for the debt, and, at the time of the hearing, the note had neither been surrendered nor tendered: in The John Jay, to foreclose the mortgage of a vessel by sale or by transfer of the possession to the mortgagee: in Minturn v. Maynard, to obtain an account for moneys paid for the use of the owners of a steamer between them and their

1 10 Wheat. 428. 2 11 Pet. 175. 3 12 Wheat. 486. 4 Ibid. 611.

5 7 How. 729.

6 17 How. 477.

7 Ibid. 399.

« ПретходнаНастави »