The United States district courts have jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, of a maritime character. Or, in the language of the constitution, "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." This jurisdiction depends in most cases upon the locality or place where the cases arise, and not upon the character of the cases involved. It is sufficient to confer jurisdiction if they arise upon the public navigable waters; 2 and if such be the locality, then it is no objection to this admiralty jurisdiction, that the place is within the body of an organized State or county.3 The United States district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all maritime cases purely in admiralty where the proceeding is in rem, or what is termed admiralty proceedings, as contradistinguished from proceedings in personam against the owner or persons in control of the thing that is derelict, instead of against the thing itself.4 The best guides as to the extent of such admiralty jurisdiction so vested in the Federal courts are, in the language of Justice 1 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 637; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Desty's Féd eral Procedure, § 563, p. 22; 1 Conkling's U. S. Admiralty, 1, et seq. ? The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443. Waring o. Clarke, 5 How. 441. 4 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 636; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; Vose v. Cock roft, 44 N. Y. (5 Hand,) 415; Bird v. The Steamboat Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 474; Dunlap's Ad. Pr. *43; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411: The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; see Desty's Federal Procedure, § 563, p. 22; 1 Conkling's U. S. Admiralty, 1, et seq. CLIFFORD, "the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme Court." This jurisdiction is not so restricted as to subjects cognizable therein, as was that of the English courts of admiralty, at the time of the revolution and attainment of American independence, nor, on the other hand, so extensive as that of the courts of the continental governments, exercising jurisdiction according to the principles of the civil law.2 This judicial power of the Federal courts over all cases of maritime and admiralty jurisdiction, is conferred upon the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States, and Congress cannot enlarge it.3 But it may be restricted, as is the case upon the western lakes, where it is by act of Congress restricted to steamboats and vessels engaged in commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States and territories.4 There are to be found, in Allen v. Newberry, indications of a different opinion in regard to the power of Congress to enlarge such jurisdiction, but as is said (CLIFFORD, J.,) in the case of The Belfast, "they were not necessary to that decision as the contract in that case was for the transportation of goods on one of the western lakes, where the jurisdiction in admiralty is restricted, by an act of Congress, to boats and other vessels * * * employed in the business of commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States and Territories.” 6 The admiralty jurisdiction of the United States was originally held to be limited to waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tide, as in England. But in the case of the Genesee Chief, the Supreme Court of the United States held that jurisdiction in admiralty did not depend in this country upon the ebb and flow of the tide, but upon the navigable character of the water; that if navigable, it was public, and if public, it comes within the scope of admiralty jurisdiction as conferred by Congress. Thus 1 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 636. Bags of Linseed, 1 Black, 108; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 636. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 641. 4 Ibid. 521 How. 245 67 Wall. 641. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 637; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; 1 Conkling's U. S. Admiralty, 13, et seq. The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 457; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 639; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 21; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 468. is the admiralty jurisdiction extended over all the public navigable waters of the country, in all its breadth, except as limited as herein before stated upon the western lakes. This jurisdiction is exclusive in the district courts of the United States when the proceeding is in rem, but where a common law remedy in personam is only sought, the jurisdiction as to the cause of action, but not as to the proceeding in rem, is concurrent in the courts of the States of the proper locality and jurisdictional character, and also in the circuit courts of the United States of the proper district, if the character of the parties as to citizenship and amount in controversy are such as to permit of jurisdiction in these courts. In the language of CLIFFORD, Justice, in the case of The Belfast, the party "may proceed in rem in the admiralty, or he may bring his suit in personam in the same jurisdiction, or he may elect not to go into admiralty at all, and may resort to his common law remedy in the State courts or in the circuit court of the United States, if he can make proper parties to give that court jurisdiction of his case." Maritime jurisdiction in cases growing out of contracts, depends upon the nature of the contract; in cases of civil torts, it depends upon the locality where the act occurs. 3 To confer admiralty jurisdiction of torts, they must occur upon the public navigable waters which are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.4 2 Contracts, claims, and service touching rights and duties in relation to commerce and navigation on maritime waters, whether between ports of different States or of the same State, as for instance contracts of affreightment or for transportation of passengers, are of admiralty jurisdiction. For a breach of such contracts and for the infliction of such torts, maritime liens arise in favor of the injured party enforcible only in the United States district court; but they may be waived and a remedy pursued at 1 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 644; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. 27 Wall. 664; Dougan v. Champlain Trans. Co., 56 N. Y. 1; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 236; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558. 3 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 637; Railroad Co. v. Steam Towboat Co., 23 How. 215; Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175; The Thomas The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 637; The 5 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 637; 1 Conkling's Admiralty, 19, 32; Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 184; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; Railroad Co. v. Steam Towboat Co., 23 How. 215. common law in personam against the master or owners of the vessel or craft offending.1 II. MARITIME LIENS. The States have no power to create or enforce maritime liens in rem. The jurisdiction in that respect is exclusively in Congress and the national courts. By Section 2 of Article III. of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is expressly extended "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," and Section 9 of the judiciary act of 1789 declares that the district courts of the United States "shall have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," saving to suitors the common law remedy where the common law can give it. This exclusive cognizance is exclusive of the State courts as well as of other Federal courts.3 Parties entitled to proceed as for a maritime lien in rem may do so in the district court of the United States, or if possessed of the requisite citizenship to enable them to sue in the United States circuit court, may waive the lien and proceed in the latter court in personam against the master or owners of the vessel; but there is no concurrent jurisdiction in rem in the State courts. In all cases where the maritime lien is sought to be enforced in rem the jurisdiction is exclusive in the district courts of the United States. If the party elect to proceed in personam in the circuit court of the United States instead of proceeding in rem in the district court, 1 Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 117; Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 643; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The Reindeer, 2 Wall. 384; Manro . Almeida, 10 Wheat, 473. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; Walters v. Steamboat Mollie Dozier, 24 Iowa, 192. See, also, Desly's Shipping & Admiralty, 68, et seq. 3 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 638; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 390; United States v. The Betsey, 4 Cr. 442; United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; The Octavia, 1 Wheat. 24; The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9; Walters v. Steamboat Mollie Dozier, 24 Iowa, 192. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 643. In Trevor e. The Steamboat Ad. Hine, the Iowa supreme court sustained the State court jurisdiction in rem, but the pleadings did not show the case to be one of maritime character. 17 Iowa, 349; Vose v. Cockroft, 44 N. Y. (5 Hand.) 415. ' People's Ferry Company v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 402; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 646; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; Weston v. Morse, 40 Wis. 455; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. as we have above scen he may do, when qualified in point of citizenship, the proceedings are the same in such cause as in other cases in said court at common law or suits not maritime; and if attachments are allowable under the State law, they may be resorted to in such suits as auxiliary to the proceedings in personam, as in other cases.1 Maritime liens do not arise out of contracts to furnish materials and supplies for vessels in the home port; therefore, the States may, by law, create such liens as they deem proper in this class of cases, and may enforce the same in the State courts by all reasonable rules of law which do not amount to a regulation of commerce. Contracts to build ships or for materials for ship building do not create maritime liens; they are not maritime contracts. 3 III. MARITIME TORTS. Maritime torts can only occur upon the water, and then only where such waters are under maritime jurisdiction. If an injury occur upon the land, it is not a maritime injury, or tort, although the immediate cause thereof, and proceeding from a maritime vessel lying in maritime waters, or from the negligence of the master or servants in charge of such vessel. To render it a maritime tort, both the injury and the wrong act that causes it must take place upon the water. In such case the jurisdiction of the tort in rem is exclusively in the United States court; but if the injury occur upon the land, then the jurisdiction is in the State courts, although the cause of the injury proceed from on board a maritime craft, in maritime waters.5 The case of the Plymouth, here cited, occurred in this wise: The steam propeller Falcon, a vessel navigating the great lakes, was anchored off the wharf in the Chicago river, in "navigable water," and while so anchored took fire from negligence of some of those having her in charge, which fire communicated itself to erections on shore 1 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 643, 645; Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 110, 117; Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548, 553. 2 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 645, 646; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129; The Edith, 4 Otto, 518; Morrison v. Burns, 40 Mo. 491; Williams v. Tearney, 8 S. & R. 58; The Jerusalem, 2 Gall. 191; Francis . The Harrison, 1 Sawyer, 355. Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129. 4 The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; 1 Conkling's U. S. Admiralty, 32, et seq. Ibid. |