country restricted. But, while our admiralty law has expanded and developed, and this by the application of the general maritime law, our Supreme Court has carefully kept it within the boundaries of the law and usages of this country and has not imported the modern codes into our system."11

§ 3245. Influence of constitution and statute on the admiralty laws. On the question of the influence of the constitution and statutory enactments on the maritime law, the Supreme Court say: "As the constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and as this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature, and not in the state legislatures. It is true, we have held that the boundaries. and limits of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are matters of judicial cognizance, and cannot be affected or controlled by legislation, whether state or national. But within these boundaries and limits the law itself is that which has always been received as maritime law in this country, with such amendments and modifications as congress may from time to time have adopted.12

§ 3246. High seas-Meaning.-The jurisdiction of local courts in a certain class of cases depends on whether the vessel seized, or the

11 Butler v. Boston &c. Co., 130 U. S. 527, 9 Sup. Ct. 612; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Waring v. Clarke, 5 Tow. (U. S.) 441; Lottawanna, The, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558; Steele v. Thacher, 1 Ware (U. S.) 91; Scotland, The, 105 U. S. 24. To this point the court cited the following cases: General Smith, The, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 438; St. Jago de Cuba, The, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 409; United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 297; United States v. Sally, The, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 406; United States v. Betsey, The, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 443; Samuel, The, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 9; Octavia, The, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 20; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 108; New Jersey &c. Co. v. Merchants' Bank,

6 How. (U. S.) 344; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. (U. S.) 347; Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. (U. S.) 443; Ward v. Peck, 18 How. (U. S.) 267; Dupont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. (U. S.) 162; China, The, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 53; Merrimac, The, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 199; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99; Scotia, The, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 170; Alabama, The, 92 U. S. 695; Atlas, The, 93 U. S. 302; Virginia Ehrman, The, 97 U. S. 309; North Star, The, 106 U. S. 17, 1 Sup. Ct. 41.

12 Butler v. Boston &c. Co., 130 U. S. 527, 9 Sup. Ct. 612; St. Lawrence, The, 1 Black (U. S.) 522, 526; Lottawanna, The, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558.

collision or other wrong which is the subject of the action, was upon the "high seas" or within a particular port. Hence, the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases depends upon the proof, and it therefore becomes important to know the meaning of "high seas." A general definition for this term is "all waters below the line of low water mark on the sea coast are comprehended within that description and when the tide flows the waters to high water mark also are properly the high seas."18 Lord Hale says of it, "that part of the sea which lies not within the body of a country is called the main sea or ocean.” The court that quoted Lord Hale further said: "The open sea, the high sea, the ocean, is that which is the common domain, within the body of no country and under the particular right or jurisdiction of no sovereign, but open, free, and common to all alike, as a common and equal right. The expression describes the open ocean where the dominion of the winds and waves prevails without check or control."1* So it has been held that a vessel lying outside of the bar of an harbor of the United States, within three miles of the shore, is on the high seas.15 In its ordinary acceptance the term is held to mean the seas outside low water mark on the coast.16 And it has been held that the waters of havens where the tide ebbs and flows are not properly the high seas, unless they are without low water mark.17 And the term is held to include waters on the sea coast outside of the

13 Abby, The, 1 Mason (U. S.) 360, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 14; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. (U. S.) 398, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3776; Gedney v. L'Amistad, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5294a; Harriet, The, 1 Story (U. S.) 251, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6099; United States v. Grush, 5 Mason (U. S.) 290, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15268, 1 U. S. Law Int. 214; United States v. Morel, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15807, 13 Am. Jur. 279; United States v. Seagrist, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 420, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16245; United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 336; United States v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 184; United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 72; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. (U. S.) 441; United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 14 Sup. Ct. 109; Manley v.

People, 7 N. Y. 295; Constable's
Case, 5 Coke 106.

14 United States v. Morel, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15807, 13 Am. Jur. 279; United States v. Hamilton, 1 Mason (U. S.) 152, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15290; United States V. Wiltberger, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 515, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16738.

15 United States v. Smith, 1 Mason (U. S.) 147, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16337; United States V. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 401, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15867, 10 Law R. 127.

16 United States V. Seagrist, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 420, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16245.

17 United States v. Hamilton, 1 Mason (U. S.) 152, 26 Fed. Cas. No.

boundaries of low water mark.18 It has been held that the term does not include the combined salt and fresh waters which at high tide flood the banks of an adjacent bay.19 It has also been held to mean the open ocean as distinguished from a river, haven, basin or bay,20 Mr. Benedict gives the following definition: "The high sea, the open sea, are phrases used to distinguish the expanse and mass of any great body of water, from its margin or coast, its harbors, bays, creeks, inlets. High seas, in the plural number, more properly mean the oceanic mass of waters, which is composed of many subdivisions of seas and oceans."21

§ 3247. High seas-Great lakes.-The peculiar phraseology of the United States statutes has given rise to some controversy in regard to the admiralty jurisdiction over the Great Lakes. The jurisdiction conferred by the statutes extends not only to the high seas, but to any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin or bay within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state. In discussing the question of admiralty jurisdiction over the Great Lakes the Supreme Court of the United States said: "These lakes are in truth, inland seas. Different states border on them on one side and a foreign nation on the other. A great and growing commerce is carried on upon them between different states and a foreign nation which is subject to all the incidents and hazards that attend commerce on the ocean. Hostile fleets have been encountered on them, and prizes been made, and every reason which existed for the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the general government on the Atlantic seas applies with equal force to the lakes. There is an equal necessity for the instance and for the prize power of the admiralty court to adminster international law, and if the one cannot be established, neither can the other."22 In a later case the same court expressly held that the term "high seas" was applicable to the open, unenclosed waters of the Great Lakes.23 But in cases originating where the vessel was in any

18 Ross, In re, 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. 897; Byers, Ex parte, 32 Fed. 404; United States v. Ross, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 624, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16196.

19 Morgan v. Nagodish, 40 La. An. 246, 3 So. 636.

20 Emory

(Del.) 325.

21 Benedict Adm. Pr., § 224.

22 Genesee Chief, The, 12 How. (U. S.) 443, 453; Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 435, 13 Sup. Ct. 110. See, Eagle, The, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 15.

23 United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. v. Collings, 1 Harr. S. 249, 14 Sup. Ct. 109.

arm of the sea, or any river, haven, creek, basin or bay, in order to confer jurisdiction on admiralty courts the proof must show that such vessel, at the time of the alleged offense, was outside of the jurisdiction of any state; hence, the admiralty jurisdiction was held to extend to offenses committed "on a vessel belonging to a citizen of the United States, when such vessel is in the Detroit River, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, and within the territorial limits of the Dominion of Canada.24 But under a later statute it has been held that the admiralty jurisdiction of one district court of the United States did not extend to offenses committed on a vessel on one of the Great Lakes within the jurisdiction of another district court. 25

"United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 14 Sup. Ct. 109; Robert Holland, The, 59 Fed. 200; North Star, The, 10 C. C. A. 262, 62 Fed. 71; Bigelow v. Nickerson, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113. A contrary holding was made in an earlier case in the

district court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Byers, Ex parte, 32 Fed. 404; Henry Miller's Case, 1 Bro. Adm. 156. See, People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161.

25 United States v. Peterson, 64 Fed. 145.

3250. Courts of admiralty resemble 3255. Proceedings not included in

§ 3248. Nature-Generally.-From the very nature of the case admiralty courts are not creatures of statutes. They have become in America, to some extent, subject to statutory control but the law is administered in much the original and universal way. While it followed the civil law in its origin and general characteristics and has felt the touch of the common law, it is of necessity in the nature of equity. It could scarcely exist, much less grow were it administered according to the strict rules of statutory regulation. The universal respect it has gained and its general application in all civilized countries are due to the peaceful and equitable principles applied in controversies arising between persons of different nationality and citizens of different countries. On the nature of admiralty practice Mr. George Ticknor Curtis said: "The Admiralty should be otherwise known than as a court of curious learning, where controversies are determined upon principles and under forms which, to the popular feelings, are unusual, abstruse, or difficult of apprehension. Its process and forms are indeed in many respects different from the common law, the administration of which is most generally familiar to the people of the United States. But one of its main and most characteristic features is that it is, to the extent of its jurisdiction, a court of equity. It entertains pleas of part performance, and decreed an instrument to be good in part and bad in part,