Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia

296 SUPREME COURT. Magnolia.

Jackson et al. v. Steamboat on account of becomes the difference in the necessary, modes of different practice circuits. This proceeding ques- time, tion as the cannot arise in runs two England, appeal from the of the decree. years enrolment Pr., (3 Dan. 131.) The cannot well time of enrolment be adopted court, as on of the circuits it is understood, many according of the decree no enrolment takes practice, place. of thé our view case, on the As, presented motion, first the one taken and was regular, appeal on the standing docket be No. should dismissed. Thomas William Higdon, Archibald Jackson, Olds, Ap owners of Steamboat Libellants Wetumpka, v. The Steamboat her Magnolia, pellants, tackle, &c., F. William &c. James, master, jurisdiction The of the United States extends to cases navigable although collision of such collision waters, place be may of a be above the flux and body county reflux State, may the tide. “navigable The District Courts fresh-water exercise over rivers judiciary from the act and not virtue as conferred sea,” 1789, by-the great act of which extends their to the lakes and “not waters navigable from the sea.” from the This was an District Court of the United appeal district for the middle States Alabama. case on an came up appeal judgment District Court, libel for want of dismissing jurisdiction, after the had been filed: following agreement remembered, that off the Be it trial this cause, which was a libel in diction should be submitted it was that the admiralty, agreed question juris- the facts court on heréin- n true; after should were admitted and if stated, which to be the court had jurisdiction be court opinion cause, then the be to a cause should submitted for trial. jury if the But court be of that was opinion should without juris- the libel diction, dismissed, would an ap- event taken Court of was United peal Supreme reverse the that court should judgment judgment of this then the cause should be to this court remanded for trial. so court to try question agreed be as follows: The which are admitted to steamboat facts, and commerce was a vessel navigation Wetumpka engaged DECEMBER TERM, y. Jackson et al. Louisiana, and tbe Orleans, tbe of New

between port port licensed was Alabama, of enrolled regularly Montgomery, than as a of more tons vessel, thirty coasting The a boat licensed burden. steamboat was Magnolia regularly for the but was built for trade, and enrolled boat gomery, packet coasting and Mont- Mobile, Alabama, to be between employed Alabama. was in the Western She built country, round and has ever since been State, to this engaged brought and has never between Mobile running Montgomery, other trade. engaged the on the The which is the of the libel collision, subject against her and took between the Wetumpka. place Magnolia, Alabama hundred miles above tide-water. two- river, about The fore- is a over tons burden. boat of The thirty Magnolia is are the facts in which question going claim, with the libel to the court, submitted together thereto. answer & Dargan, Watts For the Claimants. Magnolia Henry C. Semple, the Libellants. For at the term of this court was preceding case The argued Lee Mr. Francis Smith for appellants, arguments printed also Mr. orally Phillips for appellees; Mr. Largan appellees. for made counsel of abbreviating arguments difficulty The and the that both points, circumstance constitutional are presented fully question sides opinion and in the the court Mr. dissenting opinions Mr. CAMPBELL, Justice reasons DANIEL

Justice why It will omits sketches counsel. arguments Reporter also, that Mr. McLEAN Justice delivered be perceived, although judgment concurring opinion, a separate court. delivered the court. opinion GRIER Justice Mr. for our consideration on this presented only question The court below had jurisdiction. is, whether appeal cause of be in a civil collision, libel purports The that the steamboat a vessel Wetumpka, It alleges

maritime. on a in burden, tons was from New hundred voyage three Alabama; that while to the city Montgomery, Orleans was sunk she run river., which the Alabama into ascending the same. was Magnolia, descending steamboat alleges other respondents, things, answer among tide-water, far collision took above place “that SUPREME COURT. Jackson et al. v. Steamboat river, "Wilcox, of Ala- Alabama State county and therefore not within bama, of the District Court admiralty.” sitting sustained dismissed. This the libel plea does not disclose reasons record on which judg- was based. ment It founded on therefore, presumed, the facts stated in the viz: plea, 1. That the collision was within the of a body county. it was 2. That above tide-water. n 1. The Alabama river flows the State of Alabama. through river, It is above coasting on its waters to from the sea for great public miles navigable many ebb and flow the tide. Vessels licensed trade, and those commerce, pass engaged foreign State. ports entry not, like the ther is between boundary coterminous States. Nei- Mississippi, it, like the Penobscot, Veazie Moore, How., (see made subservient 568,) artificial internal trade of the State by means and dams constructed at its mouth, rendering inaccessible to it son, vessels. It differs from the sea-going Hud- rises in which and navigable the passes State of New through York, the fact that it in is for and vessels the ships of largest class far where its above waters affected the tide. by Before the Constitution, each adoption present State, of its in the exercise its power, had own court of sovereign over the admiralty, hai’bors, having jurisdiction creeks, inlets, waters, connected with the sea. public navigable This was exercised not over rivers, only creeks, and in- lets, which were boundaries to or passed other States, through also where but the within wholly State. Such a unknown, distinction- was of nor it from the appears decision (as this court in the case of Clark, How., Waring had 441) courts driven from these exercise of jurisdiction over torts committed on by water within the a navigable of body county, courts. jealousy common-law When, exercise, therefore, rivers, over its ports, havens, public was sur- rendered each State to Government by of the United States, without as to this exception subjects court can- places, one into the interpolate Constitution, or introduce an ar- distinction has no in which foundation bitrary reason or pre- cedent. in objection jurisdiction stated “that plea, collision was within the in Wilcox, county State of Ala- can bama,” therefore have no force or effect greater from the fact that the Alabama alleged river, argument, so far it is is within the navigable, wholly of the State. boundary TERM, 1857.

DECEMBER y. et Jackson al. a the old contest amounts renewal of between only as to their of common law and courts of admiralty, ju- , This a has risdiction within been county. question body court, and ex- in this adjudicated argument finally After an experience n. Clark. hausted, case Waring bar review ten we have not been called on years, heard nor we error, founded principles any suffered of its on account complaints by people wrongs (cid:127) far, of trial So supposed by jury. infringement right therefore, as the us af- solution now before is body of the question fected fact that the tort was committed aof it settled the de- must be considered as county, finally cision that case. second objection ground is com- fact, court founded on that collision though a river,' occurred in a it was on part

plained navigable great tide, that river not affected and reflux of the. the flux but “far it!” above This been con- and is one which has heretofore objection, also, sidered decided this after full much argument How., Chief, deliberation. In the case the Genesee (12 we have flux and decided, that though England 444,) reflux gable water were test of of the tide reasonable navi- sound and tide-water and on island river, navigable because that terms, “there is that yet certainly synonymous the tide makes the waters and flow of that ebb nothing nor suitable admiralty jurisdiction, anything peculiarly is absence of tide renders it unfit. If it nav- public differ- water on which commerce is carried on between igable nations, the reason for the jurisdiction precisely ent States account, made same. And if a distinction is the merely arbitrary, in- and, without foundation reason— ' case had Jefferson to it.” The Thomas deed, contrary (10 others, arbitrary hastily adopted Wheaton) were neces- waters, false test of navigable (in country) overruled. sarily the several district courts these cases, Since decision public taken of eases of collision jurisdiction great have been of these cases brought rivers. Some navigable has and in no objection court instance by any appeal, counsel or the jurisdiction, either taken, because or above of a was within the body county, the collision How., v. ;466 Walsh 12 Bull, Rogers, tide. Fritz v. (See 469; How., Ure 16 283; World, New How., 13 Steamboat B. S. Co. How., 56; York v. Kauffman, Virginia 19 New v. Calderwood, How., 245.) COURT. SUPREME v.

Jackson et al. neither of the facts therefore, In our opinion, alleged will nor both of them taken constitute a answer, suf- together, District Court. exception ficient jurisdiction t.o has to the learned counsel who however, It is due presented in this he case, that has respondent say, argument decision ot court in the not of case attempted impugn Clark, nor to the reasons sufficiency v. question Waring case the Genesee Chief for the case given overruling he contends Jefferson; but that the case Thomas “ Genesee decided the act of Chief that ex- 1845, Congress the District Court to certain jurisdiction cases tending lakes,” &c., constitutional, was not but 'upon only also a new conferred which the court did not jurisdiction, possess before; and as act was confined to the consequently, lakes, and “to vessels of more burden, or tons licensed and twenty the business of commerce and employed‘in between navigation in different States and ports Territories,” it places cannot authorize the District Courts jurisdiction over assuming waters and subjects not included in the act, and more especially where the of the river is portion wholly navigable aof State. It is contended boundary that the single case also of Eritz v. Bull, and those it, which follow sustaining juris- diction of the court of over torts on admiralty Mississippi river, cannot be with the decided in reconciled points for- mer on the case, stated, unless that the just hypothesis act of 1845 be construed to include the and other Mississippi great West; rivers of the which it does not. manifestly But it never has been asserted this court, either in case of Fritz Bull, or in other that the case, any admiralty exercised over the rivers of the great West navigable was claimed under the act of or virtue of anything therein contained. Constitution, the courts defining powers United States, extends to “all them cases of and mar- itime It how jurisdiction.” defines much of the judicial power shall be exercised arid Court it was left Supreme only; to ordain courts, and establish other to fix Congress and extent of boundary their respective Con- jurisdictions. gress give these courts the might whole so .much the admiralty jurisdiction itas saw fit. extend might their over all all waters, and ves- navigable ships thereon, sels over waters, some and vessels navigable of a certain description had only. never Consequently, Congress before 1845conferred .over the.Northern fresh-water lakes not sea,” from the the District. “navigable this, Courts could not assume it virtue of in the Con- clause

DECEMBER TERM, Magnolia. Jackson et al. v. Steamboat An act of stitution. was therefore Congress to con- necessary fer this on those and was waters, within completely the constitutional unless, powers some un- Congress; by law of fresh-water nature, lakes and rivers are neces- bending of those that are not sarily category “navigable,” and which, could not be consequently, subjected “admiralty than jurisdiction,” more canals or railroads. When these States were colonies, for time after long of the Constitution of the United adoption States, the shores of the lakes the North, above and great beyond ocean tides, were as almost uninhabited, except yet by savages. The necessities of commerce steam navi- progress had not as called the exercise of gation admiralty juris- yet border of the diction, on the ocean Atlantic States. except act of several judiciary powers defining the courts the District it, established Courts of the gives “ United States exclusive all civil cases original cognizance all seizures, jurisdiction, including &e., when are are made on waters which navigablefrom the sea upon burden, vessels ten or more as well as &c., tons seas.” high So was centred country commerce long chiefly on the the fresh-water rivers Eastern where Atlantic ports, no were arose tide-water, seldom above inconvenience navigable insular test of “navi- from the English adoption was followed courts without waters.” it gable Hence objection inquiry. to tide- But this act confine admiralty jurisdiction does ; waters reflux tide be abandoned, and if the flux river,” it required and false test arbitrary “navigable the Missis- to extend no further of Congress legislation from the rivers, Alabama, “navigable and other sippi, great is claimed sea.” If the which this jurisdiction waters over between distinction be within them.- the act makes no this category, 'bound which rivers or waters It is not confined Ohio, as the Mississippi coterminous such State; nor the act does than rivers more one passing through rise pass them rivers between distinguish “ corpus are consequently one State through only, infra surrendered by comiiatus.” The them- as exercised by no such bounds States to the Union had surrender. in its conditions no such conditions selves, clogged ex- would such interpolation fre- most inlets, creeks, and harbors, clude quented many the’ports, included which wholly commerce, but ships aof county. or the body aof State within the boundaries SUPREME COURT. y.

Jackson et al. assumed, seems to have been case, of this argument that because District Courts had not exercised their admi above tide-water the before decision of ralty this court of the base of the that Chief, such jurisdiction Genesee had exercised them conferred the act of 1845. is found that mistaken hypothesis any difficulty this is It v. Bull, case the case of Fritz that with in reconciling it. followed immediately the the occasion created 1845 was necessity act of The former decisions. review their to for this court as a in fact act reversing declaratory be considered might case of the Thomas coiila the We in the decision Jefferson- notice of the occult by judicial question no longer-evade as in case of flow, Howard, or' Peyroux tide without ebb that court were placed The Pet., position, 343.) (7 act of and shock void, must either declare common Congress not the lakes' to sense of people declaring waters,” overrule decisions which had previous “navigable distinction, which, established an when arbitrary applied foundation in continent, our had no reason. “ what we then conclusion, said, In we repeat found safety all commercial coun- have 'been .admiralty necessary convenience tries, commerce, not for the only where would controversies be ruin, decision delay speedy laws of nations in a season war, administer also to but and to validity captures determine questions it -Union And would be judicial or no proceeding. prize prize first on which this principles contrary these to the to confine States formed, the rights bordering to the tide-water Atlantic, and rivers connected with and to them citizens on tbe it, lakes, who'border deny and the streams of the Western States. navigable great intent the framers of the such was not Con- .to the. Certainly, ; be the and if such construction finally given stitution incon- court, it must necessarily produce, pubiic great by venience,' same time fail one of the and at the accomplish Constitution; great framers that is, objects per- the citizens of the fect equality rights privileges different laws of General- Govern- only but them.” ment, mode of administering below, decree want The of the court libel for dismissing it is reversed, therefore ordered of jurisdiction, that. to further the record be with directions remitted, proceed case as to law justice may appertain. and Mr. Mr. Justice delivered opinion, McLEAN separate DECEMBER TERM, 1857.

Jackson et al. r. Steamboat CATRON, Mr. Justice DANIEL, Justice Mr. Justice CAMPBELL, dissented. Mr. Justice CATRON concurred with Mr. Justice CAMPBELL him. delivered opinion Mr. Justice McLEAN: I case; decision in but as I wish to be on agree or two somewhat more one of than the points explicit opinion I will state views. my concisely The Constitution declares shall ex- judicial'power

tend “to all cases of and maritime jurisdiction.” “that act of 1789 District Courts provides, judiciary of all shall have exclusive admiralty civil cases of original cognizance jurisdiction.” act of 25th entitled “An act February, of the District Courts to certain extend the cases the lakes and- waters upon same.” navigable connecting This act was considered by Congress extending.. Court; and so, -of the District it was very the jurisdiction in the case the treated the court of Chief. properly, Genesee act not under it .was said this was the the opinion, passed In and maritime the ju- but under admiralty commercial power, terms could be more No in the Constitution. risdiction given to confer in the Constitution than those used complete and maritime jurisdic- In all cases of admiralty jurisdiction. Court. in the District suits tion, brought such may in to the ebb and flow limited was England This as far as the as their rivers were tide, navigable only of tide Atlantic the rivers into the And as in this country falling flowed. tide-water, same' rule above navigable was first when the of And question was applied. the same rule was rivers, in to our Western raised regard its restriction was no reason for when there tide-v adopted, And this shows that in the of the Atlantic. rivers water, the most-learned from the force of pre- able and may, judges where,the reason or an established rule cedent, on necessity apply fails.- it was founded the ebb and flow of States, in Atlantic and In England But of rivers. marked the extent navigableness tide tlie in no depends rivers instance of our Western the navigability tide. navi- over all extends civil the maritime law, system theBy and jurisdiction,.like waters. admiralty gable the common-law The a sys- embraces or. chancery jurisdiction, It bemay and of knowm established tem ages. procedure matured and embodied called a of system regulations COURT. SUPREME at. v. Jackson et and nations of the world. commercial Its most enlightened of of be traced to. Wisbuy, regulations may origin Oleron, the the laws of ordinances Towns, France,

Hanse and the countries, commercial of other including usages admiralty.' English is, as it commerce, a fact, comprehends It regulation masters of the maritime liens vessels, duties powers iriake ad- vessels,' those who furnish supplies seamen, and, short, conduct vances, &c., knowledge required masters, and to the seamen, everything of pilots, pertaining a As the terms these ship; import, management sailing water, land, and not to the and are apply regulations conferred. with the jurisdiction commensurate “ com Constitution, Congress power regulate By several nations, merce with among foreign The Indian tribes.” several provision, with the “among limits the com-. States,” power Congress regulation States; more a State has to two or consequently, merce power limits; within its a own but exclusively to beyond admiralty power, power by Congress. commerce regulate such limits the The Congress. regulation belongs commercial and maritime jurisdiction essentially it is limited to exercise of that necessarily between two more States is vessel Every voyage State not to jurisdiction, reg- subject to ulation, doctrine A denial of this subversion com- throws us on the Confedera- Congress, mercial power and maritime also subverts tion. courts, the Federal Constitution given explicitly act of 1789. judiciary case, the was In this steamboat Wetumpka engaged Louisiana, New and Mont- Orleans, between commerce was in Alabama. between Magnolia running Somery, State of Alabama. We- lobile Montgomery, as much under Alabama, State tumpka, as it was in the of Louisiana. State No Federal jurisdiction one. State the commerce contend that will may regulate one another; it nor can be power maintained regu- in this case was in the commerce of either Wetumpka late was a between the two States, It commerce State. comes within the definition of commerce expressly given thus While pi’oteeted power regulated Congress. was run into Wetumpka of sunk, Magnolia, Congress, river; and it Alabama contended that earnestly can no for this remedy give aggravated trespass. the admiralty in the case the Genesee Chief seven Since decision DECEMBER 305 TERM, v. al. Jackson et one has jurisdiction only dissenting, admiralty judges, North;

been all our lakes and rivers of the constantly applied on of the cases been reviewed in this court and some out have with- the Alabama river .The prudent must objection. navigators have been more and skilful than those of the North, their if collision or were less the above voyages frequent, the first that the' Alabama river. has occurred on It is a true, the was in commerce strictly Magnolia engaged State; her, not exonerate as the tres- but this does law. on vessel Cases pass protected by have occurred on the Ohio rivers, frequently Mississippi where steamboats, flat-boats, run down and sunk having were held And if for the responsible injury admiralty. cases, a steamer is liable in such done remedy injury to it in the same court. cannot be withheld case, In the this held: How., Genesee Chief court 443,) (12 “The to the District Courts of' granted Constitution admiralty jurisdiction the United States under the extends to the navi- rivers and lakes of the United without to- gable regard the ebb and perceive flow of the tides of ocean.” is-difficult to mistaken, how this could have al- language All the lakes and counsel in all the leged by argument. to be rivers in the are declared this subject Union navigable overrules, reference to the all jurisdiction tide, without decisions on that previous subject. It was extended the said in that case of 1845 juris- act. diction of and this was the act of so, admiralty; it was limited sea ten to rivers vessels of navigable tons burden and upwards. It is that the will ab- assumption alleged sorb matters of offences controversy punishment and without the in the courts of State, misdemeanors now cognizable tribunal, trial before con- by jury, foreign trary to the and interests of a State. wishes has been in opera- tionon Atlantic all the rivers of our coast since the navigable its exercise has not been Government, organization found rule inconvenient. is better Experience dangerous If found than has been judgment theory. commercial, our which is most salutary part country it cannot in those which are injurious parts dangerous less commercial. The Federal common-law of- courts' no cognizance fences, on has been the land or the water. Jurisdiction conferred common law and on them of chancery specified cases, Union; but I am not State Territory every vol. xx. COURT.

306 SUPREME Magnolia. Jaclcson et al. r. Steamboat this has been aware that one casional conflicts of considered jurisdiction, foreign that has been people State. Oc- dangerous have arisen between this jurisdiction tri- and the State courts, bunal preserve rights guarantied Constitution; the Federal but this became by necessary maintenance of the fundamental law of the Union. And if deem it should of our Congress necessary regulation commerce, internal to more than ten hundred anil- amounting lions of dollars will to enact laws for its annually, protection, they no be as doubt mindful of the as States rights who, their those enterprise' wealth, com- carry merce of the country. one knows how Every strenuously admiralty jurisdiction was resisted in by ralty common-law headed England lawyers, Coke: The contest lasted for two centuries. The admi civilians contended that the statutes of Richard II and H. IV did curtail the ancient jurisdiction of the admiralty torts and over injuries upon seas, and in high ports the ebb flow of tide, was shown an exposi tion ancient as was cases, opposed by common-law courts; but continued the contest until they acquired a concurrent all over maritime jurisdiction causes, except prize. under the colonial vice-admiralty couiatry, Government, exercised overall maritime jurisdiction coaatracts, torts as and over seas, as well injuries, ports high and this was the conferred on our courts Constitution. But it was aaotuntil late that the périod settled statute of 3 and 4 Vic- England c.' toria, 1840. This is entitled act to im- passed “An and extend the practice Court prove High And it is the bar Admiralty England.” gratifying to know, bench that the above statute country has on the same English admiralty placed that it maintained in this substantially footing remark it is To.this be- country. are lieved there but two or three ran- Insurance, exceptions. som, and believed to constitute the surveys, only excep- tions. The flow of the as tide, before is used remarked, of their rivers. Whether in- designate navigableness surance is within the has not considered admiralty, been by English admiralty, by this court. while singular, has extension, the same placed substantially basis gerous desire law, our ours be ás own, should denounced a dan- having our interests tendeiacy and a upoaa. institutions, to abandon the the civil expressed rules of enlightened of Richard follow misconstrued statutes H. TERM,

DECEMBER . Jackson et al. v. the com- found in it is charms, has its rarely Antiquity doubted whether life; hut may mon walks professional and the the the found in experience wisdom is not more frequently and this is áffairs; especially human progress gradual

n are matured by which case in all systems jurisprudence common, chan- it be Whether of human knowledge. progress more instructed by be or we.should law, cery, study- than to concerns, trace to human it its ing back to its lighted following present adaptations interested one is more de- Every beginnings. river, to look the majestic and flowing than by until it becomes lost in its current moun- upwards rivulets. tain Mr. Justice DANIEL dissenting: in this and the cause, of the court doc- Against opinion I feel constrained assumed in its

trines protest. support, solemnly If in results which have heretofore attended repeated efforts to assert what both as my part regarded sacred of the and the Constitution dictates venerable authority of the law strance, be incentive were to remon- sought appear motive; this act to be without for it might' cannot denied that to and successive be remonstrances earnest from restrictions succeeded still wider previ- departures until in the case -us limit before ously every recognised, discretion or save those power, judicial propensity of the court think is now cast aside. may proper impose, But it is may of official there discharge obligation felt-that be much than either the or prospect higher motives attainment''of success can it supply; may accepted who, that he under axiom, convictions moral duty, cannot exertions, his feeble un- steadily oppose though aided, to of. when to be believed march power, wrongful, however positary an unsafe it must be de- may appear,- overshadowing of either confidence. or convictions public private My me to an condemnation once pretensions this unyiélding pledge court, member “the denominated,-by distinguished silent and stealing ju- acquiring progress-of ” risdiction to which flexibly has no and still more in- pretensions; of the fearful and tremendous power assumptions (cid:127) now the vener- for openly proclaimed pronounced by tribunals the authorities Coke, Blackstone, able Hale, by avouched their tolerated to have been opinions, by, merely common law— always' to, authority subordinate an licensed inveterate princi- to overturn the most usurpation of that invade the licensed it's exercise to ples law; jurisdic- COURT.

308 SUPREME Jackson ct al. v. Steamboat tion of most communities, defy sovereign abrogate vital immunities' of' their social or political organization. cannot, I without sense-of omit occasion delinquency, of est what to mind is abuse my protesting against great- and one as at which, magnitude, hopeless present pros- it would seem could pect nothing a remedy may appear, require but attention its character and tendencies to insure It must of corrective. be resisted in necessity practice,- irreconcilable with wholly every guarantee rights of internal person power property, police States. in cases before this 6 formerly How., Having, (vid. p. 395 et Steam Jersey v. seq., New Mer Navigation Company Bank; How., chants’ 10 607, Stebbins; Newton v. p. How., v. 465, How., Genesee Chief Ward Fitzhugh; p. traced with care the some Peck;) origin admiralty juris diction jurisdiction and the modes limits to England, which that there no farther subjected, reference will here made to the authorities which that be. has investigation been tent of the like than is to illustrate the guided, ex necessary origin to the tribunals of appertaining the United States. the novelties which are Amongst daily to notice, it would not awaken brought very surprise to great hear it contended, in the of a favorite support theory posi sion, that the courts of were not admiralty governed England the laws and of that ordinances or in effect that country, herself; did not but and still England been, is, govern has controlled thing some or extraneous Some authority. foreign not than unlike this idea on more one oc has, strange casion; been her intimated; and with to colonies, respect strictly subordinate as are known to have ever been in they political broadly the mother it has been to legislative country, power asserted that these been from the restric released tions upon in the mother whilst this admiralty country, emancipation they (and colonies) of with coupled position incongruous United as once portion forming those are more or less to the admiralty regulations subject constrained to every In the world. I-am petty community such an con repel called, as if it can argument, argument sonant neither with reason only nor historical accuracy. known difference in admiralty between the administration courts colonies, mother and in her American country revenue; was created by express statute,with reference statute; was limited to the prescribed by single regulation has, as a writer treated -every subject, it special of which direction, to the -matter applicable solely

DECEMBER TERM,.

Jackson et al. r. Steamboat and' nor deducible treated, into, from, as neither entering and constitutional attribute admiralty jurisdic- regular tion. and in'its an an nature was anomaly, exception, same Of the was operation character, unique solitary. eleventh section of is the precisely, judi- provision District Courts act invests the with 1789, ciary juris- diction under the laws of in cases of seizure imposts United in the first confers, States. This place, provision on the District limitation, Courts, without ad- general terms, miralty far, then, So as it was the maritime-jurisdiction. courts of to constitute these tribunals purpose admiralty, the act conferred just quoted language were created The District Courts thereby complete. of on of other of but the section to all intents and purposes; goes admiralty Courts, to add to the ofrthe District cognizance powers appertaining not subjects regularly ; imposts of seizuresunder laws sub- viz: admiralty, a class which was in jects England peculiarly belonging and under the in the court of cognizable exchequer, authority and. law. common process eleventh section of the conclusion, then, from the judi vested this: that the with act, power thereby ciary inevitably never con power is not seizures, respect ferred —was in accordance admiralty power the investment character distinct is in its Constitution; therefrom, but in its extent. Such and limited to have appears and is peculiar commentators of two been the distinguished opinion of the United States, of the courts Chan admiralty jurisdiction cellor Dane; whom, the former of the 1st Kent and Mr. vol. Commentaries, holds this of his p. language: “Congress make all seizures and. discretion, forfeit had a their right, Courts; be a in the District but cognizable may ures ques them by had to declare be cases tion whether they any right so if law*of the jurisdiction, The Constitution made. se land the Constitution was when all criminal trial prosecutions, cures and in all civil suits the citizen by jury where the value in con at common law for for dollars. These prosecutions exceeds troversy twenty under the valuable property, feitures portions large and the in their are laws, consequences; revenue penal highly con are always parties, deeply Government and its officers if, And act of in the and forfeiture. conviction cerned can turned be decisions, prosecution or by judicial Congress as nei Court, being over to the side District the trial law, suit at common a criminal nor a ther prosecution of the cause then transferred jury country COURT. SUPREME .310 y. Jackson et al. however, the. probable, of a the breast single judge. to declare ju- than more intend to.do act did not judiciary that all cases; and these over District Courts risdiction of seizures un- forfeitures upon for penalties the prosecutions trade, not to be con- der of imposts, navigation, laws admitted of a the case when sidered of admiralty jurisdiction suitorsin all act saves to law; at oommon prosecution where the common remedy, to a common-law 'cases the right it is com- seen that it. We have law was competent give it; because, under vigorous system petent give are exchequer, in rem such law, prosecutions English be law; and may the common to the course of according doubted all sub- on La the case which whether Vengeance," suffi- rested, decisions of the Court Supreme sequent in this courts considered. The vice-admiralty country ciently Indies, in the West obtained when and also colonies, we.were an extent unknown to totally in revenuecausesto jurisdiction and with powers admiralty, English BUt this exten- as those claimed at the day. present enlarged vice-admi- the American sion, by statute, revenue cases ancient limits to courts their ralty beyond at com- was much discussed complained penalties, and. also, in his Colliding mencement of the Revolution.’’ Judge “In 2, 391, Treatise vol. p. says: England, on Admiralty, exclusively exchequer; all revenue seizures are cognizable side of as are such of them cognizable . made so only by United States are the District Courts of the n act.” legislative force vice- From the above exposition it is manifest that colonies, courts in the British admiralty neither enactment, has- custom nor nor practice, by positive there created or jurisdic ever been in those power .as to their character and strictly tion appertaining constitution derive, their did courts of commission from the Lord admiralty, regularly inhis Civil Brown, Admiral. High courts, Law, 490, and all of these “that 2, vol. Admiralty p. says His Majesty’s courts within .powers vice-admiralty or the Commis Admiral, dominions derived from High and incident sioners of inherent Admiralty England, commission, the of their virtue office. Accordingly,

Lords of the are authorized to erect vice-admiralty Admiralty Indies, settlements courts North of the East India the West America, and in case any person ag Company; decree force by sentence, interlocutory grieved having of a he Coult sentence, Admiralty.” may appeal High from the So, vol. too, Blackstone, 68, p. says: "Appeals DECEMBER TERM, 1857.

Jackson et al. v. Steamboat Magnolia. courts in America,and our other vice-admiralty plantations settlements, be before the courts of may brought admiralty.in a branch of the Admiral’s England, being jurisdiction.” here asked, with may how, pertinently exposition law, can be reconciled assertion that at the time of the American Revolution, down to the adoption of the Constitution of the United there were vested in the colonial courts of and were to England, appropriate them as courts of which never were vested admiralty, powers in their whom were created, and whom superior, by they they to be With supervised it perfect would respect, and.^on'trolled? seem to an if not an imply incongruity, ascribe absurdity, tribunal any- appellate revisory power reference to matters fessedly jurisdiction, which con- beyond legitimate different to a Yet is this asser- authority. belonged tion of in the colonial courts jurisdiction in admiralty beyond that of their renewed creator superior, constantly arguendo, whilst, challenges authority which reply repeated one sustained, not adjudication the has point assumption maybe be asked whether, adduced. it may been Again, can be another instance found in history jurisprudence, has which it is .that a system, corpusjuris, grown alleged up not an not a established, yet ingredient, frag- have But there ment can be discovered? system such in this been decisions which were made country —decisions from with the event separation cotemporaneous ; mother ing for their learn- decisions, but these respectable country far the obiterassertion above so ability, sustaining affirm even for divest mentioned, plausibility; of the ad- and subordination conformity maintain miralty in complete had to that which colonies, prevailed and from Richard, statutes of from the time England and Coke. Eortescue, Hobart, Brownlow, of Owen, days decided Hannah, I Brig refer to case of Clinton 1781, and the case of of Pennsylvania, Judge Hopkinson, Bee, decided Friends, by Judge Two v. The Sloop Shrewsbury of “admi- indeed, the And, phrase Carolina, South received us in the acceptation ralty jurisdiction,” except definite is without courts, intelligible from the English is the of jurisprudence no other system under meaning, law of the same under administered known to be marine organization. ad- for the claims advanced a view of us now take Let at encroachment its constant attempts miralty power, and of law, repub- our common and genius principles decision at least from institutions, lican and peculiar COURT. SUPREME

Jackson et al. v. pase in the 10th of Jefferson, the Thomas Wheaton, p. Chief v. in the 12th that of the Genesee' of How- Eitzhugh, inclusive; last a case, ard, 443, apprehension, more my as an and more of assumption remarkable' startling judicial than whieh the of the judicial has history country power hitherto any. to the case now under disclosed, consideration. prior 13th Richard H, 15th, the statute of it is cap. enacted, By “the Admirals and their shall meddle that with deputies noth- realm, but done within the done only ing things upón sea;” Richard the 15th of H, 3d, in all cap. con- by “that other, tracts, bodies of done within pleas, quarrels, things land or the Admiral counties, hy water, shall have no shall tried the law of but. the land.” cognizance, by of these remarkable. provisions that language truly By of the first is the exclusion, denounced of the Admiral’s utterly, realm; from the entire that of the power second, is as ex- by him all denied to of done plicitly cognizance inihe bodies things the counties,either land or water. And by the statute of of of Henry IV, sanction cap. way insuring these exclusions, “that he who finds provides, himself aggrieved the form of statutes of against shall have Richard, his ac- tion the case him who so grounded upon against pursues and recover double Lord admiralty, Hale, in damages.” his of-the Common Law, the court of History speaking admiralty, “This-court says, not bottomed or'founded '(p. 51:) upon of the law, civil but hath its authority both powers law and custom the realm in such mat- ters- as are for its And proper in an enu- cognizance.”. again, meration of matters not within the of the cognizance admiralty, “ he continues: So also of rivers within damages navigable bodies counties, done the shore at things upon mark, low-water wreck of the sea, &c.; these not to the things Admiral’s belong jurisdiction.” And the cause, cause as the only assigned locality foundation of that jurisdiction, is the peculiar each instance, or viz: neither within the being body any county nor vicinage, terree,so that or pays can the..V.enue infra fauces be summoned for its trial. No one pretends to doubt that thus stood the law of the realm admiralty at the England period from separation the American colonies, perhaps particulars above mentioned it 'the may remain law unchanged of that country present moment, as it is a fact recorded that for a history, from departure that one law, of the most learned and brilliant of her admiralty William judges (Sir Scott, afterwards Lord was condemned in a Stowell) very I Such, . was the say, law of the realm of Eng- heavy-verdict._ land, and I think that the fallacy pretence any change

DECEMBER TERM, Jackson et al. v. law realm, in its admiralty proper to the' application colonies; has been demonstrated. clearly law of admiralty accurate England, every according was the test, of the law of the United States at the period of the Constitution. It is adoption pertinent to remark, that the place admiralty having been, both the common law and language statutes of Richard II and IV",excluded not Henry only counties, both on the land on the water, body and even from the ex followed, that the consequenti, it- realm, of that within the locality necessarily so) (and ebb arose description flow of the tide. it is more than Hence, probable, and use of the adoption phrase portion of the locus viz: that it was and was jurisdiction,

n maritime, i. sea, nor with or was e.,-connected upon terree, neither the land nor any ebb and fauces and was within water within navigable county, flow of tide. Under such a conceded to be law, state and as I of the United contend, law of law England, came before this court for the caseof the Thomas Jeffer- decision in the 10th In this not a son, Wheaton, case, 428. single p. cases to jurisdiction ingredient give required by English of lan- existed. guage It could no or by any propriety possibility fact it occurred maritime,as presented styled every could ocean, at the from the distance of thousand miles a tide in the water-course that there ever existed be shown not the suit on which occurrences that originated. produced in the essential Net, absence of these ingredients for court, power by with jurisdiction, courts are so often greed of strict the line propriety, impelled beyond commerce, show of makes under the whether, regulating query, authority, not of the distinctive original assert a Congress might felt however, court, viz: admiralty. the-power aof locality to concede itself constrained the ebb the necessity of that the want requisite and the of the and for tide, flow to deny jurisdiction. Pet., 524, the case of Peroux 7 Howard, necessity In is equally of the tide to jurisdiction the ebb flow give, for deems maintain its power, in order to conceded; but virtute officii, itself authorized attraction appeal this phe received explanation moon, philosophic in' which, pre the current of the nomenon, Mississippi, but to occasions, Gulf, the waters of itself upon cipitating latter, some rise changes conflict with .by say, This theory at Orleans. judicial river New fall COUBT. SUPBEME al. v. Steamboat

Jackson et Whether of noyelty. least the characteristic at tides possesses of scientific in the annals find place be accepted, it will doubt. admit of some may discovery, the case of the Steamboat Pet., time in order of follows Next case, In al., et p. v. Phoebus Orleans New in libelled was the vessel Howard, of Peroux v. as in that her termini of trading Orleans, one of New same city eth mentioned to be within the case last and adj udged voyages, contended the counsel tide. It was and flow ebb now Orleans, New gentleman of the steamboat claimants in steamboat libelled that the situation bench, reason of each, locality, case, conferring to perceive acumen I possess, identical; and it any surpasses however, .court, the cases. between real distinction any could none late Story, (whom Justice through speaking the admiralty,) insisting ever any against suspect leaning the ebb on the requisite consistent pertinacity flow a steamboat not one of engaged “The case is tide, said: in her voyages Though maritime trade and navigation. tide-waters, of them at one terminus have touched she may waters. The on other has substantially her employment over vessels employed has not owners; The between part in cases of disputes such voyages is, sort whether cases of this in all test of. its true substantially and .trade not navigation, the vessel be engaged the lat on tide-waters. In in interior navigation in this that, view, there is So case,, ter no jurisdiction. involved over the steamboat District Court had no jurisdiction as she was voy controversy, wholly engaged present on such interior waters.” ages How., In case al. v. in the 5th Clark, et Waring Com Steam 441, Jersey Navigation that of the New anoma the 6th of How., v. The Merchants’ Bank, pany lous as unsustained me, these cases wholly appear that con either, them, as I deem precedent by English warranted, nay struction of the Federal Constitution which demanded, Constitution, history, the of the language ih& ebb both concur yet they establishing precedent, flow As, the tide as the test of jurisdiction admiralty. the court cases, last-mentioned former of these example, arrived, it had which announces conclusion at which authority, demonstrate pi'oposed by argument “ It is first time that the has been terms, viz: point following a case collision court, to this whether distinctly presented the admi rivers, in our where tide ebbsand is within flows, if the locality of the courts of the United States jurisdiction ralty DECEMBER TERM, Jackson et ail. v. in the sense in which it is be, used the common-lawj udges this, corpus comitatus. It is that we England, point are infra decide, now about to and it is our wish that which nothing be said the course of our remarks shall may be extended to other case embrace contested admiralty jurisdiction.” Nelson, too, in the Thus, second of these as cases, J., the or- of the court, gan majority 392, these p. propounds prop- ositions: “On into the several cases looking admiralty which have come before this its court, and in which jurisdic- tion was involved or came under it will be observation, into found has been, not inquiry court of in. but into the nature England, subject-matter contract, it was whether contract, the service service, a maritime to be per- formed sea, toaters within the ebband upon upon flow of the tide.” And “The exclusive in admi- again: was conferred on the ralty ly National as Government, close- connected with the of the commercial It is a grant power. maritimecourt, instituted for the purpose the' administering - laxo the seas. There seems therefore, to be for re- ground, in some measure within the straining the commercial grant power, would confine it in eases of con- tracts to those country, and and trade of concerning navigation seasand upon ivith tide-waters, high countries,, foreign the several States. Contracts out of amongst . growing internal commerce of the as as commerce purely xjoxxd State, well be- are tide-ioaters, domestic in their generally origin ope- ration, and could have been intended scarcely drawn of the Federal courts.” cognizance several as decisions, founded, These believed to been, in error, have the a misconstruction of the upon law, of Constitution, and the in so far history country, invasions of the permit they and ly territorial, sought municipal, not States, are, nevertheless, entire political rights without their value. limit By they prescribed rej at viz: the ebb and flow of the least admiralty, tide, they the ambitious claim to undefined and undefinable jud

ected cial discretion over the the law, Constitution and (and territorial so far indispensable fortified rights States,) the foundations of a-Government, based, in at theory any rate, restricted upon power exactly-defined delegations only. It was under decisions, the stress of and, aforegoing well known, of this of a application portion act of 26, 1845,. the cap. February extending Congress with the sole view of passed, jurisdic to cases con- tion uuon the rivers lakes, arising SUPREME COURT. Steamboat-Magnolia.

Jackson et al. r. there necting the saicl on which were no lakes, tides, and which the within no State e., Here, limits. then, we (i. lakes) nave the exception, solitary exception, fortifying gen- eral rule as to the which jurisdiction, is admiralty described and defined of the statute provision again seas or above the tide- quoted, existing upon high upon waters of the United States only. This interference by legislative department Gov- elicited, too, ernment, whether by judiciary department, of the former, under the competency Constitution, or must be received not, reasonable rule of induction by every as a concession, both, that there existed a or by neces- propriety for the sity over the enlargement admiralty jurisdiction, and the rivers lakes, them, which there connected were no and that tides, whatever extension was either called for or made must be the result of action, and not of legislative mere discretion. The judicial repeated decisions explicit of this court cited, the act of already 1845, Congress it is have been might, uniformity as some supposed, earnest regarded certainty defining admiralty jurispru- dence of the United at least upon points adjudged, and as to the statute; provisions but, in this of pro- age the. held, such gress, to be anticipations amongst wildest fal- lacies. admiralty It is now discovered that the principles asserted or said to have been England, propounded (cid:127)by unedited, mysterious, unproduced proceedings the colonial courts, so often vice-admiralty avouched here in the decisions of this argument; act of court and the provisions are all to be thrown aside, erroneous. wholly That the not-, admiralty power to be restricted its-effect upon tions territorial, or. political, municipal institu- rights which it be may hear, nor brought checks from the of the common law. That authority there is but one rule which its extent to be and that is the computed, rule which measures it miles or that the scale for its leagues; can admeasurement be as the applied discretion of the only judiciary may determine, necessity policy, irrespect- ive of the Constitution, or the statute, character element on which it is to be or the exerted, adjudications of this court on this last point. That the of. the fixed . and limited realm of and as known England, framers of the Constitution, cannot be the of this day; and,-of course, of our time and of our the.admiralty must present day to the changed according discretion judgment courts, in the event of further acquisitions of territory. Such are the conclusions deducible regularly opin-

DECEMBER TERM, al. Jackson et v. Steamboat court in the case ion of this in innovations, Genesee conclusions, Chief— most deliberate judgment, my startling dangerous decision, anterior to that ever attempted upon of internal powers rights government appertaining of the of States. case v. Clark, the Speaking court Waring “ of 456 of How.: The the'court majority there say, p. thought and tidethere, was sufficient of proof it was not consequently to consider whether the extended admiralty power necessary But case the that showed unreasonableness of higher. giving a construction to the Constitution which would measure the think, of the tide." It I the be jui’isdiction admiralty by may, the natural and here limit of whether inquired, appropriate pertinently all to be can maritime, a admitted by jurisdiction, the element on measured which alone the more by reasonably which act, is authorized to for alone existence that jurisdiction indefinite, and mutable it, arbitrary, Been given by has ? said extension it is mathematical the Again, geographical limitation court, resulting 457,) (p. speaking construction, such be the river: “If then the character of the a would limit the juris- the river line drawn across Mississippi of above and water it, entry there were diction, although ports as rich and exposed the commerce and as deep navigable, as the hazards and commerce below.” the same incidents to If the had a official life of not familiar- pretty long experience instances, few, in which me the unhappily ized the and the of Constitution just influence objects meaning when condition that surrounding country actually lost have of or made to was framed been yield instrument sight times, I confess that some sur- some to prevailing vogue felt at the have been the' forgetfulness would seeming prise above expressions utterance to quoted, court giving was there that the Constitution was facts, adopted, when then as that on Mississippi such known—no no navigation States; that was then United such river possessed for, coexisting political was formed by, Constitution to state to be association; adapted was civil designed jin to fully itself adapted was complete, things; to be intended And to it was subjects applied. ends above referred to, greater reason or examples but for mani- would been have awakened disregard surprise to this fundamental .the great fested,-in principle reasoning that if the Constitution of republican government, since, or has the muta- its was, at the adoption, period events, accomplish time and of its become inadequate tions those who creation, exclusively belongs objects, alter or abolish -;, and in whom resides the it, right formed SUPREME COURT. Jackson et aL v. Steamboat its defects. No such can remedy exist with power those are the. who humbler Suppose, creatures Constitution, clothed with the office provisions executing instrument. at the time of adoption, Constitution was uni- believed defective, to be versally many respects essentially defective, would such conviction have rendered it less the it have Constitution? Would lessened in the obli- any degree it, or of obedience to whence a rem- gation changed power its defects was be derived? Could the edy judiciary, without such a usurpation, ? It essayed remedy con- the court, ceded that at the time of the Constitu- forming tion the tem known and that the ebb the miralty was the admiralty jurisprudence England only sys- in this it is admitted, practiced country; also, was limited English system theory practice to admitted, flow of the tide. It is further that at time Constitution was our courts of ad- adopted, went into definition which had operation, here. These equally adopted England admissions proper a virtual like form the the Genesee Chief surrender foundation on which anything rested, decision court could be either in the case of inor this case that alone. depending it be admitted of the if that at the time For, of the adoption the rule Constitution limited the England juris- tide-waters, to and that the same rule was diction and adopted follows, it inevitable here, induction, that proper was the by to intended be created Constitution by was known, which, was the one then and that which language tion improper,) only court, of this was then here, the Constitu- proper (as to cannot be establish unauthorized or anything supposed was necessarily complete, adapted state And therefore, this forces inquiry, existing things. thus us, limited, itself the framers of viz: if was was system Constitution, to be so if known instrument was to be to state applicable existing designed in all its and was itself, complete delegations of things, is to be or and restrictions power instrument where sought right upon power, to or of the or diminish the effect to meaning enlarge awith to make it commensurate predicament or not when the state of not Constitution things merely existing but was not framed, contemplation was which even a could was created? Such not those whom it power of exist in branch Government on legislature, only measures was con- like a to which anything faculty originate much who have ferred; less could it be claimed functionaries but whose have, faculties, cannot creative not, rightfully any an and duties are restricted to interpretation capacities TERM, DECEMBER Jackson et al. v. have and laws as should ex- fairly Constitution the times their enactment. at pounded the correctness of court, after declared But the having on to nevertheless, rule and its here, say, adoption go English river's day definition would at limit public “that a And Be- rivers why? tide-water is inadmissible.’'’ wholly to neces- or by either by cause the Constitution, express language or or to looks any change enlarge- sary implication, recognises ? extent of admiralty jurisdiction ment principles now we have no! Eor no reason as .“But such this. Oh, (say in- water, miles thousands of of public navigable court) ' is tide.” Such in which there no rivers, lakes cluding it amounts court, and, correctly interpreted, the argument suited Constitution, which at adoption per- to this: and which .then was the situation country, well fectly unquestionably to we now supreme adjudge authority, times; must it there-

(cid:127)become unequal exigencies efficient; as the substituted more fore be something and the Federal Legislature, tardy people, this substitution, or the duty or delinquent making be devolved beneficent work must credit of this judi- “ there no Itis said reason certainly ciary. tide-water, over which does for not public admiralty power force used other waters equal com- any public apply mercial Let this be purposes.” admitted proposition literally, would fall short of that because the demonstration, infinitely Constitution, when did adequate created, every exigency not templation, in existence not then comprise predicaments con- it can stretched, application judicial by any torture, cover such either real or supposed. exigency, This revives the recollection of argument forcibly interpre- tation of the phrase “necessaryand once proper,” ingeniously wielded to strenuously bank, prove incorporated an institution, with in attribute of such was faculty every bank; nor but was designed be, reality, essentially an in the administration reference agent, indispensable agent, Federal Government. this And with to doctrine of it convenience, or or here re- be necessity, propriety, may is as marked, that it as and much out of with gratuitous place it as was jurisdiction, with to respect admiralty respect so; Bank of the United still more as it is perhaps States— individual, and to well-informed certain, that, obvious every lakes, not a with the some-of the there is water- exception course in the situated above ebb and flow of the country, its tide, is not on or on both which bounded one margins case it is us, some And in the alleged expressly before county. SUPREME COURT. et al. Jackson Maynolia. and admitted that pleading, fact in throughout, every reference thereto an inland water transpired upon State of county two Alabama, hundred miles and tide, above within the "Wilcox, in that State. And to what is by adhering an essential test of the and admiralty jurisdiction England, and practiced this formerly adopted will there country, be standard as obtained to tar more jurisdiction, uniform and rational than that furnished tides. I allude to the rule which repels pretensions when- admiralty ever it to intrude attempts them comitatus. corpus This infra is the true as rule to it is jurisdiction, susceptible certainty, and concedes and secures to each jurisprudence, system and law, of the common its legitimate Eor this this court appropriate powers. test, rational plain now its and arbi- substitute one in nature attempts vague It is trary, now extend to all waters that are confusion and tending inevitably conflict.. affirmed, that the powers within or without navigable aof State. In under this new

territory quest certainty, doctrine, the are what inquiry naturally suggested, naviga- waters ? ble of Will it be proper adopt, interpretation an and to phrase, navis, derivation from etymological whose waters, those on bdsoms- designate, navigable only navies floated? can be it ships which craft, a Shall embracsswaters.on are what termed river shallops, sloops generally swim; can or shall be extended to water on which any batteau or are can be floated? These at all, any pirogue rate, If practicablewaters, in a certain sense. navigable . taken, between extremes mentioned is to be just point there is testation and at once' source of of con- prolific opened uncertainty, these, if And the last of extremes be expense. then there is an internal adopted, in and with the whether scarcely water-course, its natural or as condition, under authority improved or a resources or a canal, mill-pond,- some of as this are of land, which to cover acres known many (and, be seas, court can rivers without tides into convert may into small metamorphosed would lakes,) doctrine be Some admiralty. brought grasp our canals of them steam, of sails; some navigated some rivers, them are form adjuncts continuous ocean; communications them are fed all of by, therefore are made of, rivers. Under this new regime, portions the hand of even Federal thrust into power may everything, into a basket; there is fruit no production vegetable these farm, orchard, or a on the water-' garden, margin next courses, which not liable to be arrested way 321 TERM,

DECEMBER Magnolia. al. v. Steamboat Jackson ct all parade with admiralty power, the high town by market countryman, and the plain, homely simple, of appendages; and of his rights, he had some comprehension imagined who of the peace, justice under the remedies .cognizance their instrumentality now, is through a county ofor and metamorphosed magnified of trouble, fomenter apt some be confounded and to into proctor, attorney country from Navibus, de from Roccus a learned display to silence by put or from Clausum, Mare from the Pardessus, or Emerigon, Masters, Apostles. Trinity as he is hound this State of Confederacy, A citizen of any the institutions the soil and and to affection, habit, fealty, this machinery whom fathers, his magnificent whom, when bear, recollecting by to (especially brought was as this benefit, may, sole Confederacy whose created,) for I ceaseless march of when done have often contemplating reflection like led to a tone of encroachment, be central following: Romam dicunt

“Urbem quam putavi, ego, huic nostrae Stultus similem, inter Verum hmc alias extulit tantum, caput urbes, lenta solent inter viburna Quantum cupressi.” the attributes Eew, comparatively, sovereignty have existed in to those whom the presupposed equality, created, have remained Government in- perfectly Eederal their creature"; own exempt aggression by tact could be more no conceivable agency they assailed fearfully indefinite and indefinable pretension than by which, restraints to it prescribed spurning power, of our o'wn ancestors, caution occasion wise challenges, suits, of all nations, practices people, the opinions tongues, diverse or with of our incongruous however institutions. own genius the least curious Not circumstance course, marking that it assertion, all the produces citizens equality amongst States. be, the United but it is of of Equality may equality unknown and unlimited subjection discretion, lieu defined of allegiance legitimate authority. truth, the of these claims In to an all-control- extravagance their utter central power, incongruity any just pro- ling portion of the- different of our equipoise parts would system, them as ludicrous, exhibit it not 'for positively serious if tolerated, to which, mischiefs must lead— inevitably should mischiefs which characterize those pretensions fatal inherent and necessary powers self-preservation in the States; as at internal war with the government inter- xx. VOL. SUPREME COURT. et al. v. Jackson and' therefore ests, people, habits feelings For I can rejected. reprobated wholly myself, only under they may, to whatsoever say, point approbation culminated, never can offer here or have them- they elsewhere, but must encounter selves for solemn my my acceptation, ' rebuke. CAMPBELL Mr. Justice dissenting: I from the dissent the court in and judgment cause, the delivered opinion judges composing majority court. The oí the District Court affirms that the court judgment no as a court of under the had tution arising steamboats Consti- admiralty, laws in a States, and' cause of collision United in' the of Alabama, Wilcox State county, between river. the Alabama The Alabama river navigating

flows Mobile with the miles State, and entirely itself into the discharges river, and that and the Mobile through bay connects The Gulf Mexico. collision occurred two hundred

above ebb and flow of the and tide, on a river which no upon or before that time had port entry delivery been established. This court decides that the shall judgment and that reversed, the District Court shall take cognizance its own sense and cause, against obligation duty. It is that this court claims a for the my opinion Dis power trict Court Federal Government in the delegated Constitution of the ganizing any and United in or Congress, department, not conferred judiciary upon court United States. That this court has assumed a jurisdiction over a case at the common only cognizable law, and triable that its and and opinion of a con jury; judgment travene the and doctrine number of decis authority large ions pronounced court, Circuit Courts, after and mature elaborate which for arguments deliberation, a' have formed a rule of long decision to period opinion to other that no legal profession; judgment of this court affords a sanction 428; to this. Wheat., 7 (10 Pet., 324; 175; 441; 11 12 5 Pet., Pet., 72; 344; How., 6 How., 2 426; 398; Dall., 109; 4 Gall., Anne, Mas., 1 Bald., 544.) power United State's extends to cases judicial all n law under the equity Constitution and arising laws or-which, the United States, and treaties made, made, shall be under their all cases of and maritime authority —to Whatever other allowed jurisdiction. jurisdiction is in its judiciary department nature, particular, depending the character or status of communities persons

n DECEMBER TERM, al. v. Jackson et and not to the controversy, subject-

who parties This classification of eases which judicial matter.- power extend United should States among and of refers law, jurisdiction, equity, of all a division States recognised .jurisprudence and is re- intimately the Federal that lated parties compact, and of of the colonies constitutional history at the Declaration of Neither Independence mother*country. by adopted, Colonies, nor when Federal Avas Constitution law common to the Avasthere municipal body in use in States, nor a uniform judicial procedure system Constitution Avas framed, independence, their courts. Until the preserved States _ freedom, their sovereignty, which had not been ex- every power, jurisdiction, right, to the United States assembled. Congress pressly delegated is made in the Federal Whatever reference Constitution to hnv, modes of judicial proceed- any existing system the basis of distribution of re- authority, power ing, lates to the thus in the several recognised system existing as it received from States was England. su,ch A of that was esteemed of judicial vital portion system that citizen, to the it was importance liberty incorpo- into the Constitution United States, rated above placed of the reach of the of department authority any Constitutión, The sections of the Federal Government. “that ansAver or otherwise no shall be held to capital person of or indictment crime, infamous unless on presentment in criminal the accused that, all shall jury; prosecutions,, grand of trial of the State and and enjoy district wherein right by jury impartial shall committed,” crime have been of the nature and of accusation;” informed cause his “be common law, in suits at when the value “that shall controversy shall of trial be dollars, jury exceed twenty by right life, “that no shall be deprived person liberty, preserved;” ” hvw; and of a due others like or without process property, metí of the Revolution kind, descendants identify ancestors had maintained for centuries a who many perse- for a constitutional Gov- struggle vering magnanimous should which the ernment, which people directly participate, secure would to their liberty. posterity blessing courts of those that justice supremacy acknowledged share in administration, their right people' course of the directed administration their according all the material common law, subjects litigation —of and themselves, from the common law Avhich people sprung all the consent sanctions, those by highest legitimate COURT. SUPREME

Jackson et al. t. Steamboat who submitted common law, to it—of that resulted from the habitual conduct, thoughts, usages, legislation, of a brave, and race—was established in practical, self-relying and in the United their States England heroic only by persevering from which a Charta, exertions and sacrifices. Magna extracted, of this portion was, Constitution was according Lord “a declaration of and violated Brougham, existing It was renewed times. To author rights.”' thirty preserve it was read churches, four times a ity, published year and when courts, arms, sustained force county violated, the commons vindicated it the infliction exemplary pun ishment at authors. A one delinquent guilty King time was the wrath of Heaven on those required imprecate who it. The transgressed archbishop bishops, apparelled in their official candles “did excommu robes, with burning; nicate, accurse, and threshold of the from the church cut off all those who, device, shall violate, break, art or lessen, any or deed, word, counsel, or change, secretly openly, by against init, article all whatsoever, and those that it shall against make statutes, made, or observe them or shall being bring customs, them and the in, when keep brought writers of such and also the counsellors and statutes, execu tioners of them, and all those that shall ac presume judge to them.” cording The old who describes this solemn historian, ceremony, says, “that when this uttered, was and when the candles imprecation had extinguished and the fumes ground, been.hurled and stench rose offensive to the nostrils and of those eyes who it, observed cried, “Even so let the archbishop damned souls be charter or smoke, and of all who extinguished, stink, it.” violate this unrighteously interpret of Richard H was an reign to be remembered epoch with interest, and studied with those concerned care, or the constitutional United law of administering England States. A formal the Commons made complaint defects in the administration, well about King’s person and his household as and in his courts redress was of justice, demanded. in- Measures were taken the judicial for placing stitutions of foundation, solid constitutional England and to exclude from of the con- the realm the odious systems tinent. The first of the the was directed enactments against of usurpations the administered officers, who great military justice virtue Lords’ by of their Consta- seignoral powers—the and ble provide plaint the Earl Marshal. acts 13th Richard H of 8th and “because that, make com- Commonsdo grievous the court have ac Marshal Constable and

(cid:127)DECEMBER TERM, Jackson at al. v. Steamboat and do them, accroach, contracts, croached to daily covenants, debts, detinues, and other actions trespasses, many pleadable law, to the at prejudice great King, common .and therefore oppression people,” great grievance were and more and their confined prohibited, contracts “to of realm,” deeds arms without touch “things that realm, which law.” cannot be determined and dis- cussed the common received a The Lord Admiral similar rebuke. The High 13 Richard II recites, the act of “that preamble of complaints and their Admirals hold had because their ses- deputies arisen realm, divers to them places sions within accroaching their office, than authority belonged prejudice greater of the declared that the Admiral &c.” It was should not King, refilm, done within but with the. anything only meddle things as had been used in the time sea, of done Ed- did not suffice to restrain the But this HI. accroaching ward spirit lord and his deputies.’ feudal of Parliament “that the court enacted, after, of Two years of nor no manner power, cognizance, jurisdic- hath or contract, or of plea, quarrel, manner any other tion any bodies within the of counties, or either by done rising thing sea; wreck of also with water, and but all such or land all other quarrels, contracts, pleas, things manner'of rising as counties, well land as water bodies within the sea, tried, shall be termined, wreck and also aforesaid, land, before, laws of the remedied discussed, Never- his no manner. lieutenant, or Admiral nor theless, a man and of a death of doné in mayhem great main stream- riv- hovering great ships, being ers, of same and in no rivers, other points place beneath shall have rivers, cognizance.” the same Admiral II, the rule of of Richard the reign In the sixteenth year Constable, Marshal, like the Lords’ that'of chancery, the Roman In that it was year from England. Admiral, banished shall or cause to be pursue those-who enacted “Both that, elsewhere, or processes, in the court Rome pursued, whatsoever, which touch the King, or other instruments, things his shall be outlawed realm, his crown regality, against following In protection.” and reign out of King’s placed received the courts of spirit the accroaching rebuke. a further _ Richard Commons, the statutes Upon prayer such was inflicted upon H confirmed, penalty to their spirit. contrary in the admiralty, should maintain suits to check law degree served This statute body great COURT. SUPREME v. Steamboat Magnolia.

Jackson et al. these anomalous tendencies of and jurisdictions, usurping at in a measure the removal suits triable the com- to prevent ad to be aliam examen, per mon law alind It and discussed legem. the common the realm, eminence law of and placed enabled the Commons to encroachments other plead authority against and usurpations general liberty. But, were law and not allowed despotism to enter foreign though martial, the courts ecclesiastical, or ad- through kingdom to miral, sion was perversion powers judiciary purposes oppres- courts of the Star effectually prevented. Chamber and of limited Commission, to High spe- originally cific and matters “assumed intermeddle civil causes' objects, power interest between and only private party party, and adventured to liberties of determine estates and the land subject, ileges the.law of and the and contrary rights priv- “had subject,” and found experience be an intolerable and means to introduce burden, an arbi- and cases of trary power jurisdic- government.” Among tion claimed the Star between Chamber those mer- chant or between strangers Englishmen, strangers, the restitution of or taken, other ships goods unlawfully deceits practiced on merchants. One of most has this court left his practiced proctors “That Roman Senate, since the so testimony: in famous great all and nations as that be called minan ages jure they might there hath orbis, no court so near come them, state, honor, as this.” adjudication, But, the 16th of I, Charles was enacted, both of this and the respect Commission High Court, “that from henceforth no or court, council, place of. judicature, shall be erected, or ordained, constituted, appointed, which shall use, have, or exercise the same or like jurisdiction as is or hath been used, exercised,” or in those courts. practiced, But the statute did not terminate with this. patriot leaders of that to the act time, reviewing preamble various enactments in insti- parliamentary regard legal tutions of those declarations of the England, reciting pub- lic liberties which had four extended over a hundred period years, proceeded add another. was “that solemnly enacted, neither his have, or Council, nor his Majesty, Privy ought have, jurisdiction, bill, any pe- power, authority, English tition, libel, articles, other to exam- whatsoever, arbitrary any ine or draw in lands, question, determine, or tene- dispose ments, hereditaments, chattels, goods, subjects of this realm, but the same to be tried determined ought courts of course ordinary justice, ordinary of the law.” DECEMBER TERM, al.,r. Jackson et

This selection of few sections from various English statutes, I have mentioned, historical facts to illus- designed duration the contest intensity trate resulted in ing the institutions of on their exist- England placing judiciary In of contest, foundation. the midst that the settlements n were formed in in America which those institutions were suc- cessfully planted. have been the of into Constitution the They incorporated and Atlantic States, United from the Ocean to the Pa- prevail Mexico. cific,and from the Lakes to the Gulf of These statutes ecclesiastical, and martial, admiral, show how the courts courts an from were either royal authority, lim- arbitrary proceeding ited or suppressed. case like how would a that before arises, inquiry ,in either court have been decided at the of England, period at the the Declaration of of the Independence, adoption n the court of the United in of Constitution admiralty? a cause 1832 a arose in that whether court, In of question the between steam collision, vessels river arising navigating and sea, distance from the within the ebb Humber, short flow of the first tide, Hull, within the below the port bridges, of flood, the was three-fourths tide when cognizable exact of the an and . The conscientious court. judge, judge admiralty, II and the statutes of Richard answered: “Since of held, it has been that court of IY, strictly Henry in civil-causes corpus exercise cannot comitatus.” jurisdiction arising infra of as evidence I cite this not simply opinion of evidence but also as authentic law historical affording 2 fact it enunciates. Public Opinion, Hagg., (The 399.) now of the admiralty jurisdiction I inquire proceed in the colonies the courts of and exercised by vice-admiralty of Constitution. United States before adoption and four ex- included separate The jurisdiction subjects, shed each of will jurisdiction of title light amination acts of These breaches discussion. prize; naviga- are — tion, trade; and misdemeanors revenue, crimes seas; and cases civil maritime jurisdiction. high a commission special jurisdiction originated prize at commencement conferred usually from King, It is a his subordinates. the Admii’al and hostilities, upon derived. as thus ancient jurisdiction part Confederation, authorized to were the Articles of Congress, by cases determine appeal finally upon appoint this branch doubt has ever been kind, expressed no under Constitution acts Congress -the of jurisdiction, ' COURT. SUPREME 328 v.

Jackson et al. the District Constitution, is vested since adoption 483; Dod., Le Hunter, Courts of the United Coux 1 States. (The 325; 498; Gall., 2 613; How., Eden, Doug., ib., 20.) Britain and the vice-admiralty court of Great The admiralty cases over courts of the colonies vested with of a series of for the violation statutes regulation extent of trade this cided in the revenue in the colonies. The origin Columbus, de case explained British 1789, on appeal of that court of The learned vice-admiralty Barbados. judge court said: “The derives no jurisdiction court of admiralty causes of from the revenue from patent judge, ancient of the ercised and inherent customary prerogative ex Admiral, Crown, of its Lord person High his is mentioned Not word lieutenant revenue, King’s to have entirely appropri seems ated to the of law Court of both a court which is Exchequer, If, inherent equity. therefore, prerogative there for the right sea, seizures judging rights dues of the in Crown, war, as the whether of right or of peace in prize and reprisal, put that prerogative jurisdiction motion The Parliament. by special or act of commission first statute which in planta of revenue places judgment tions with II, 12th Charles courts of is the admiralty, ch. 18, sec. stat 1, which act has been followed by subsequent ute's.” This has not cited previous lucid the opinion any ^ discussion of it is in this the fact court, from subject not published in the reports. series regular Coll. (2 Jur., 82; 2 Dod. R., Adm. 352.) anBy act of the trade 22d II, and 23d Charles to regulate plantations, its en- suits authorized for breaches of were actments “in the or of court of Admiral High England, of his any acts vice-admirals,” or in The court record. of 7th and III, 8th 6th, 7th, of William 6th 5th, II, 4th, George in, confer and 8th, of George plenary jurisdiction same courts, in cases revenue, and trade, navigation, colonies, and the later to seiz- statutes extend their authority ures upon the land as well as water. for this juris- reason The diction, as given acts and themselves, repeated British as Jus- writers, not colonists; but, creditable tice Chase has for the court a reason assigned this similar acts of taken on the same Congress subject, offence can no British Reeves, History in his repeating opinion. and were Navigation “The laws of Shipping, says: navigation nowhere Eng- contemned disobeyed so as in New openly TERM, 1857. DECEMBER et Jackson al. Y. Steamboat obedience, were, land;” in minds as theirs “that, tempered the same were much the interests disobedience thing “that the contraband trade was car- of the mother country;” with, “that the exclusion of all ried on skill courage;” but native of Great Britain from subjects juries serving ” corrective; afforded no execution “that for the of securing purpose trade and acts of Government navigation, to institute courts of proceeded per- admiralty, appoint sons such and to the office those where of attorney plantations general known; had never before been such offices seems to have been a from this time there more general Hist., trade and obedience to acts navigation.” (Reeves’s Col., 79, 90; Const. Stokes’s 361.) acts was when the colonial settle The-first of these passed ments in New their infancy, England Virginia those had com before colonies been fairly remaining The familiar the colonists, menced. these act acts clause of the explain judiciary origin The act confers on 1789 on the same subject. judiciary of all District Courts civil causes of civil “cognizance all under im seizures laws of jurisdiction, including of the United when the seiz trade, post, navigation, are from sea ures are made on waters navigable dis tons within their burden, vessels of ten more respective difficult to' tricts, compre as well as seas.” It is high hend the court construe on what can grant principle law act over eases of under the seizure and trade an extension of to same-localities. impost civil admiralty jurisdiction, tion, waters, upon navigable in cases of is a seizure, special jurisdic of the courts of constitution belonging original And so this act treats it as such. in admiralty, until the formly uni latter in its doctrines these years, revolution discussions treated and painful it. long New with Case, Delovio v. Boit to the Jersey Navigation If the in out other on any hypothesis. meaning rest same to on the classes of had-been both cases supposed would been settled foundation, the whole controversy 3 Dall., of the case “La reported Vengeance,” of the vice-admiralty civil and The maritime jurisdiction under same and was exercised courts extended subjects as in Great Britain. “Upon colonies same limitations a learned Governments,” says colonial establishment of was to “it deemed courts, proper of one those invest judge jurisdiction; same civil maritime the and with the Governors Admiral it the Lord therefore usual for High became SUPREME COURT. Jackson al. et

Lords Commissioners to commission of vice-admiral to grant them.” The on the was office thus conferred Governor pre the vice-admirals the same with that of cisely England, was confined to that civil and which was R., branch his V. Ad. authority. original (Stewart’s 394, court of These courts subordinate 405.) admiralty IV, and, until the late of William it England, reign received them. R., Dod. Adm. appeals (1 jurisdiction 381.) of the criminal Admiral on incompatibility the clared seas with the constitution of high legal England, de corrected the 28 H. VIII, ch. 15. Hawkins, in his Pleas, that, with says being inconsistent the liberties of the nation that life man’s should taken any be unless his or the common law away, peers judgment this land, that act was Hawk. PL, And passed. (1 251.) the same is embodied Constitution of the principle with much United for the extension of enlargement; the gation under the admiralty jurisdiction laws, navi professedly for the trade, punishment of offences and misde III, meanors, was a cause of reign George prominent In American Revolution. Adams, John the Coke for the Revolution, citizens of Boston instruc prepared Otis, tions to Adams, their Samuel representatives, Cushing, said to and Hancock. The citizens their that, representatives, the late itself, “next to the revenue extensions of jurisdic our are tion admiralty greatest Ameri grievance. can courts of seem to be into a forming by degrees is to overturn our constitution, and to system of us deprive our inheritance, best the laws of the land. would be if trial of thought matter the statutes that innovation, England dangerous land was refer to given admiralty.” They III, declare passed reign George Charta; violate conclude they they Magna “ earnest recommendation to their representatives, everylegal measureto that the these hemay endeavor power confined their element, statutes; ancient proper English according remonstrate petition and late they extensions against their of nies and- monize doubt not that the jurisdictions, other colo suffer with will them, who har cheerfully provinces, them in wfith measures ofredress.” Other any justifiable of the same kind testimony the might adduced, show what of the colonists opinions were, extent legitimate the colonies. The journals of First render this Gongress (1774) unnecessary. They replete sentiment in the proof British pervading colonies. 331 TERM, DECEMBER v. Magnolia. Jackson Steamboat et.al. colonies are that “the respective declare That Congress' of and to the benefit to law of the common England, entitled colonization, of the as existed at the time such statutes English In their to their situation.”- which had been found suitable their for taking forth the cause necessity address setting for ex- arms, passed of statutes

up tending they allege their of beyond admiralty jurisdiction inhabitants of of In to the ancient limits. the several addresses to the colonies, Great of the Britain, people people of those and to the Ireland,, authority King, enlarged of trial their common-law courts, interference with the right and course of and their .of laws pro- offensive use by jury, from Roman distinctly repre- ceeding adopted tyrants, 32, 47, hended. 28, Jour. 16, (1 101.) Congr., can the statesmen and There be no room for doubt that who limits 1774 jurists composed regarded Congress of Richard courts of the statutes settled acts II, IV, VIII, and the Henry Henry early navigation trade, and such a and that the was enlargement as to Their resort to arms. declarations justify wrong bear no other and the of the interpretation; admiralty system States before was administered Constitution . (Bee’s 433; Dall., R., 419, Adm. opinion 33.) Before and Constitution the constitutional history examining of the Hnited will to ascertain the it not be irrelevant of the courts France, and their jurisdic- origin tion at of the period the Constitution. adoption was, France, Admiral the appointment. other feudatory, England, great of his justice England, seignoral privilege administering by judges there, There were as in contests with officersin to and the regard jurisdiction, royal authority was them. In interposed 1627, office, settle with its dig- abolished; was' it revived 1668, was .nity privileges, XIV, Louis in peared conferred a member of royal family; establishment aud its suppressed, judicial disap- other authorities courts and history, estab- being their The ordinances of perform lished functions. Louis defined the the courts XIV enlarged Admiral, the convenience of to determine commerce, promote unsettled contracts, concerning jurisprudence seamen, officers, the duties of define powers coasts adequate harbors, provide ports, police sea. . cases of Their extended to a number of contract ancient ordinance, and conferred the jurisdic- specified piracies tion and thefts sea, crews, over at desertion COURT. SUPREME

Jackson et al. offences, crimes, of all committed on trespasses, generally and the sea, roadsteads, havens, shores ports, the ebb-and flow tide. rivers France police navigation under the but were offi- placed admiralty, regulated by other the or- cers under other ordinances. Without dinances of Louis that supposing on this have authority subject, XIV a certain of France cause collision one that of of the riv- yet arising and flow of tide ers above the ebb the was.not cog- nizable of in France, before for centuries admiralty previously. ' The of the United States was judicial power to organized cases arise all that under the comprehend Con- might properly stitution, laws, States, treaties of United in and, addi- cases of tion, which, from the character of the de- parties,' cision This involve the of the Union. peace harmony might without dissent principle accepted the framers among .the of Constitution. “all The clause cases of admiralty maritime tion of jurisdiction” the Constitu- appears draught to and submitted imputed at Pinckney, Charles very early of the session of was- the Convention. It and was stage reported by committee of detail in first their report, with- adopted out debate. one In an incidental discussion, sittings, “ Mr. That Wilson, remai’ked: Pennsylvania, admiralty to be wholly National given Government,as ought it relatedto eases withinthe particular State,and a scene to which with controversy wouldbemost foreigners likely to happen.” De., Mad. No other 799.) observation in the (2 Convention illustrates this clause. The clause is expounded judiciary numbers of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton. He says, judicial power 1st, to all those cases extends— which arise the laws out United passed pur- suance of their constitutional just powers legislation; 2d, to all those which concern execution of .the provisions Union; contained expressly '3d, the Articles to all those in which the States 4th, United to all those party; which involve the whether peace Confederacy, relate to they the intercourse between the United States and nations, foreign toor e between th themselves; 5th, States all those which originate and are seas, high jurisdiction; and, all those in State lastly, tribu- nals be cannot to be unbiassed supposed and impartial. “ In 5th he most regard class, idol- says: bigoted izers of State not' .thus far shown a authority disposition to deny -the national judiciary cognizance maritime

DECEMBER TERM, 1857.' Jackson et al. v. These so on the laws of generally depend nations, causes. affect the so commonly rights fall foreigners, they relative to-the

within the-considerations public peace.' are, most mitted of them Confederation, important present sub- to Federal jurisdiction.”- Similar remarks are to be found in- debates in various Conventions the States which adopted Constitution,, as judiciary except In none of Conventions was the incidentally occurring.. clause Constitution considerately examined, .and in Convention no ob- Virginia Virginia; was made this clause. said there, jection Randolph .Gov. that “Cases of propriety tranquillity, reputation, and maritime jurisdiction'cannot-with State courts. As our vested in national particular nations, intercourse foreign decision's, as there- affected by admiralty bemay ought there can be no if there uniform, fore to be and as uniformity jurisdictions, jurisdiction- be thirteen distinct independent Mr. Madison, in in the Federal- judiciary.” be exposition ought a similar article, opinion. luminous expressed of He said: “The same reasons supported grant of af- causes as existed in the cognizance jurisdiction fecting grant “As inter- ministers.” our and ambassadors foreign affected decisions of this will be by natibfts course with foreign In the same speech, be uniform.” kind, they ought to n controversiesdirectly betioeencitizen all affirmed, that statesman the local courts. And after with still remain and citizenwill in ana- find Chief Justice Jay, was adopted, Constitution we and the United assigning the judicial power lyzing as “because, of it, of this portion reasons for says grant, whose of nations, rights are the joint property the seas nations the law of thereto regulated by relative privileges to a national juris- cases treaties, necessarily belong such and diction.” the ob- court, now The instance jurisdiction so interest, questions and involving ambition of such ject the Con- friends of referred was hardly threatening, its .of by any -was vigil- alarm expressed an stitution, and not jurisdiction The prize opponents. ant court—that jealous of the Union relations the foreign which concerned to the related so intimately and which or peace, war in honor all those in the minds of of the country dignity —was subject. who refei’red statesmen the Con- of any opponent enter the imagination did not had centuries which for that jurisdiction conceive stitution been any could, county from the any body repelled sternly through assume device, a. artifice, authority, and water-course within lake extent every the whole COURT. 334 SUPREME Jackson al. r. Steamboat et limits of United described tbe States. collision at libel of the occurred which appellants place formed State of Had a similar cause then part arisen, Georgia. I can affirm not individual member safety perfect State or Convention, Federal, whether who was con- any cerned in or the of the Constitution, would making ratifying have the-case. opinion apparent expediency, the existence of an admitted over I facts, affirm no Such being change men, nor the condition of the nor country, any can render that constitutional which those did who made the Constitution be so. design “If Constitution are provisions deemed Justice, Sandford, said Chief Scott v. unjust,” How., is a mode in the instrument itself prescribed “there amended; but, which it must be while it remains may unaltered,' it as it was understood time construed at the of its adop- in words, tion. It is not same but same in mean- only same powers Government, delegates ing, same secures the to the citizen; and as rights privileges its form, it continues exist in it present long speaks not words, in the same the same but with with which only meaning framers, it came from the hands of when spake voted on and of the United States. adopted people That framers of the Constitution to secure to designed the Federal Government a control over all plenary in their questions intercourse.with arising foreign nations, which war, whether of assumed a peace juridical form courts of its own is more than through appointment, probable from the instrument and the contemporary expositions I have This was the quoted. primary object designed authors of the Constitution in It is granting jurisdiction. likewise that the had probable exer from, cised of the colonies to the infancy George reign III, under laws of admiralty, trade, navigation, revenue, was considered branch of forming legitimate the Such was the admiralty jurisdiction. opinion First Constitution, under the and it has been Congress' confirmed in Dall., 2 397; Cr., 405; 443; court. 4 2 Cr., H., (3 210.) If the the instance of at all jurisdiction court was remembered, the reminiscence was not of nature create to alarm. The cases its few for were and defined. employment Those did nor any code, affect depend purely municipal any of interest. related question political for the public They most transactions a distance, to at which did not part involve nor the interests attráct the observation of considerable any . No one class.of could that this jurisdiction, persons imagine 1857. TERM,

DECEMBER 385 al. Jackson et v. Steamboat those to it, of who were exercise the could interpretation by penetrate of ten enter within a vessel tons might wherever any the States. what arises, power jurisdiction The question of the United States this reversal of claimed for the courts (cid:127) Court of Alabama? District the judgment that court to The Court take requires cognizance Supreme arise and maritime on jurisdiction of cases of admiralty seas. defi- if rivers, lakes and on they high Dunlap, 1835, that “it com- said, the constitutional jurisdiction ning contracts, torts, The lat- injuries. all maritime prehends bounded the former ex- ter branch is necessarily by locality; whensoever made contracts, may tends all be over form which or whatever executed, may stipulation the sea.” or commerce of business, relates to the navigation, Pr., (Dunlap’s 43.) This for.the set was broad admiralty up pretension v. under which Boit, Mr. in Delovio Justice Story, this court before profession thirty years legal being staggered it. The definition be deduced to maintain from That able decision any present deprives significance.' of the subject. affords no description if carried decree, under this The definition ex-. logical thus: “That tent, juris- will run extends all courts of States diction of the United cases arise in or concern torts, contracts, injuries, or business of citizens commerce, United navigation, on States, therein, condmorant persons navigable waters of the world.” I now to examine proceed jurisprudence ascertain the various

the United stages pro which has been attained. tend to-day goal gress first of the existence of years Union ency was to limit tion opinion constitu according Justice British court admiralty. so Washington McGill, Dall., 395; v. 1806; United States declared in his maintained the same doctrine. R., (Bald. learned successor 544.) was assailed Justice v. Delovio Story Boit, This opinion 1815. Gall., 395, year arose on libel founded question insurance, and of the court was sus policy, if I not universal, I believe tained. express general, opinion that this of the neous. of erro saying profession, judgment legal Curtis to intimate the I understand Justice existence such an Gloucester opinion Company Insurance 2 Curt. R., Younger, COURT. SUPREME Magnolia. et al.

Jackson T. Steamboat in the cause of Delovio Boit, of Justice Story, The opinion remarkable, research, my for its opinion, celebrated is conclusions, and facility its boldness novel asserting historical evidence that contradicted authentic with which The examination of the authori- of. English them disposed conclusions. in the resulted following ties the statutes of Richard II of Henry In construction and without he hesitation,” has uniforítüy “the IV, admiralty were never intended or “maintained that they to-abridge says, court; meant restrain the rightful suits contracts upon to take any pretence entertaining away land, and terrene referring solely wholly upon af- arising which, and- ; arising ports, fairs torts injuries upon though tide; and that and flow not done within ebb were as the manifest statutes, of these well object the language in the in- the on (cid:127)thereof, as stated preambles, petitions founded, is satisfied were fully exposition. which they that, statutes, with still So consistently may 1. Over torts and injuries upon exercise jurisdiction: high of the tide, flow and in ebb and in seas, within and. ports 2. Over the first all’maritime bridges; streams below great abroad; Over matters of 3. contracts at home prize arising its incidents.” In conclusions 'and regard law he of common says: these statutes That the common-lawinterpretation abridges, done on the sea. 2. wholly That things these statutes is the common-law interpretation indefensible it and' the decisions founded upon are in- principle, 3. That consistent interpretation of unsatisfactory. statutes its ancient jurisdic- the same does-not abridge any all contracts, but leaves of maritime tion, torts, cognizance and in seas, and'oftences far injuries, as of high ports as 4. That this is true and flow of the tide. the regard the ebb limit In to thé admiralty jurisdiction, principle. we steamboats, of the collision between ships case authoritative declaration I admiralty. the have judge cited it to this statement of show that law English same accurate. Nicholl, And Sir John in 3 283, from other 257, differs materially portions Hagg., that the court statement. be true English ad- may same took Xing, miralty, approbation" cognizance the limits of causes Englandr-in despite arising But the Parliament. great charter, prohibition statutes the liberties of the realm, importance other It is also authority. also violated same true. apd the the twelve of England, attorney judges gen- DECEMBER TERM, y. Jackson et al. and the eral, presence Council, King Privy debate, after solemn an to concede signed agreement But such act was jurisdiction. larger Ten those extra-judicial. illegal, judges judges, later,

(cid:127)four in the case for years presided against Hampden ship was the writ inventor of the for money; attorney general its Council was that which and Laud levy; Strafford Privy had to rule Parliament, without which organized England was made hateful its and violent arbitrary proceedings. And the contract itself was denounced as unconstitutional by Lord' Coke, but a who, before, few had years prepared Petition of in which the constitution of Right legal England was embodied. all contracts, For made and pleas, quarrels, done upon river, haven, or within the realm of creek, Eng- land, he said, “the Admiral, without hath not question, juris- diction, then he should hold done pleá things of the body which are triable verdict of twelve county, men, determinable merely law, common and not within law; civil for that were change and alter the law in such cases.” Co. Inst., And (4 135.) in 1640, to close finally, King the court the door all such of the attempts “ and his Council, the fifth Privy section of the act For of the Council, and for regulating Privy taking away called- the Star commonly" Chamber,” which I have al- ready quoted, adopted. great in contest question controlling long of contest period was as to the supremacy Parliament, and a very important form of that related to its question or- ganization courts and its of their regulation jurisdiction. When the of Parliament had been supremacy established by the Revolution, its enactments which had defined the consti- tutional posed limits of the courts of judicature no longer op- contradicted. The error of in v. opinion Delovio Boit, on this in subject, in its my consists judgment, adoption of the harsh and acrimonious censures of discarded and dis- comfited civilians on the conduct of patriots great Eng- land, whose courage, patriotism, secured sagacity, rights of her peojDle, evidence historical facts. But the royal ordinances-of Louis XIV af- unquestionably ford that to the decision and in case support which opinion cannot be found in the law. The of insurance English policy is enumerated the contracts submitted to the French among courts of arid the in admiralty, formulary which toas torts and offences is in the is a free expressed opinion translation from the French in the case of Delovio v. I refer to the ordinances. opinion as the first and most Boit, complete

vol. xx. 22 COURT.

338 SUPREME Jackson t. Steamboat et al. author afterwards introduced system exposition in the Jefferson, 1825; Thomas

as the doctrine of 1837; case, 1838; v. and Coombs’s Phoebus, Orleans which was more sanctioned court opinions fully he in that cases; and because subsequent opinion defends which are of the admiralty upon the jurisdiction grounds not to be reconciled with the court present opinion cause. Pet., v. Phoebus, 173, In the Steamboat Orleans decided “ is, true test in the vessel be interior the court whether 1835, say: substantially engaged navigation, not on In the trade, tide-waters. latter navigation is no In Coombs, there the United States jurisdiction.” case the direct arose as to the of this Pet., tion. The limits question jurisdic “ court as in former in cases answers, cases, That pure the act limited dependent upon locality done,'it ly flows; sea and to tide-waters as far the tide it does mark. not reach It is doctrine beyond high-water repeat asserted and we see by, court,, no reason edly depart In Clark, from it.” tion v. 5 same How., 441, Waring ques was considered court. The again claimants extent of for the their court largest jurisdiction expressed Mr. Justice opinion decisions He cited former through Wayne. with and said that was no approbation, question court; the in “that it was res in this longer open-in judicata court.” Mr. Justice 1848, Nelson, Again, expressing the four who views of concurred with Justice judges Wayne case, in the former Steam Jersey (New Navigation Company 6 Bank, How., v. Merchants’ disclaimed 344,) jurisdiction-over “ contracts out of internal commerce of growing purely as well as State, commerce tide-waters,” beyond stating “ that in domestic generally their operation, origin and could have intended been hardly to be drawn within the of the Federal I courts.” think cognizance manifest, it that the case before the court been had it ten produced before years it would ago, for the unanimously dismissed want of jurisdiction. From the decision in the Thomas Jefferson, in 1825, that of the New Jersey v. Navigation Company the Merchants’ 1848, in two Bank, have- generations judges to doctrines agreed irreconcilable with the wholly judgment now given. In 1851, case of the Genesee Chief v. How., Fitzhugh, 443, came before the court. It was a cause of collision between steamboats Lake in Ontario, the com navigating engaged merce of different States. The District Court exercised juris diction under act February, 1845, Stat. at L., (5 726,)

DECEMBER TERM, 1857.

Jackson et al. which for such cases provided on the lakes, navigable waters connected with them, the same if the manner as same vessels had been seas or on employed navigating high tide-waters within the awith admiralty jurisdiction, proviso that all the issues of fact be tried might by jury. The court decided act that the was not a of com- regulation merce between the and that States, conferred on District Court could be sustained as a regulation commerce that the among judicial power United States could not be such extended by argument, proceed legislation. court, after this sound constitutional say: “ If the of these terms in the Constitution now for meaning the first time this we think, before th ere be could, brought no hesitation in lakes their waters sayingthatthe connecting - embraced them. These are, truth, lakes inland seas. side, Different States on them on one and for- border nation the other; commerce be- eign great growing tween different States and nation, subject foreign to all the incidents and hazards that attend commerce on ocean. Hostile them, fleets have encountered prizes whicNpxists made; have been reason every grant the General jurisdiction to Government on the admiralty lakes, seas, Atlantic to the There is force applies equal an. equal for the instance and for the necessity prize power, n law; power court to Admiralty of'the administer. if the one cannot be neither can the other.” established, All the considerations mentioned in applied argument river in do and some of them at Mississippi time. I have stated the entire the of the court upon argument whether the court had question, precise “the cause for court say, only locality. damage that there is no tide in is, made to objection is said them; waters lakes, or the connecting apd under and maritime known jurisdiction, stood in and this time the at the Constitution England country .was to the tide.” was confined the ebb flow of adopted, The Chief Justice to the combats objection jurisdiction the court that tide in that for the court cause, pronounces does not form the criterion In jurisdiction. opinion, my the court in favor of is argument of jurisdiction the imposing; as also that the taken objection reported appellants, not of the to objection does opinion, embody strength it i /the To aseertain'the jurisdiction. opinion, scope s and the worth examine the to necessary argurnent of the taken to the combated. objection

340 COURT. / SUPREME v. Magnolia.- al. ei

Jhckion not seas to sig lakes are -'certainly The. according the Admi ih the law of nations or of that word nification for all not common They'are highways ral’s commission. the mu all, to of. exempted nations, open nicipal ships over and control of sovereignty any.. regulation manner in the same tpe to proprietors, them riparian belongs and the American rivers; the- Rhine”or Rio Grande as over Queen adminis courts to and British have respectively States titles, limits their -several ter their laws within those lakes, who ofipnd may against against middle the court of cannot them". -The jurisdiction an ex as seas. But the lakes form the lakes boundary supported are a com of the United ternal maritime the inhabitants is common to which treaty mercial highway, and commercial countries whose posses of the two sions border and commerce of these countries them. The great and in the absence exposed depredation; growing, boundaries, defined and without police of navy, for the frontier be inefficient on this pro States exposed may not interests of the I shall inquire Union. tection whether considerations, these those them among decisions in to the river authorized Mississippi, applicable Bull, How.; 12 and Fritz v. the Genesee Chief Fitzhugh, have 466; I How., How., Walsh v. yielded Rogers, decisis,and the decisions stare have to.the principle.of applied I I came into this But not one of as found when court. them has to the case before this these considerations any application The Alabama river is sea.' Its court. not inland naviga was this collision tion vessel when open single foreign it the author took No had established on by place. port over it consists The commerce that ity mainly passes Congress. received and the State, objects products whole, . For its in length at the of the State. only seaport exchange, Government, to the same its State subject does not involve police necessity navy. noticed in the'Gen- objection court opinion Chief, esee of opposed argument against meet, adver- court,-1 said does not force In was lim- the domain of the Admiral sary opinion. Erance, ited water sea, coasts, havens, to justice shores ports, high- and his mark, seignoral right dispense confined to his domain. The the ex- there was .contest to. of rival had tent But in Great Britain cofitest seignories. a more contro- than is found in a profound to be significance between rival feudatories. merely versy The, Admiral’s there had no salt- relation n . DECEMBER TERM, al. Magnolia. Jackson et Steamboat ness or freshness of the waters, nor whether the rivers were or public private, or The floatable. was, navigable question whether should be Englishmen laws, or governed English n “whether contracts, should be pleas, quarrels, drawn.ad aliud examen,and be sentenced aliam The per legem.” English Commons abhorred the of the courts of summary jurisdiction civil law, their examination of witnesses, their private rejection of a- jury the discretion allowed to the vicinage, and their code. erected a of judge, barrier foreign They penal statutes to exclude them from the either body any county, on land or water. of the several have people States retained the popular element of the administration of and the at- judicial England, tachment of her to the institutions of local people self-govern- ment. that free no- from an In Alabama, inviolate,” the “trial is by jury preserved as “an essential being regarded principle liberty In the court of government.” people A place his jurors. single appointment judge, deriving Government, administers in that court a independent code which a Federal has described as judge “resting com- general maritime,law, that it not principies petent to the local to or States, by any legislation, enlarge, or limit, (2 narrow it.” R., Story 456.) If the carried to its extent, of this decree is principle logical all cases or property persons arising transportation the towns and of the different landing-places State; towns and whether- or out of Other landing-places, all cases of the in- or tort damage arising navigation ternal waters,‘whether or title security persons involving to the all either; cases of to those in in property, supply engaged not to enumerate others, will be navigation, cognizable ' Courts District United States. If dogma to the administered of laws pre- judges regard System ad aliud ex- then be drawn vails, this,whole class of cases may amen, code, under the of a whether dominion placed foreign theyarise are citizens others. The States deprived among their power to mould own laws respect persons limits, their and which things subject appropriately to their of. people self-govern- sovereignty. right extent, that ment is thus precise abridged abridged — law, another Government appointed may impose judge sanctioned representatives people, upon agents the citizens of the here assumes the State. Thus contest same its last Britain, as Great and, analysis, significance determine involves the question right people their own And laws institutions. objec- surely legal COURT. SUPREME

Jackson et al. v. whether tion to decree consideration independent is. sea. the river is from the tide's,-or subject navigable This decree derives no from the Con- strength legislation is to be deduced from act of but gress, strong argument 1845 in learned author of the opinion to it. The opposition in Jefferson, and in case of the Thomas Boit, Delovio v. author of the has the being (Justice reputation Story,) ‘ act. He of under the administration to proposed judicial bring States, the United cases that did not to the jurisdic- belong tion of the authoritative of the exposition admiralty under first the feasi- Constitution this court. The suggestion in is to such law be found opinion bility case of given relieve and is to Jefferson, 1825, Thomas in enough that court from the decided case imputation having without a of the question. propér appreciation magnitude The act of 1845 that cases admission, involves the arising waters within the limits States other than tide of the United waters were law, cases at and that under the common jury, seventh amendment Constitution, of the must be preserved. It was framed on the increase hypothesis Congress might judicial the United so as to .power all comprise cases on, to, or which to which arising -any subject related legislation extended. It is that this court in apparent 1847, and afterwards in when suits v. Clark, Waring and the New v.Co. The Merchants’ Jersey Bank, Navigation were so discussed, unconscious of the elaborately wholly fact that this act contained a in any jurisdiction recognition additional to admiralty, what had been exercised. previously The only inference that can be drawn the act properly 1845, my is, that opinion', the limit recognised, Congress that the decisions in the earlier in this court had estab cases lished for and maritime .the its own jurisdiction,-and to confer a incapacity more of that kind. enlarged I have performed my duty, at my opinion, expressing large my convictions on the of the subject powers of the United States tire under clause of Constitution I have considered. There have been cases, since I into this court,'involv- came ing jurisdiction of the court seas on the and their tide- waters, the lakes, and the I have applied Mississippi river.- the law as settled in previous .decisions, deference principle of stare decisis, objection— opposing ahy without in a (cid:127)though portion those decisions the reasons court did not own satisfy my I consider that judgment. present case carries an jurisdiction to incalculable extent beyond any other,-and all others, have been pronounced, heretofore

DECEMBER TERM, 1857.

Goodmanv. Simonds. that it must create revolution in the admiralty adminis- States; tration courts of United that the will change and discontent, and involve produce heart-burning with it collisions State State Legislatures jurisdictions. And, finally, ais violation reserved in the rights Constitution of United States to the States and the people. Timothy S. Goodman, Error, Plaintiff John Simonds. accepted of-exchange placed Where and endorsed bill drawer as security collateral for creditor, his own debt the hands of his and when the such, acceptor, creditor jury, came to sue the the court instructed “that if plaintiff facts that would him suspect, circumstances were known to the as caused ordinary prudence suspect, have caused one of that the drawer had bill, authority no interest in the benefit, no use the same his own by ordinary diligence he facts,” jury could ascertained then the these would find for the defendant—this instruction was erroneous. examined, The facts of the to ascertain there case whether or not was sufficient go points. jury evidence to these again says, negotiable This court a bona holder of instrument for a valu- fide consideration, impeach validity able the antecedent becomes although notice of without facts which between parties, if takes it under an he endorsement made before the same due, may unaffected facts, holds the title these thereon, recover parties may as between the antecedent transaction without legal validity. a party possession negotiable instrument, presumption Where of a is in is that value, proof disputes he it; holds and the burden of him who exception being appears where defect on the the instrument. face ‘of question jury, knowledge-of of fact for whether had or not the holder .is existing antecedently defects to the transfer to him. English ^ and American cases examined. Surrendering previously given, affording collateral securities increased gence as time, furnish sufficient consideration for the-transfer of new n laterals. This case was error, writ of from the Circuit up, by brought ' Court of the United for the of Missouri. States district

Goodman was a of Missouri. Ohio, citizen and Simonds The suit was bill by Goodman, upon following brought of exchange; $5,000.

EXCHANGE FOR Sept. O., 12, Cincinnati, Four this, months after first of date my exchange, (second thousand to the order John five dol unpaid,) pay Sigerson lars, value account. the same to received, charge Sigerson. ob’t serv’t, Tour Wallace Mr. Mo. St. Simonds, Louis, John John face of the bill was Upon “Accepted, written, Simonds;” the same following: and endorsed

Case Details

Case Name: Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Apr 13, 1858

Citation: 61 U.S. 296

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS