(a) THE BASIS OF THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL

JUDICIARY.

§ 506. Three great jurisdictions embraced within the judicial power of the United States.-The judicial power of the United States, granted and defined by the federal constitution,

extends to and embraces three great classes of judicial controversies, which were clearly defined and distinguished in the judiciary of England and her colonies at the time of the establishment of our government, namely: (1) actions at common law, (2) suits in equity, and (3) suits in admiralty. And the constitutional grant of judicial power, by necessary implication, recognized the existence of three great, distinct systems of law and jurisprudence, namely: (1) the body of rules and principles of the English common law, which the English people had, by the methods of legal induction and judicial evolution, developed and established, and whose principles formed the municipal jurisprudence of England and the palladium of English liberties, and were brought to this country by the colonies and formed the basis of the jurisprudence of the several states; and (2) the system of English equity jurisprudence, which had been developed and administered by the high court of chancery in England, and which has also become a part of the jurisprudence of the several states; and (3) the system of maritime law which had been developed and matured by the most enlightened and commercial nations of the world, and which had been established and existed for centuries before the birth of this nation, and which, at the time of our. revolution, was administered by the admiralty courts of continental Europe, the high court of admiralty in England, and by the vice admirals under special commission in the colonies.1

1 U. S. Const. art. III, sec. 2; 1 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 20, secs. 9, 11, pp. 73, 77; Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); The Belfast v. Boon, 7 Wall. 624 (19:267); Sears v. Wills, 1 Black, 108, 115 (17:35): Waring v. Clark, 5 How. 441 (12:226); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 609 (22:654); The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 526, 527 (17: 183); Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017); De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398, Fed. Cas. No. 3,776.

In The Lottawana, supra, Bradley, Justice, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

"That we have a maritime law

of our own, operative throughout the United States, cannot be doubted. The general system of maritime law which was familiar to the lawyers and statesmen of the country when the constitution was adopted, was most certainly intended and referred to when it was declared in that instrument that the judicial power of the United States shall extend 'to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.' But by what criterion are we to ascertain the precise limits of the law thus adopted? The constitution does not define it. It does not declare whether it was intended to embrace the entire

§ 507. The question as to the limits of the judicial power in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is a judicial question.— The constitution delegated to the federal government judicial power in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, without, however, precisely fixing the definite boundaries of that power; and the question as to the true limits and definite boundaries of the power is exclusively a judicial question, to be determined, in the last resort, by the federal supreme court, as the cases calling for it may arise, by a reasonable construction of the words of the constitution containing the grant of the power, taken in connection with the whole instrument, and the purposes for which the power was granted to the federal government, and a consideration of the constitutional history of this country and the principles worked out by previous adjudications of the court upon the subject, and the actual conditions affecting navigation and the necessities of maritime enterprises and interests. No law enacted by a state, or by the congress of the United States can increase or diminish the judicial power vested by the constitution in the federal government in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.2

maritime law as expounded in the
treatises, or only the limited and
restricted system which was re-
ceived in England, or lastly, such
modification of both of these as
was accepted and recognized as
law in this country. Nor does the
constitution attempt to draw the
boundary line between maritime
law and local law; nor does it lay
down any criterion for ascertain-
ing that boundary. It assumes
that the meaning of the phrase,
'admiralty and maritime jurisdic-
tion,' is well understood. It treats
this matter as the cognate ones of
common law and equity, when it
speaks of 'cases in law and equity,'
or of 'suits at common law,' with-
out defining those terms, assuming
them to be known and under-
stood."

2 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 465 (13:1058); The St. Law

rence, 1 Black, 522, 532 (17:180); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 609 (22:654); Butler V. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017); The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, 369 (49:236).

In the St. Lawrence, supra, Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the court, while discussing the distinction between the power of a court upon a question of jurisdiction, and its authority over its forms of procedure, said:

"Judicial power, in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, is delegated by the constitution to the federal government in general terms, and courts of this character had then been established in all commercial and maritime nations, differing, however, materially in different countries in the powers and duties confided

3

§ 508. Same-Judicial tendency to enlarge the jurisdiction. There has been a uniform and unbroken judicial tendency to enlarge and extend, by constitutional construction, the judicial power of the federal government over admiralty and maritime causes, in order to meet the needs and requirements of the growing commerce of the country, in so far as that commerce is affected by navigation and maritime transactions and their aids and incidents. This policy of extension may be said to have begun with the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, rendered in 1851, overruling a decision rendered in 1825, by Justice Story, holding that the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty of the United States, was limited to the ebb and flow of the tide. The opinion of Chief Justice Taney established the modern doctrine, which has since been invariably adhered to and followed, that "not the ebb and flow of the tide, but the actual navigability of the water, is the test of jurisdiction," in all admiralty and maritime cases depending upon locality." The common law principle of flexbility, which enabled the Engilsh courts to apply the principles of the common law to the expanding necessities of civilization, has been applied by the

to them; the extent of the jurisdiction conferred depending very much upon the character of gov ernment in which they were created; and this circumstance, with the general terms of the grant, rendered it difficult to define the exact limits of its power in the United States.

"This difficulty was increased by the complex character of our government, where separate and distinct specified powers of sov ereignty are exercised by the United States and a state independently of each other within the same territorial limits. And the reports of the decisions of this court will show that the subject has often been before it, and carefully considered, without being able to fix with precision its definite boundaries; but certainly no

state law can enlarge it, nor can an act of congress or rule of court make it broader than the judicial power may determine to be its true limits. And this boundary is to be ascertained by a reasonable and just construction of the words used in the constitution, taken in connection with the whole instrument, and the purposes for which admiralty and maritime jurisdiction was granted to the federal government."

3 The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, 369 (49:236).

4 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058).

5 The Thomas Wheat. 428 (6:358).

Jefferson, 10

6 Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 (13: 1068); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (19:999).