first section of this act that they by law have and possess in respect of the offenses in said chapter and title in the first section of this act mentioned, and said courts, respectively, are also for the purposes of this act vested with all and the same jurisdiction they, respectively, have by force of title thirteen, chapter three, and title thirteen, chapter seven, of the Revised Statutes of the United States. (26 U. S. Stats. 424, § 2.)

Territorial extent of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the Federal government is not limited to tide waters, but extends to all public navigable lakes and rivers. (Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; 35 1. ed. 631; Act of Sept. 4, 1890, ante.) The Savannah river, from its mouth to the highest point to which it is navigable, is subject to the maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. (Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; 35 1. ed. 631.) Grand river is a navigable water of the United States, within the meaning of the acts of Congress of July 7, 1838, and Aug. 30, 1852. (The Daniel Ball v. United States, 10 Wall. 557.) The boundaries and limits of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are matters of judicial cognizance, and cannot be affected or controlled by legislation, whether State or national. (The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 322; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558.) The act of Congress of February 26, 1845, conferring jurisdiction upon the United States district courts in certain cases upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting the same, is constitutional. (The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 446; Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296; Allen v. Newberry, 21 How. 244.) The admiralty jurisdiction on the lakes and the waters connecting those lakes, is governed by the act of February 26, 1845. (The Ad. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555.

Clause 8-Civil causes, admiralty and maritime -admiralty jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the district court, and the law governing its exercise, are to be sought in the general maritime law. (The Catharina, 1

Pet. Adm. 104; The Seneca, Gilp. 10; S. C. 6 Pa. L. J. 213.) To all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction refers to the general system of maritime law prevailing before the adoption of the Constitution. (The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558.) The jurisdiction is founded on the subject-matter, and not on the citizenship of the parties (Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Peters, 324; The Calisto, 2 Ware, 30; The Emma, 3 Cent. L. J. 285); and so far as it relates to the subject-matter, it means that maritime law which had been and was being exercised in this country prior to and at the adoption of the Constitution (Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock, 4 Woods, 265); but only so far as adopted by the laws and usages of the country. (The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Norwich v. Wright, 13 Wall. 116; Steam Nav. Co. v. Dyer, 4 Morr. Trans. 277.) The nature and extent of the admiralty jurisdiction must be determined by the laws of Congress, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and by usages prevailing in the courts of the State when the Federal Constitution was adopted (Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68); yet the practice of the colonial admiralty courts is high authority upon the extent of the jurisdiction._ (Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 43; S. C. 1 Sprague, 404; The Kate Trema ne, 5 Ben. 60.) With reference to locality, it comprises the navigable waters of the nation as well as the high seas. (Cope v. Vailette Dry Dock, 4 Woods, 265). The difference between admiralty and maritime jurisdic ion is merely nomina! (The Sandwich, 1 Pet. Adm. 233), and courts of every nation will administer justice according to their laws, unless a different law is shown to apply, and this rule applies to transactions on the high seas. (Steam Nav. Ĉɔ. v. Dyer, 4 Morr. Trans. 277.) The grant of admiralty jurisdiction is therefore not limited by what were cases of ad miralty in England when the Constitution was adopted. (Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; New Jersey S. N. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344; The Gold Hunter, Blatchf. & H. 300; De Lovio v. Bort, 2 Gall. 398; The Seneca, Gilp. 10; Kynoch v. Ives, Newb. 205; The Volunteer, i Sum. 551; Steele v. Thacher, 1 Ware, 91; The Huntress, 2 Ware, 89.) The jurisdiction of the district court in admiralty and maritime law is exclusive, and a State law cannot confer it on State courts, as such legislation is in

violation of section 711 of the Revised Statutes (Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., 5 Hughes, 372); nor can a State confer jurisdiction on the admiralty courts, nor enlarge the jurisdiction. (Orleans v. The Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175; The Hornet, Crabbe, 426; The Richard Busteed, 1 Sprague, 441; The Chusan, 2 Story, 455; The Mary Stewart, 5 Hughes, 312.) So it cannot confer jurisdiction over a contract not maritime in its nature (Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129; The Harriet, Olcott, 229); and jurisdiction once acquired in admiralty cannot be divested by acts subsequently cognizable in the law tribunals. (Amer. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Blatchf. & H. 9.)

Jurisdiction, extent of.-The admiralty jurisdiction extends wherever ships float, and navigation successfully a ds commerce. (Hine v. The Trevor, 4 Wall. 555.) It embraces bays, harbors and inlets, although they are within the territorial limits of a State (The Wave v. Hyer, Blatchf. & H. 235; The Martha Anne, Olcott, 13), and ports and havens as a portion of the high seas. (Amer. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Blatchf. & H. 9; Borden v. Hiern, Blatchf. & H. 233; The Lotty, Olcott, 329.) It extends to all public rivers as far as they are navigable (Martin v. Acker, Blatchf. & H. 279; The Jenny Lind, Newb. 443; Huber v. Coal Barges, 3 Am. L. T. 109; The Ida Stockdale, 22 Pitts L. J. 9), and navigable waters, though they may be within the body of the county. (Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; The New World v. King, 16 How. 469; Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48; Philadelphia etc. R. R. Co. v. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209; Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; The Commerce, 1 Black, 574; Montieth v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Blatchf. 279; Robert v Skolfield, 3 Ware, 184; Thomas v. Gray, Blatchf. & H. 493; The Thomas Scattergood, Gilp. 1.) The jurisdiction depends upon the navigability of the water, and not upon the ebb and flow of the tide. (Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466; Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; contra, Orleans v. The Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175; The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428.) So it extends to interior navigable rivers of the United States (Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; Cheeseman v. Two Ferry

boats, 2 Bond. 363; McGinnis v. Pontiac, 5 McLean, 359; The Beacon, Newb. 274), and although they are wholly within the boundary of a State (Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; Taylor v. Harwood, Taney, 473); but not necessarily over every stream whose occasional floods may suffice to float a steamboat. (Jones v. the Coal Barges, 3 Wall. Jr. 53.) The district court takes cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty jurisdiction upon the lakes and waters connecting them, the same as upon the high seas and bays, and rivers navigable from the sea. (The Genesce Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15.) Those waters are navigable in law which are navigable in fact (The Montello, 11 Wall. 411; the General Cass, 1 Brown, 334), and the capability of use by the public for purposes of transportation and commerce is the true criterion of the navigability of a river, and not the extent and manner of that use. (The Montello, 11 Wall. 411.) A river is navigable when it forms by itself, or by connection with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce may be carried on (11 Wall. 411), and the liability to temporary interruptions does not destroy its character as a navigable stream. (Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48; Cheeseman v. Two Ferryboats, 2 Bond. 363.) An artificial canal publicly used for purposes of comme ce is navigable wat r within the meaning of that term as giving jurisdiction in admiralty. (Maloney v. City of Milwaukee, 1 Fed. Rep. 611; The Oler, 2 Hughes, 12; The Avon, 1 Brown, 170.)

How far it is exclusive and independent of state courts.-The jurisdiction of the district court of the United States in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is not ousted by the adoption of the State laws upon a particular subject of maritime jurisdiction, such as pilotage, by the act of Congress. (Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 105.) So of a state law regulating the oyster fisheries. (Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71.) State statutes which attempt to confer upon State courts a remedy for marine torts or contracts, by proceedings strict y in rem, are void. (The Ad. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555.) Exclusive orig inal cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is conferred upon the district courts.

(The Admiral v. United States, 3 Wall. 603.) The jurisdiction to enforce a maritime lien by a proceeding in rem is exclusively in the district courts. (Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185.) Not only of other Federal courts, but of the State courts also. (The Ad. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555.) The entire admiralty power of the Constitution is lodged in the Federal courts, and the district courts have "exclusive original cognizance," exclusive of the State courts. (The Belfast v. Boon, 7 Wall. 624; The Moses Taylor v. Hammons, 4 Wall. 411.)

Jurisdiction in certain specified districts.-The United States district court of Alaska has jurisdiction to try and punish any inhabitant of the district for the crime of murder or manslaughter committed by the killing of any human being therein. Alaska is not "Indian country" within the meaning of the Federal statutes. (U.S. Rev. Stats. secs. 2145, 2146; Kie v. United States, Cir. Ct. Or., 27 Fed. Rep. 351. See Nelson v. United States, 30 Fed. Rep. 112.) The jurisdiction of the United States district court for the western district of Arkansas, over offenses punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, is not affected by the act creating a United States court in the Indian Territory. (25 U. S. Stats. 783; Ex parte Mills, 135 U S. 263.) That the jurisdiction over offenses is concurrent. (26 U. S. Stats. 97, sec. 34.)

CALIFORNIA. For the prosecution and trial of offenses committed before the passage of the act of Congress (Aug. 5, 1886) chang ng the district of California to the northern and southern districts of California, the original district exists. (United States v. Benson, 31 Fed. Rep. 896; 12 Sawyer, 477.)

ILLINOIS.-Jurisdiction as a court of admiralty of the United States district court for the northern district of Illinois. (See Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629.)

KANSAS-The jurisdiction of the district court extends to offenses committed in Oklahoma, not yet a territory, but a part of the district of Kansas. (Re Lane, 135 U. S. 443.) Since this decision, however, Oklahoma has been erected into a territorial government. (See 26 U. S. Stats. 87, ante.) The district court of Maryland, had jusdiction to try an indictment for murder committed

FED. PROC. 16.