Page images

Vol. II.]


[No. 7.

of all the state laws; but is modified as each sees fit. Perhaps the maritime law is more uniformly followed by commercial nations than the civil and common laws are by those who use them. But, like those laws, however fixed, definite, and beneficial the theoretical code of maritime law may be, it can have only so far the effect of law in any country as it is permitted to have. But the actual maritime law can hardly be said to ħave a fixed and definite form as to all the subjects which may be embraced within its scope. Whilst it is true that the great mass of maritime law is the same in all commercial countries, yet, in each country, peculiarities exist either as to some of the rules, or in the mode of enforcing them. Especially is this the case on the outside boundaries of the law, where it comes in contact with, or shades off into the local or municipal law of the particular country, and affects only its own merchants or people in their relations to each other. Whereas, in matters affecting the stranger or foreigner, the commonly received law of the whole commercial world is more assiduously observed — as, in justice, it should be. No one doubts that every nation may adopt its own maritime code. France may adopt one; England another; the United States a third ; still, the convenience of the commercial world, bound together as it is by mutual relations of trade and intercourse, demands that, in all essential things, wherein those relations bring them in contact, there should be a uniform law founded on natural reason and justice. Hence the adoption by all commercial nations (our own included) of the general maritime. law as the basis and groundwork of all their maritime regulations. But no nation regards itself as precluded from making occasional modifications suited to its locality and the genius of its own people and institutions, especially in matters that are of merely local and municipal consequence and do not affect other nations. It will be found, therefore, that the maritime codes of France, England, Sweden, and other countries are not one and the same in every particular ; but that whilst there is a general correspondence between them arising from the fact that each adopts the essential principles, and the great mass of the general maritime law, as the basis of its system, there are varying shades of difference corresponding to the respective territories, climate, and genius of the people of each country respectively. Each state adopts the maritime law, not as a code having any independent or inherent force, proprio vigore, but as its own law, with such modifications and qualifications as it sees fit. Thus adopted and thus qualified in each case, it becomes the maritime law of the particular nation that adopts it. And without such voluntary adoption it would not be law. And thus it happens that, from the general practice of commercial nations in making the same general law the basis and groundwork of their respective maritime systems, the great mass of maritime law which is thus received by these nations in common comes to be the common maritime law of the world.

This account of the maritime law, if correct, plainly shows that, in particular matters, especially such as approach a merely municipal character, the received maritime law may differ in different countries without affecting the general integrity of the system as a harmonious whole. The government of one country may be willing to give to its citizens, who supply a ship with provisions at her home port where the owner himself resides,

[No. 7.

Vol. II.)


seriously affect concerns oniuch a rule. Thentry may take a

a lien on the ship; whilst that of another country may take a contrary view as to the expediency of such a rule. The difference between them in a matter that concerns only their own citizens, in each case, cannot seriously affect the harmony and consistency of the common maritime law which each adopts and observes.

This view of the subject does not in the slightest degree detract from the proper authority and respect due to that venerable law of the sea, which has been the subject of such high encomiums from the ablest jurists of all countries; it merely places it upon the just and logical grounds upon which it is accepted, and with proper qualifications, received with the binding force of law in all countries.

The proposition, therefore, that by the general maritime law a lien is given in cases of the kind now under consideration, does not advance the argument a single step, unless it be shown to be in accordance with the maritime law as accepted and received in the United States. It certainly has not been the maritime law of England for more than two centuries past; and whether it is the maritime law of this country depends upon questions which are not answered by simply turning to the ordinary European treatises on maritime law, or the codes or ordinances of any particular country.

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 maritime law as expounded in the treatises, or only the limited and restricted system which was received 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 ascertaining that boundary. It assumes that the meaning of the phrase “ admiralty · and maritime jurisdiction ” is well understood. It treats this matter as it does the cognate ones of common law and equity, when it speaks of 6 cases in law and equity," or of " suits at common law," without defining those terms, assuming them to be known and understood.

One thing, however, is unquestionable : the Constitution must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several states, as that would have defeated the uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the states with each other or with foreign states.

The question is discussed with great felicity and judgment by Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the court in the case of The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 526, 527, where he says: “ Judicial power, in all

and ones of is well under

Vol. II.)


[No. 7.

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 to them, — the extent of the jurisdiction conferred depending very much upon the character of the government 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 sovereignty 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 the 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."

Guided by these sound principles, this court has felt itself at liberty to recognize the admiralty jurisdiction as extending to localities and subjects which, by the jealousy of the common law, were prohibited to it in England, but which fairly belong to it on every ground of reason when applied to the peculiar circumstances of this country, with its extended territories, its inland seas, and its navigable rivers, especially as the narrow restrictions of the English law had never prevailed on this side of the Atlantic, even in colonial times.

The question as to the true limits of maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction is undoubtedly, as Chief Justice Taney intimates, exclusively a judicial question, and no state law or act of Congress can make it broader, or (it may be added) narrower, than the judicial power may determine those limits to be. But what the law is within those limits, assuming the general maritime law to be the basis of the system, depends on what has been received as law in the maritime usages of this country, and on such legislation as may have been competent to affect it.

To ascertain, therefore, what the maritime law of this country is, it is not enough to read the French, German, Italian, and other foreign works on the subject, or the codes which they have framed ; but we must have regard to our own legal history, Constitution, legislation, usages, and adjudications as well. The decisions of this court illustrative of these sources, and giving construction to the laws and Constitution, are especially to be considered ; and when these fail us, we must resort to the principles by which they have been governed.

But we must always remember that the court cannot make the law; it can only declare it. If, within its proper scope, any change is desired in its rules, other than those of procedure, it must be made by the legislative department. It cannot be supposed that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that the law should forever remain unalterable. Congress

[No. 7.

Vol. II.]


undoubtedly bas the authority under the commercial power, if no other, to introduce such changes as are likely to be needed. The scope of the maritime law, and that of commercial regulation, are not conterminous, it is true, but the latter embraces much the largest portion of ground covered by the former. Under it Congress bas regulated the registry, enrolment, license, and nationality of ships and vessels; the method of recording bills of sale and mortgages thereon ; the rights and duties of seamen ; the limitations of the responsibility of ship-owners for the negligence and misconduct of their captains and crews; and many other things of a character truly maritime. And with regard to the question now under consideration, namely, the rights of material-men in reference to supplies and repairs furnished to a vessel in her home port, there does not seem to be any great reason to doubt that Congress might adopt a uniform rule for the whole country, though, of course, this will be a matter for consideration should the question ever be directly presented for adjudication.

On this subject the remarks of Mr. Justice Nelson, in delivering the opinion of the court in White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wallace, 655, 656 (which established the validity and effect of the act respecting the recording of mortgages on vessels in the custom-house), are pertinent. He says: “ Ships or vessels of the United States are creatures of the legislation of Congress. None can be denominated such, or be entitled to the benefits or privileges thereof, except those registered or enrolled according to the Act of September 1, 1789; and those which, after the last day of March, 1793, shall be registered or enrolled in pursuance of the Act of 31st December, 1792, and must be wholly owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States, and be commanded by a citizen of the same." .... “ Congress having created, as it were, this species of property, and conferred upon it its chief value under the power given in the Constitution to regulate commerce, we perceive no reason for entertaining any serious doubt but that this power may be extended to the security and protection of the rights and title of all persons dealing therein. The judicial mind seems to have generally taken this direction.” This case was subsequently affirmed by Aldrich v. Ætna Co. 8 Wallace, 491.

Be this, however, as it may, and whether the power of Congress is or is not sufficient to amend the law on this subject (if amendment is desirable), this court is bound to declare the law as it now stands. And according to the maritime law as accepted and received in this country, we feel bound to declare that no such lien exists as is claimed by the appellees in this case. The adjudications in this court before referred to, which it is unnecessary to review, are conclusive on the subject; and we see no sufficient ground for disturbing them.

This disposes of the principal question in the case.

But it is alleged by the appellees that by the law of Louisiana they have a privilege for their claims, giving them a lien on the vessel and her proceeds; and that the court was bound to enforce this lien in their behalf, though not strictly a maritime lien.

On examining the record, however, it appears that the appellees never caused their lien (if they had one) to be recorded according to the requirements of the state law. By the 123d article of the Constitution of Louisiana, adopted in 1869, it is declared that no “ mortgage or privilege shall



Vol. II.)

[No. 7.


hereafter affect third parties, unless recorded in the parish where the property to be affected is situated.” And an act of the legislature, passed since that time, adopts the very terms of the constitutional provision. And a further act provides that if the privilege be not in writing, the facts on which it is based must be stated in an affidavit, which must be recorded. Revised Civil Code, articles 3273, 3274, 3093. None of these requisites having been performed, no lien can be claimed under the state law.

But if there were any doubt on this subject, the case of the appellees is met by another difficulty. The admiralty rule of 1859, which precluded the district courts from entertaining proceedings in rem against domestic ships for supplies, repairs, or other necessaries, was in force until May 6, 1872, when the new rule was promulgated. Now, this case was commenced in the district court a year previous to this, and final judgment in the district court was rendered two months previous. It is true that the judgment of the circuit court, on appeal, was not rendered until the third day of June, 1872; but if the new rule had at that time been brought to the attention of the court, it could hardly have been applied to the case in its then position. All the proceedings had been based and shaped upon other grounds and theories, and not upon the existence of that rule. It would not have been just to the other parties to apply to them a rule which was not in existence when they were carrying on the litigation.

As to the recent change in the admiralty rule referred to, it is sufficient to say that it was simply intended to remove all obstructions and embarrassments in the way of instituting proceedings in rem in all cases where liens exist by law, and not to create any new lien, which, of course, this. court could not do in any event, since a lien is a right of property, and not a mere matter of procedure.

Had the lien been perfected, and had the rule not stood in the way, the principles that have heretofore governed the practice of the district courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction, and which have been repeatedly sanctioned by this court, would undoubtedly have authorized the material-men to file a libel against the vessel or its proceeds. The General Smith, 4 Wheaton, 438; Peyrou. v. Howard, 7 Peters, 324; The Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Ib. 175; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522. It seems to be settled in our jurisprudence that so long as Congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, the rights of material-men furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port may be regulated in each state by state legislation. State laws, it is true, cannot exclude the contract for furnishing such necessaries from the domain of admiralty jurisdiction, for it is a maritime contract, and they cannot alter the limits of that jurisdiction ; nor can they confer it upon the state courts so as to enable them to proceed in rem for the enforcement of liens created by such state laws, for it is exclusively conferred upon the district courts of the United States. They can only authorize the enforcement thereof by common law remedies, or such remedies as are equivalent thereto. But the district courts of the United States having jurisdiction of the contract as a maritime one, may enforce liens given for its security, even when created by the state laws. Cases, supra. The practice may be somewhat anomalous, but it has existed from the origin of the government, and, perhaps, was originally superinduced by the fact that prior to the adoption of the Constitution,

« PreviousContinue »