In American Law. A tribunal exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, or offences. 2 Pars. Mar. Law 508.
After a somewhat protracted contest the jurisdic tion of admiralty was extended beyond that of the English admiralty court and has been said to be co equal with that of the English court as defined by the statutes of Rich. II., under the construction given to them by the contemporaneous or immedi ately subsequent courts of admiralty ; 2 Pars. Mar. Law 508; Bened. Admir. §§ 7, 8 There is early English authority, mainly collected by Judge Story in his famous opinion in De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gail. 398, Fed. Cas. No. 3,776, that the common law courts were wrong when, in their controversy with the admiralty court, , they contended for the original narrow limit of the jurisdiction. It would seem, however, to be the more accurate view that the cases which settled the American jurisdiction estab lished it not se much upon the bash( of any con struction of the English restraining statutes as on tha theory that they were not to be recognized as having force in this country, either in Colonial times or after the Revolution. In Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. (U. S.) 441, 12 L. Ed. 226, it was held that the statutes of Richard II. were never in force in any of the colonies, except as they were adopted by the legislatures of some of them." And in a judgment much referred to and commended in sub sequent cases, Judge Winchester, characterized by Judge Peters as "a distinguished ornament" of his profession, in Stevens v. The Sandwich, 1 Pet. Adm. 233 n, was of opinion that "the statutes 13 & 15 Rich. 1I. have received in England a construction which must at all times prohibit their extension to this country." So Judge Wilson in Kynock v. The Propeller S. C. Ives, Newb. 205, Fed. Cas. No. 7,958, said: "The district courts of the United States, sit ting as courts of admiralty, are not embarrassed by the restraining statutes of Richard 11. and Henry 1V., but exercise as large jurisdiction and are governed by the same principles of maritime law as are recognized by the courts of admiralty in the maritime nations of continental Europe." It came to be generally conceded that at the time of the Revolution the English admiralty jurisdic tion was emasculated by the construction put upon the restrictive statutes by the common law courts, but it most likewise be admitted that the decisions of those courts were the paramount law of Eng land. It was therefore not practicable to rest the American jurisdiction upon the English system and ignore those decisions. The struggle in our courts
was not so much between the two contentions which had distracted the English courts, as whether the narrow jurisdiction finally imposed upon the admi ralty court In England was that which our consti tution contemplated. While some of our judges contended for this view, the weight of authority was finally given to the more logical conclusion that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which was by the constitution included within the judicial power of the United States was not limited by the admiralty jurisdiction of England, but is to be de termined by the recognized principles of the mari time law which were invoked by Mr. Justice Wash ington in Davis v. Brig Seneca, 3 Wall. Jr. 395, Fed. Cas. No. 12,670, as having "been respected by mari time courts of all nations and adopted by most, if not by all of them on the continent of Europe." Finally, in a note to The Huntress, 2 Ware (Day. 93) 102, Fed. Cas. No. 6,914, which is considered an authoritative discussion of the American admiralty jurisdiction, attention is directed to "contemporane ous declarations of every branch of the government, and the quiet assent of the people to an unbroken and unvarying practice of more than half a cen tury, all concurring in one point, that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, under the constitution, is of larger extent than that of the English court of admiralty, and all repudiating the assumption that we are to look to the laws of England for the definition of these terms in the constitution." See De Lavin v. Bolt, 2 Gall. 398, Fed. Caa. No. 3,776; The Huntress, 2 Ware (Day. 93) 102, Fed, Caa. No. 6,914; Peele v. Ins. Co., 3 Mas. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 10,905; Read v. Hull of a New Brig, 1 $to. 244, Fed. Caa. Na. 11,609 ; Hale v. Ins. Co., 2 Sto. 176, Fed. Caa. No. 5,916; Ramsey v. Allegre, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 611, 6 L. Ed. 746 ; U. S. v. The Sally, 2 Cr. (U. S.) 406, 2 L. Ed. 320; U. S. v. The Betsey, 4 Cr. (U. S.) 444, 2 L. Ed. 673; U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dail. (U. S.) 297, 1 L. Ed. 610; New Jersey Steam Nay. Co. v. Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; Bogart v. The Jahn Jay, 17 Haw. (U. S.) 399, 15 L. Ed. 95; Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. (U. S.) 477, 15 L. Ed. 235; Ward v. Peck, 18 How. (U. S.) 267, 15 L. Ed. 383; Thomas v. Oshorn, 19 How. (U. S.) 22, 15 L. Ed. 534; Scbuchardt v. Babbage, 19 How. (U. S.) 239, 15 L. Ed. 625; Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. (U. S.) 296, 15 L. Ed. 909; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 Haw. 683, 15 L. Ed. 1028.