can come before the circuit court (Benedict's Adm. sec. 321).
The subject matter in cases of contract determines the
jurisdiction (the ``General Smith,'' 4 Wheaton U.S. Rep.
438), and not the presence or absence of tide, salt water,
current, nor that the water be an inland basin or land-locked,
or a river, nor by its being a harbour, or a port within
the body of the county, nor that a remedy exists at common
law. The admiralty courts have jurisdiction over all
matters that concern owners and proprietors of ships as
such; possessory actions and petitory actions to try title
of a ship; cases of mariners' wages, wharfage, dockage,
lighterage, stevedores, contracts of affreightment, charter
parties, rights of passengers as such (the ``Moses Taylor,''
71 U.S. Rep. 411), pilotage, towage, maritime liens and
loans, bottomry, respondentia and hypothecation of ship and
cargo, marine insurance, average, jettison, demurrage,
collisions, consortship, bounties, survey and sale of vessel,
salvage; seizures under the laws of impost navigation or
trade, cases of prize, ransom, condemnation, restitution
and damages; assaults, batteries, damages and trespasses on
the high seas and navigable waters of the United States; but
not suits in rem for duties (Benedict's Adm. sec. 303a).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Peoples Ferry Co. v. Beers,
20 Howards U.S. Rep. 393, and in a series of subsequent cases
that a contract to build a vessel is not a maritime contract (the
``Robert W. Parsons''). Contracts to furnish cargo for ships
and to furnish ships to carry the cargoes are maritime contracts
(Graham v. Oregon R. & N. Co., [1905] 135 Fed. Rep. 608).
Whenever there is a maritime lien, even though created by
state statute as to a ship in her home port, it may be enforced
by suit in rem in admiralty in the federal courts (the ``
General . Smith''; the ``Lottawanna,'' 21 Wallace Rep.
558, Benedict's Adm. sec. 270). In all suits by material men
for supplies and repairs or other necessaries for a foreign
ship, the libellant may proceed against the ship and freight
in rem or against the master or owner in personam (12th
Admiralty Rule; Benedict's Adm. sec. 268; the ``General
Smith''). Actions in rem and in personam may be joined
in the same libel (Newell v. Norton, 3 Wallace 257; the
``Normandie,'' 40 Fed. Rep. 590). But a contract to furnish
fishermen with clothing, tobacco and other personal effects
for use on a voyage is not a maritime contract, and a court
of admiralty has no jurisdiction to enforce it in rem (the
``May F. Chisholm,'' 1904; 129 Fed. Rep. 814). The state
courts have no jurisdiction in rem over any maritime contract
or tort (the ``Lottawanna,'' the ``Belfast,'' 7 Wallace Rep.
624). Admiralty jurisdiction in tort depends on locality;
it must have occurred on the high seas or other navigable
waters within admiralty cognizance (2 Farsons Adm. 347; the
``Plymouth,'' 3 Wallace Rep. 20; the ``Genesee Chief'' v.
Fitz-Hugh, the ``Blackheath,'' [1903] 122 Fed. Rep. 112).
The U.S. Supreme Court in the ``Harrisburg'' (119 U.S. 199)
and the ``Alaska'' (130 U.S. 207), after some conflict of
opinion, held that the admiralty courts have no jurisdiction
under the general admiralty law to try an action for damages
for negligence on the high seas, causing death of a human
being, while there was no act of Congress and no statute
of the state to which the vessel belonged giving such
right of action (Benedict's Adm. sec. sec. 275-309a), nor
where such statute is that of a foreign country (Rundell
v. Compagnie Generale, [1899] 94 Fed. Rep. 366).
Admiralty has jurisdiction in cases of spoliation and
piracy, collision and proceedings by owners to limit
their liability under U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. sec. 4281-9.
The United States admiralty courts have always had jurisdiction
in matters of prize (The Prize Cases, 2 Black U.S. Rep.
635). The district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
(except that circuit courts also have jurisdiction when prize
is taken from persons in insurrection), and the supreme court
of the District of Columbia now has concurrent jurisdiction
(U.S. v. Sampson, 1902, 187 U.S. 436) and appeals are direct
to the Supreme Court. Special commissioners are appointed
on the breaking out of hostilities to act under the orders of
the district courts (U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. 4621, Prize Rule 9;
Benedict's Adm. sec. 509; 680 Pieces Merchandise, 2 Sprague
233). These commissioners take the depositions of witnesses
and report to the court the evidence upon which it adjudicates.
Proceedings in prize cases must be in conformity with admiralty
proceedings, where the seizure is on land (Union Insurance Co.
v. U.S., 6 Wallace 759; 2 Parsons Adm. 174). The district
courts have all the powers of a court of admiralty whether
as instance or prize courts (Glass v. sloop ``Betsy,''
3 Dallas 6). To adjudicate in matters of prize is one of the
ordinary functions of that court (Benedict's Adm. sec. 509).
The admiralty courts have jurisdiction over crimes and offences
committed upon vessels belonging to citizens of the United States
on the high seas or any arm of the sea or any waters within
the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States
(U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. 5339). High seas include the great
lakes ( U.S. v. Rogers, 150 U.S. 249). (J. A. BA.)
OTHER COUNTRIES
France, and countries following France.
In France, and in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece
--countries which have adopted codes based on the Code
Napoleon--the civil, or, as it would have been formerly called
in England, the ``instance,'' jurisdiction of the admiralty
is exercised by the ordinary tribunals, and there are no
separate courts of admiralty for this purpose. France and
some other countries have special commercial tribunals, which
deal with shipping matters, but also with ordinary commercial
cases. France has also tribunaux maritimes commerciaux
(Code disciplinaire et penal de la marine marchande du 24
mars 1852, loi du 11 mars 1891) to deal with maritime
offences. Austria adopts the French law in commercial
matters. Italy had tribunals of commerce, but has given them
up. She has, however, by Art. 14 of her Merchant Shipping Code,
given jurisdiction to captains of ports to decide collision
cases when the sum in dispute does not exceed 200 lire.
Germany.
In Germany there are no special tribunals for admiralty matters.
Kammern fur Handelssachen, commercial courts, have been
established in Berlin and some of the principal seaports. These
deal with shipping matters, but also with all other commercial suits.
Scandinavian nations.
In Denmark, Sweden and Norway there is a maritime code which
came into force in Sweden in 1891, in Denmark in 1892, and
in Norway in 1893. This was intended to be one code for the
three countries; but each country as it finally adopted the
code made some modifications of its own. Under this code
there are in Norway permanent maritime courts for each town
presided over by the judge of the inferior local civil court
(civile underdommer), or if there be more than one such
judge then by the president, with two assessors chosen out of a
list. Temporary local courts, consisting of the same judge
with two other members of nautical skill and knowledge, can
be constituted in districts where there are no permanent
courts. Appeals lie to the supreme court (Hoiesterei.)
In Denmark maritime cases are brought before the local
courts constituted for maritime and commercial causes
(So-og-Handelsret.) In Sweden maritime cases are brought
before local courts of first instance consisting of a
judge and assessors. There is an intermediate appeal to
courts of second instance, and then to the supreme court,
which finally decides upon all causes civil and commercial.
Maritime cases in Holland are tried by the ordinary
civil tribunals, with the same right of appeal.
Prize jurisdiction.
``By the maritime law of nations universally and immemorially
received there is an established method of determination
whether the capture be or be not lawful prize. Before the
ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor there must
be a regular judicial proceeding wherein both parties may
be heard and condemnation thereupon as prize in a court of
admiralty judging by the law of nations and treaties. . . .
If the sentence of the court of admiralty is thought to be
erroneous, there is in every maritime country a superior court
of review. . . .'' (duke of Newcastle's letter to M. Michell,
secretary to the embassy of the king of Prussia, 1753). ``So
far as belligerent states do not make a practice of giving
up the taking of booty at sea . . . they are required by
international law to establish prize tribunals and thus give to
their proceedings in the matter of prize a judicial character''
(v . Holtzendorff, Rechtslexikon, tit. ``Prisengerichte'').
In France till the death of the duke of Montmorency in 1632
prize matters were adjudicated upon by the admiral. The duke
had sold the office of admiral some years before his death to
Cardinal Richelieu; but about the period of the duke's death
the office of admiral appears to have been abolished, and one
of grand master of navigation established in lieu. This new
office was first held by Cardinal Richelieu and continued till
1695. The grand master took the admiral's place in matters
of prize; but in 1659 a commission of councillors of state
and masters of requests was appointed to assist the grand
master and form a Conseil des Prises. From this conseil
there was an appeal to the Conseil d'Etat. When the office
of admiral was restored in 1695 he exercised his jurisdiction
in prize matters with the assistance of the Conseil des
Prises. The appeal was then given to the Conseil Royal des
Finances. The Ordonnance sur la marine of August 1681
regulated the procedure. This system continued till the
Revolution. The last Conseil des Prises was appointed in
1778. A law of the 14th of February 1793 abolished the
Conseil des Prises and gave cognizance of prize matters
``provisionally'' to the tribunals of commerce. On the 8th
of November 1793 (18 Brumaire, an II.) this jurisdiction
was taken from the tribunals of commerce and given to the
Conseil Executif. Later it was given to the Comite de
Salut Public. On the 25th of October 1795 (3 Brumaire,
an IV.) the jurisdiction was restored to the tribunals of
commerce. This was again altered on the 27th of March 1800 (6
Germinal, an VIII.), when a Conseil des Prises was established,
consisting of nine councillors of state, a commissary of the
government and a secretary, all nominated by the First Consul.
On the 11th of June 1806 an appeal was given to the Conseil
d'Etat. It was disputed among French jurists whether the
Conseil des Prises was to be considered as a body actuated
only by political considerations or one exercising what
the French term an ``administrative jurisdiction''; which
is, as nearly as a parallel to it can be found in England,
administration of justice between individuals and the state.
As most of the cases arising out of the great wars had
been dealt with, an ordinance of the 9th of January 1815
suppressed the Conseil des Prises and directed the Comite
du contentieux of the Conseil d'Etat to prepare the
remaining prize matters for decision by the Conseil d'Etat.
Such prize matters (probably including captures for trading
in slaves) as required to be dealt with till 1854, appear
to have been dealt with by this body; an ordinance of the
9th of September 1831 directing that the proceedings before
