Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 191 U.S. The E. the canal, and had no means of locomotion in herself. IV. The Erie Canal and connecting waters are public navigable waters of the United States over which the Admiralty Court has and exercises jurisdiction. The Thomas Carroll, 23 Fed. Rep. 912; The Ella B., 24 Fed. Rep. 508; Maloney v. City of Milwaukee, 1 Fed. Rep., 611; also the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, The Olie, 2 Hughes, 12 Fed. Cases No. 10485; the Welland Canal in 1873, The Avon, Brown's Adm. 170, Fed. Cases No. 680; Scott v. The Young American, Newb. 101, Fed. Cases No. 12549. Admiralty assumes jurisdiction not only over canal boats but also over a dredge and scows. The Alabama, 22 Fed. Rep. 449. A raft of timber, Muntz v. Raft of Timber, 15 Fed. Rep. 555. A steamer of less than five tons burden engaged in carrying freight and passengers upon navigable water, The Pioneer, 21 Fed. Rep. 426. A ferry-boat plying between two parts in the same State in a navigable river, U. S. v. B. & H. Ferry Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 331. A dismantled steamboat being fitted for use as a wharfboat, The Old Natchez, 9 Fed. Rep. 476. A barge without sails or rudder, used for lightering, Disbow v. The Walsh Bros., 36 Fed. Rep. 607. A bath-house built on boats and designed for transportation, The Public Baths No. 13, 61 Fed. Rep. 692. A contract for the repair of scows used in carrying ballast to or from vessels, Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. Rep. 411; Benedict's Adm. §§ 213, 221, 221a; U. S. Rev. Stat. §§ 3, 542. The limitations in Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629, have no bearing in this case. V. Decisions of this court should be followed as to extent of jurisdiction of Federal courts. Constitution, Art. III, § 2; U. S. Rev. Stat. § 863, subd. 8; York v. Conde, 147 U. S. 491. The establishment of admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts, as now recognized in its full breadth and meaning, was reached by slow degrees, after repeated argument at the bar, and earnest discussion between the members of the 191 U. S. Argument for Defendant in Error. court in consultation. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443; Allen v. Newbury, 21 How. 244; McGuire v. Card, 21 How. 248; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 441 ; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Maloney v. City of Milwaukee, 1 Fed. Rep. 611; Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629; Rule 12, Admiralty, U. S. Sup. Ct. adopted 1844, changed December, 1858, May, 1872; Allen v. Newbury, 21 How. 244, and McGuire v. Card, 21 How. 248, overruled by The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; The Ann Arbor, Fed. Cas. 407 and 408, distinguished. New York cases in Appellate Division opinion and cited by defendant in error are inapplicable. Local decisions cannot abrogate maritime law. Workman v. The Mayor, 179 U. S. 552, 563; Benedict's Admiralty, §§ 313, 313a, 313b. And as to admiralty jurisdiction over liens on canal boats, see Murphy v. Salem, 1 Hun, 140; Chisholm v. Nor. Transp. Co., 61 Barb. 363, 388; Ryan v. Hook, 34 Hun, 185; Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 N. Y. 499. Mr. George F. Thompson for defendant in error : I. Title 4 of chap. 23, New York Code of Civil Procedure, was a reenactment of chap. 482, Laws of 1862, for the enforcement of liens against ships and vessels which had been construed by the courts of that State and held unconstitutional so far as it provided a remedy for the enforcement of a maritime contract, but to be constitutional and effective so far as it related to the enforcement of liens by virtue of ordinary domestic contracts for the furnishing of repairs and supplies to domestic craft, such as boats constructed and used on the inland canals of the State, it being held that these are not maritime contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Shepard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. 52; Mott v. Lansing, 53 N. Y. 554; Poole v. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 555; Nelson v. Lawrence, 82 N. Y. 409; Brookman v. Hamil, 43 N. Y. 112; Fralich v. Betts, 13 Hun, 632; People's Ferry Co. v. Biers, 20 How. 393 to 402; Allen v. Newbury, 21 How. 245; The Gen Argument for Defendant in Error. 191 U. S. esee Chief, 12 How. 443; McGuire v. Card, 21 How. 248; Happy v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 78; Delaney v. Britt, 51 N. Y. 78; In re Haines, 168 N. Y. 586. The admiralty is a maritime court instituted for the purpose of administrating the law of the sea, The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 567, and the question as to the true limits of maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction is exclusively a judicial question and no state law or act of Congress can make it broader or narrower than the judicial power may determine these limits to be, but what the law is within these limitations, assuming the 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. It has never before in any case before this court been attempted to confine contracts relating to an absolutely impotent vessel (i. e. one propelled by horse power by means of a rope attached to a team of horses walking on the land) to the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty courts. In all previous cases before this court there were involved sea-going ships or vessels plying between foreign countries or engaged in coasting trade between different States and Territories, or steamboats enrolled and licensed and engaged in interstate commerce and able of themselves to travel between ports and places of different States. The question has been discussed in its various phases by this court on several occasions. The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The Commerce, 1 Black, 578; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Peters, 324; The Orleans, 11 Peters, 175; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; Waring v. Clark, 5 How. 452; The Lexington, 6 How. 392; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 454 ; The Magnolia, 20 How. 298; The Jefferson, 20 How. 393; Allen v. Newbury, 21 How. 245; McGuire v. Card, 21 How. 250; The Capitol, 22 How. 129; Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 20; The Grape Shot, 9 Wall. 129; The Lulu, 10 Wall. 197; The Kalorama, 10 Wall. 205; The Custer, 10 Wall. 215; Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 21; Ex parte McNeal, 13 Wall. 243; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1,8; The J. E. Rumbull, 148 U. S. 1; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606; Workman v. Mayor, 179 U.S. 553; Miller v. Mayor, 109 U. S. 385; The General Cass, 1 Brown's Adm. 334; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557. The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, distinguished as arising under penal laws and the vessels being engaged in interstate commerce. The New York statute simply extends the common law lien, and the jurisdiction of the courts remains unaffected. The principal cases decided by the courts of the State of New York on this subject are the following: Mott v. Lansing, 53 N. Y. 554; Poole v. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 555; Wilson v. Lawrence, 82 N. Y. 409. A review of these decisions will disclose the fact that none of them are or have been in conflict with the decisions of this court on this subject. Courts of admiralty cannot and do not exercise jurisdiction in any form over what is termed as land contracts and give as a reason for this that these contracts are made on land and to be performed on land. Many of the decisions above cited reiterate this principle and it seems to be well settled, and in this regard this court has been followed by the courts of the State of New York. People's Ferry Co. v. Biers, 20 How. 393 and 402; Shepard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. 52; Brookman v. Hammill, 43 N. Y. 558. The facts show that a contract for repairs was made on land and was performed wholly and entirely on land—in a dry dock-in an inland town. There is no reason therefore for refusing admiralty jurisdiction in the above cited cases that does not exist in this case. MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. This case raises the question of the construction and constitutionality of the statutes of the State of New York, giving a lien for repairs upon vessels, and providing for the enforcement of such lien by proceedings in rem. The statute con Opinion of the Court. 191 U. S. ferring the lien, so far as it is material, is given in the margin.1 It will be noticed that it expressly excludes liens founded upon maritime contracts. That a State may provide for liens in favor of materialmen for necessaries furnished to a vessel in her home port, or in a port of the State to which she belongs, though the contract to furnish the same is a maritime contract, and that such liens can be enforced by proceedings in rem in the District Courts of the United States, is so well settled by a series of cases in this court as to be no longer open to question. The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The Planter (Peyroux v. Howard), 7 Pet. 324; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522. The remedy thus administered by the admiralty court is exclusive. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Johnson v. Chicago &c. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 397; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 12; The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554; Poole v. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 554. If there were any doubts regarding this question they were completely put to rest by the case of The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, in which it was distinctly held, in an exhaustive opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, that the enforcement in rem of a lien upon a vessel for 1 Laws of New York (1897), chap. 418, Vol. 1, p. 514; May 13, 1897. "SEC. 30. A debt which is not a lien by the maritime law, and which amounts to fifty dollars or upwards, on a sea-going or ocean-bound vessel, or fifteen dollars or upwards on any other vessel shall be a lien on such vessel, her tackle, apparel and furniture, and shall be preferred to all other liens thereon, except mariner's wages, if such debt is contracted by the master, owner, charterer, builder or consignee of such ship or vessel, or by the agent of either of them, within this State, for either of the following purposes: "1. For work done or material or other articles furnished in this State for or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping of such vessel." (The other subdivisions are immaterial.) "SEC. 35. If a lien, created by virtue of this article, is founded upon a maritime contract, it can be enforced only by proceedings in the courts of the United States, and in any other case, in the courts of this State, in the manner provided by the code of civil procedure." |