The Supreme Court of the United States, from time to App. 261, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113, 30 L. R. A. 336; The Willamette, 44 U. S. App. 26, 18 C. C. A. 366, 70 Fed. 874, 31 L. R. A. 715; Robinson v. Detroit & C. S. Nav. Co., 43 U. S. App. 190, 20 C. C. A. 86, 73 Fed. 883; Humboldt Lumber Manuf'g Ass'n v. Christopherson, 44 U. S. App. 434, 19 C. C. A. 481, 73 Fed. 239, 46 L. R. A. 264; Boutin v. Rudd, 53 U. S. App. 525, 27 C. C. A. 526, 82 Fed. 685; The Glendale, 42 U. S. App. 546, 26 C. C. A. 500, 81 Fed. 633; The Marion S. Harris, 56 U. S. App. 98, 29 C. C. A. 428, 85 Fed. 798; The Harvey & Henry, 57 U. S. App. 41, 30 C. C. A. 330, 86 Fed. 656; The Eugene, 59 U. S. App. 513, 31 C. C. A. 345, 87 Fed. 1001; Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. 505; The H. N. Emilie, 70 Fed. 511; Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Moore, 70 Fed. 870; The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. 712; The Lena Mowbray, 71 Fed. 720; 496; The Oregon, 73 Fed. 846; The Eugene, 83 Fed. 222, reversed, s. c., supra; The Humboldt, 86 Fed. 351; The Scow No. 15, 35 C. C. A. 407; 149, 92 Fed. 1008; The Iris, 40 C. C. A. 301, 100 Fed. 104; Rundell v. La Campagnie Générale Transatlantique, 40 C. C. A. 625, 100 Fed. 655, affirming s. c., sub nom. Rundell v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. 366; The Allerton, 93 Fed. 219; Skinner v. Harris, 98 Fed. 442; The H. E. Willard, 52 Fed. 387;| Law J. 292, 6 Am. Law Rev. 765, S. C., 53 Fed. 599; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98; Williams v. Providence W. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 159; 7 Am. Law Rev. 381, 20 Pittsb. Leg. J. 19, 20 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 4 Leg. Gaz. 114, 9 Fhila. 364; Eads v. The H. D. Bacon, 8 Fed. Bain v. Sandusky Transp. Co., Cas. 224, Newb. 274; 60 Fed. 912; The Alvira, 63 Fed. 144; The Advance, 63 Fed. 704; The Katie O'Neil, 65 Fed. 111; The Flora, 9 Fed. Cas. 291, 1 Biss. 29, 3 Chi. Leg. News 130; Francis v. The Harrison, 9 Fed. Cas. 678, 1 Sawy. 353, 2 Abb. U. S. 74; The Globe, 10 Fed. Cas. 477, 2 Jervey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. Blatchf. 427, 15 Law Rep. 421; 1013; The Mary Washington, 16 Fed. 125, 5 Am Law Reg. (N. S.) 692; The William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. Cas. 1006, 1 Abb. U. S. 1, Chase 742; The question as to what causes are within, and what without the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, has given rise to much bitter litigation.5 prize form an exception to the rule of concurrent jurisdiction of the courts of law and of admiralty. Justice Story in DeLovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398; Justice McLean, in separate opinion in Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296, 15 L. 909; The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19. On the other hand, it is denied that cases of prize, and cases growing out of the revenue laws, are suits in admiralty. "These depend on the general power conferred on the judiciary to try all cases arising under the laws of the United States." Justice Catron, in separate opinion in Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 12 L. 226. 5 The conflicting decisions in England are reviewed by Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398. The following are some of the many cases in this country not cited in the other notes to this section: The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335, 12 Sup. Ct. 949, 36 L. 727; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 22 L. 654; The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213, 18 L. 753; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522, 17 L. 180; Moore v. American Transp. Co., 24 How. 1, 16 L. 674; Phila., Wil. & Balt. R. Co. v. Havre de Grace Steam Tow Boat Co., 23 How. 209, 16 L. 433; Maguire v. Card, 21 How. 248, 16 L. 118; Allen v. Newberry, 21 How. 244, 16 L. 110; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, 15 L. 1028; People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 15 L. 961; Grant v. Poillon, 20 How. 162, 15 L. 871; Vanderwater v. Mills, 19 How. 82, 15 L. 554; Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477, 15 L. 235; Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. 469, 14 L. 1019; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466, 13 L. 1068; Cutler v. Rae, 7 How. 729, 12 L. 890; Houseman v. The North Carolina, 15 Pet. 40, 10 L. 653; The Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175, 9 L. 677; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 9 L. 363; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324, 8 L. 700; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L. 242; Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheat. 611, 6 L. 746; Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473, 6 L. 369; The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428, 6 L. 358; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438, 4 L. 609; United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 4 L. 404; Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1, Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129, 4 L. 169; 16 L. 294; Bigelow v. Nickerson, 34 U. S. The Supreme Court of the United States, from time to App. 261, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113, 30 L. R. A. 336; The Willamette, 44 U. S. App. 26, 18 C. C. A. 366, 70 Fed. 874, 31 L. R. A. 715; Robinson v. Detroit & C. S. Nav. Co., 43 U. S. App, 190, 20 C. C. A. 86, 73 Fed. 883; Humboldt Lumber Manuf'g Ass'n v. Christopherson, 44 U. S. App. 434, 19 C. C. A. 481, 73 Fed. 239, 46 L. R. A. 264; Boutin v. Rudd, 53 U. S. App. 525, 27 C. C. A. 526, 82 Fed. 685; The Glendale, 42 U. S. App. 546, 26 C. C. A. 500, 81 Fed. 633; The Marion S. Harris, 56 U. S. App. 98, 29 C. C. A. 428, 85 Fed. 798; The Harvey & Henry, 57 U. S. App. 41, 30 C. C. A. 330, 86 Fed. 656; The Eugene, 59 U. S. App. 513, 31 C. C. A. 345, 87 Fed. 1001; Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. 505; The H. N. Emilie, 70 Fed. 511; Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Moore, 70 Fed. 870; The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. 712; The Lena Mowbray, 71 Fed. 720; 496; The Oregon, 73 Fed. 846; The Eugene, 83 Fed. 222, reversed, s. C., supra; The Humboldt, 86 Fed. 351; The Scow No. 15, 35 C. C. A. 407; 149, 92 Fed. 1008; The Iris, 40 C. C. A. 301, 100 Fed. 104; Rundell v. La Campagnie Générale Transatlantique, 40 C. C. A. 625, 100 Fed. 655, affirming s. C., sub nom. Rundell v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. 366; The Allerton, 93 Fed. 219; Skinner v. Harris, 98 Fed. 442; The H. E. Willard, 52 Fed. 387; Law J. 292, 6 Am. Law Rev. 765, s. c., 53 Fed. 599; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98; Williams v. Providence W. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 159; 7 Am. Law Rev. 381, 20 Pittsb. Leg. J. 19, 20 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 4 Leg. Gaz. 114, 9 Fhila. 364; Eads v. The H. D. Bacon, 8 Fed. Bain v. Sandusky Transp. Co., Cas. 224, Newb. 274; 60 Fed. 912; The Alvira, 63 Fed. 144; The Advance, 63 Fed. 704; The Katie O'Neil, 65 Fed. 111; The Flora, 9 Fed. Cas. 291, 1 Biss. 29, 3 Chi. Leg. News 130; Francis v. The Harrison, 9 Fed. Cas. 678, 1 Sawy. 353, 2 Abb. U. S. 74; The Globe, 10 Fed. Cas. 477, 2 Jervey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. Blatchf. 427, 15 Law Rep. 421; 1013; The Mary Washington, 16 Fed. The William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. Cas. 1006, 1 Abb. U. S. 1, Chase 125, 5 Am Law Reg. (N. S.) 692; 742; time, has by its decisions, increased the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, so that the jurisdiction of admiralty as to torts now extends in this country to all places where a ship or boat will float, whether on sea, or lake, or river, even within the body of a county, and as to contracts to all such as are mari The Pauline, 19 Fed. Cas. 1, 1 Biss. 390; Peck v. Laughlin, 19 Fed. Cas. 77, 8 Wkly. Notes Cas. 188, 14 Phila. 531, 37 Leg. Int. 18, 21 Alb. Law J. 94; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 930, 42 L. 296. "To earnest and successive remonstrances have succeeded still wider departures from restrictions previously recognized, until in the case before us, every limit upon power, save those which judicial discretion or the propensity of the The Sarah Jane, 21 Fed. Cas. 456, 1 Lowell 203, 2 Am. Law Rev. 455; Stevens v. The Sandwich, 23 Fed. Court may think proper to impose, Cas. 29, 1 Pet. Adır. 233. is now cast aside." Justice Dan 6 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, iels, dissenting, in Jackson v. Mag12 L. 226; nolia, 20 How. 296, 15 L. 909. But the jurisdiction has been vastly increased since then! The jurisdiction of our Admi New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. 465; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, ralty Courts, though more exten13 L. 1058; sive than that of the admiralty Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267, 15 L. courts of England, is not quite so 383; extensive, in some respects, as that Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. exercised by Continental courts 296, 15 L. 909; under their system of admiralty The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black jurisprudence. 574, 17 L. 107; Bags of Linseed, 1 Black 108, 17 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, L. 35; 18 L. 397; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 266. 18 L. 451; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 266; New England Marine Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 20 L. 90, approving De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398; Atkins v. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272, 21 L. 841; In De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398, this conclusion was reached by Justice Story: "The jurisdiction of the admiralty depends, or ought to depend, as to contracts, upon the subjectmatter, i. e., whether maritime or Re Louisville Underwriters, 134 not; and as to torts, upon locality, U. S. 488, 10 Sup. Ct. 587, 33 L. i. e., whether done upon the high 991; sea, or in ports within the ebb and The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, flow of the tide, or not." 13 Sup. Ct. 498, 37 L. 345; But the case of The Genesee time in their nature, according to the practice of the admiralty courts of the States when the Constitution was adopted. Chief, and cases following it, cited | v. Elliott, 34 N. J. Law 96; and apin note 6, repudiate the ebb and proving Sheppard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. flow of the tide as a test of locality. 52, 3 Am. R. 660). Quoting again from the same case: The decisions of the Circuit "If we examine the etymology, and District Courts of the United or received use, of the words 'ad-States to the effect that a contract miralty' and 'maritime jurisdic- for building a ship is a maritime tion,' we shall find that they include contract, are collected in jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea, or, in other words, all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea,"-and, under the modern cases, we may add-or upon any navigable lake or river. And quoting once more from the same great case: The Richard Busteed, 20 Fed. Cas. 683, 1 Sprague 441, 21 Law Rep. 601, 40 Hunt Mer. Mag. 196; and in the brief of the plaintiff in error in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. 487. The reasoning by which the opposite conclusion is reached-the conclusion adopted by the Supreme Court-is nowhere more forcibly stated than in the old case of Clinton v. The Hannah, 5 Fed. Cas. 1056, Bee 419, decided by the admiralty court of Pennsylvania "All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation [maritime contracts] are included, among other things, charter parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime ser- in 1781. vice in the building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; contracts between part owners of ships; contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions and jettisons; and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance." The Supreme Court has not yet followed that case, and others asserting the same doctrine, to the extent of holding that a contract to build a ship is a maritime contract, but that Court denies that such a contract is maritime. Cases collected in The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 498, 37 L. 345; especially Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. 487 (affirming Edwards v. Elliott, 36 N. J. Law 449, 13 Am. R. 463; Elliott v. Edwards, 35 N. J. Law 265; Edwards Other cases denying that shipbuilding contracts are maritime are The John B. Ketcham 2d, 38 C. C. A. 518, 97 Fed. 872, a case commenced in a State court and removed to the Circuit Court; The J. C. Rich, 46 Fed. 136; McMaster v. One Dredge, 95 Fed. 832; Scow M. Tuttle v. Buck, 23 Ohio St. 565, 13 Am. R. 270. There are yet a few subjects connected with, or relating to, navigation and commerce, besides contracts to build ships, over which the Supreme Court has not extended the admiralty jurisdiction. The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 10 Sup. Ct. 873, 34 L. 269. Compared to the great strides which that Court has taken, beginning with |