federal courts to admiralty and maritime causes and transactions. 7 § 509. The general maritime law not in force in this country except so far as adopted.-The general maritime law is in force in this country, and constitutes a part of its maritime code, so far only as received and accepted and administered in the federal courts or adopted by the laws and usages of the United States; and the maritime usages of foreign countries are not obligatory upon the federal judiciary, and will not be respected as authority by it, except so far as they are consonant with the well-settled principles of English and American jurisprudence. Whilst it is true that the general maritime law constitutes the basis and ground-work of the maritime code of the United States, yet it is also true that it is operative in this country in so far only as it has been received and accepted and adopted in some appropriate and authoritative manner.10 7 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058). 8 The John G. Stephens, 170 U. S. 113, 127 (42:969); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 572 (22:654); The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 369 (29:152); Liverpool & G. W. Steam. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397 (32:788); Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. 386 (39:742); Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017). 9 The Elfreda, 172 U. S. 186, 206 (43:413). 10 The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 572 (22:654); The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26:1001). In The Lottawana, supra, Bradley, Justice, delivering the opinion of the court, discussing the claim of materialmen to a maritime lien on the vessel, for needful repairs and supplies furnished upon her credit in the home port, which was sought to be upheld under the general maritime law, said: "The ground on which we are asked to overrule the judgment in the case of The General Smith is, that by the general maritime law, those who furnish necessary materials, repairs and supplies to a vessel, upon her credit, have a lien on such a vessel therefor, as well as when furnished in her home port as when furnished in a foreign port, and the courts of admiralty are bound to give effect to that lien. The proposition assumes that the general maritime law governs this case, and is binding on the courts of the United States. "But is is hardly necessary to argue that the maritime law is only so far operative as law in any country as it is adopted by the laws and usages of that country. In this respect it is like international law or the laws of war, which have the effect of law in no country any further than they are accepted and received as such; or, like the case of the civil law, which forms the basis of most European laws, but which has the § 510. The power of congress to legislate upon the subject of maritime law.-Whilst it is true that the question as to the definite boundaries of the judicial power of the United States in admiralty and maritime cases is exclusively a judicial question, and congress can neither restrict nor extend those boun force of law in each state only so far as it is adopted therein, and with such modifications as are deemed expedient. The adoption of the common law by the several states of this union also presents an analogous case. It is the basis 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 have 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 daries as defined by the judiciary,11 yet, it is also true that, within those boundaries as so declared and defined, congress has ample power to legislate upon maritime subjects; and its enactments, when so guarded and limited, and not in conflict with any provision of the federal constitution, are a part of the maritime law of the country, and, being a part of the maritime law, their operation is territorially coextensive with the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the national government, which, by the settled law of the country extends wherever public navigation extends-on the seas and the great lakes, and all the navigable rivers and other navigable waters connected with the lakes and the sea.12 § 511. Legislative adoption of rule of general maritime law. Where congress, by legislative enactment, adopts a rule of the general maritime law, the force and authority of the rule so 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, a lien on the ship; whilst that of another country may take a contrary view of 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 narmony and consistency of the common maritime law which each adopts and ob serves. "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." 11 Ante, sec. 507, and authorities there cited. 12 Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017); The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 105; The adopted depend upon the federal statute, and not upon any inherent force of the general maritime law.13 § 512. The maritime code of the United States.-The constituent elements of the maritime code of the United States are: (1) The rules, principles and doctrines of the general maritime law which have been, in some authoritative mode, received, accepted and adopted in this country as a part of its maritime system, and (2) the laws enacted by congress as a part of the maritime law, and which are within the limits of the judicial power of the United States in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as the limits of that power has been defined by the judicial power of the government.11 § 513. Same-The limited liability act.-The legislation of congress known as the "Limited Liability Act," 15 and amendments 16 thereto, limiting the liability of ship owners in certain specified cases, constitute a part of the maritime law of this country, and are, in their operation, coextensive with public navigation, and cases arising under them are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.17 Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26: 1001); Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 18 (35:631). 13 Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 18 (35:631); The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26:1001). 14 The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 609 (22:654); Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017); Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 127 (20: 585); The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26:1001); Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 593 (27:1038); Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 18 (35:631). 15 U. S. Rev. Stat. secs. 42814289, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 837-852. 16 23 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 121, sec. 18, p. 57, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 852; 24 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 421, sec. 4, pp. 80, 81, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 852. 17 Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 18 (35:631); Norwich & N. Y. Trans. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 127 (20:585); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 577 (22:654); The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26:1001); The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 250 (26:351); The Great Western, 118 U. S. 520 (30:156); Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017). In Butler v. Steamship Co., which presented the question whether the limited liability act applied to cases of personal injury and death, which was decided in the affirmative in that case, Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "One of the modifications of the maritime law, as received here, was a rejection of the law of limited liability. We have rectified that. Congress has restored that article to our maritime code. We cannot doubt its power to do this. 19 § 514. Same-The Harter Act.-The Harter Act,18 regulating contracts of affreightment entered into by the owners of vessels transporting merchandise, constitutes a part of the maritime laws of this country, and will be applied to foreign vessels in suits brought in the United States.20 § 515. Same-Legislation of congress in regard to seamen.— One of the most important statutory features of the maritime code of this country is to be found in the extensive and judicious legislation of congress in regard to seamen, covering the entire field of their rights, duties and liabilities, and establishing all needful rules and regulations for their protection both at home and abroad.21 § 516. Federal legislation forfeiting vessels fitted out with intent to violate neutrality. The provison of the federal statute 22 forfeiting vessels fitted out in the United States with intent to violate the neutral and pacific relations of this country As the constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and as this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature, and not in the state legislatures. It is true, we have held that the boundaries, and limits of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are matters of judicial cognizance, and cannot be effected or controlled by legislation, whether state or national. But within these boundaries and limits the law itself is that which has always been received as maritime law in this country, with such amendments and modifications as congress may from time to time have adopted. "It being clear, then, that the law of limited liability of ship owners is a part of our maritime code, the extent of its territorial operation (as before intimated) cannot be doubtful. It is neces sarily coextensive with that of the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and that, by the settled law of this country, extends wherever public navigation extends on the sea and the great inland lakes, and the navigable waters connecting therewith." 18 27 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 105, p. 445, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 854-857. 19 The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 474 (40:771). 20 The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 599 (49:610); The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540 (43:801). 21 U. S. Rev. Stat. secs. 45014612; 18 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 260, p. 64; 23 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 121, pp. 53-60; 24 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 421, pp. 79-83; 26 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 801, p. 320; 28 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 97, p. 667; 29 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 389, pp. 687-692; 30 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 28, pp. 756-764; 3 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 3061-3125; 6 Fed. Stat. Anno. 843-935. 22 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 5283; 3 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 3599, 3600; 5 Fed. Stat. Anno. 358-365. |