ferent states, by denying to the states on the great lakes and those traversed by the great navigable rivers of the west the benefits of the maritime law and courts of admiralty, "flatly overruled" its former decision, and repudiated the common-law rule, and established the modern doctrine that, not the ebb and flow of the tide, but the actual navigability of the waters is the test of admiralty jurisdiction, and to which doctrine the court has consistently and invariably adhered ever since."1 40 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058); in this case, which arose out of a collision on Lake Ontario about forty miles below Niagara, Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the court and giving its reasons for overruling its former decision and abandoning the common law test as to admiralty jurisdiction, said: "These lakes are in truth inland seas. Different states border on them on one side, and a foreign nation on the other. A great and growing commerce is carried on upon them between different states and a foreign nation, which is subject to all the incidents and hazards that attend commerce on the ocean. Hostile fleets have encountered on them, and prizes been made; and every reason which existed for the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the general government on the Atlantic seas, applies with equal force to the lakes. There is an equal necessity for the instance and for the prize power of the admiralty court to administer international law, and if the one cannot be established neither can the other. "Again, the union is formed upon the basis of equal rights among all the states. Courts of admiralty have been found necessary in all commercial countries, not only for the safety and convenience of commerce, and the speedy decision of 40 controversies, but also to administer the laws of nations in seasons of war, and to determine the validity of captures and questions of prize or no prize in a judicial proceeding. And it would be contrary to the first principles on which the union was formed to confine these rights to the states bordering on the Atlantic, and to the tide water rivers. connected with it, and to deny them to the citizens who border on the great lakes, and the great navigable streams which flow through the western states. Certainly such was not the intention of the framers of the constitution; and if such be the construction finally given to it by this court, it must necessarily produce great public inconvenience, and at the same time fail to accomplish one of the great objects of the framers of the constitution; that is, a perfect equality in the rights and privileges of the citizens of the different states; not only in the laws of the general government, but in the mode of administering them. That equality does not exist, if the commerce on the lakes and on the navigable waters of the west are denied the benefits of the same courts and the same jurisdiction for its protection which the constitution secures to the states bordering on the Atlantic. "The only objection made to And now, by the settled decisions of the supreme court, the public navigable waters of the United States, within the meaning of the constitutional grant of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the states, are defined to be those creeks, rivers, inlets, bays, ports, harbors, havens, lakes and other waters, which are navigable in fact, and which in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, form a continuous highway over which commerce is, or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries, in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water.42 § 525. Same-Portage and artificial improvements.-The character of the public navigable rivers of the United States is not affected by the fact that the navigability of the river is interrupted by rapids and falls over which portages are re this jurisdiction is that there is no tide in the lakes or waters connecting them; and it is said that the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as known and understood in England and this country at the time the constitution was adopted, was confined to the ebb and flow of the tide. "Now, there is certainly nothing in the ebb and flow of the tide that makes the water peculiarly suitable for the admiralty jurisdiction, nor anything in the absence of a tide that renders it unfit. If it is a public navigable water, on which commerce is carried on between different states or nations, the reason for the jurisdiction is precisely the same. And if a distinction is made on that account, it is merely arbitrary, without any foundation in reason; and, indeed, would seem to be inconsistent with it." 41 Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 (13: 1068); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269); The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107); The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 (18:451); The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624 (19:266); The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15 (19:365); The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (19:999); The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 (22:319); Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629 (27:1056); Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1-18 (35:631); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17-55 (48:73). 42 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058); Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 (13:1068); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16: 296); The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107); The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624 (19:266); The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15 (19:365); The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (19:999); The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 (22:391); Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629 (27: 1056); Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1-18 (35:631); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17-55 (48:73). quired to be made, nor by the fact that the river may have been made navigable by artificial improvements.13 § 526. Same-Navigable river flowing wholly within the territorial limits of one state.-A river flowing wholly within the territorial limits of one state, and which is navigable in fact, and, by its connection or junction with other waters, forms a part of a continuous highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries, in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water, is a public navigable river of the United States, and is subject to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction vested in the general government by the federal constitution; " and that jurisdiction embraces marine torts committed, and marine contracts performed or to be performed upon such river in a voyage or voyages wholly between ports and places within the state in which the river flows, the admiralty jurisdiction being wholly independent of the power of congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.* 45 § 527. Same-Same-Illustrations-The Alabama river.The Alabama river, which flows wholly within the state of Alabama, falls into the Mobile river fifty miles above tide water, is navigable from the sea, and is, therefore, a public navigable river of the United States, and subject to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the national judiciary.46 The case cited was a marine tort- -a collision between two steamboatson the river in the county of Wilcox in that state. A libel was filed by the owner of the boat which was injured in the district court of the United States for the middle district of Alabama to recover damages resulting from the collision. The respondents objected to the jurisdiction of the court upon two grounds, viz.: (1) That the collision occurred within the body of a county, and (2) it occurred above tide water. The objection to the jurisdiction was sustained by the court and the libel 43 The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 (22:391); Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company v. Patten Paper Company, 172 U. S. 58, 82 (43: 364). 44 The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269); The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (19:999); The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 (22:391). 45 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624 (19: 266); The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107). 46 The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909). dismissed, but the reason of its judgment was not disclosed; but upon appeal the supreme court reversed the decree of the lower court and upheld the jurisdiction, and pointed out the fact that both questions raised by the respondent had been foreclosed by the previous adjudications of the court, and laid down the proposition that the ninth section of the original judiciary act vested in the district courts of the United States admiralty and maritime jurisdiction over the navigable rivers of the United States, and that no further legislation was necessary after the decision in the Genesee Chief to complete that jurisdiction in those courts.47 § 528. Same Same Same-The Yazoo river in the state of Mississippi. The Yazoo river which flows wholly within the state of Mississippi, falling into the Mississippi river twelve miles above Vicksburg, forms a part of a continuous highway, upon which commerce may be carried on between that state and other states and foreign countries, and is a public navigable river subject to the admiralty jurisdiction. 48 In the case cited, decided by the supreme court of the United States, in the year 1860, it was held that a collision occurring on the Yazoo river between a flat boat laden with cotton bales destined to New Orleans, Louisiana, while descending the river, and a steamboat ascending it, in which the former was wrecked and its cargo greatly damaged and a part of it lost, was a marine tort, justiciable in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, sitting in admiralty, upon a libel in rem there filed, the offending steamboat having been found and arrested in that district.49 24 as late as 1891 in Ex Parte Gar- § 529. Same Same Same-Grand river in the state of Michigan.-Grand river flows wholly within the territorial limits of the state of Michigan, falling into Lake Michigan at Grand Haven, and is navigable in fact, capable of bearing a steamer of one hundred and twenty-three tons burden, laden with merchandise and passengers, as far as Grand Rapids, a distance of forty miles from its mouth, and by its junction with the lake it forms a continued highway for commerce, both with other states and foreign countries; and in a leading case it was held that this river is a public navigable river of the United States, subject to the admiralty jurisdiction, and that a steamer in its navigation, between the cities of Grand Rapids and Grand Haven, and in the transportation of passengers and merchandise, a portion of the merchandise transported being destined to places in other states or coming from places without the state. but the steamer not running in connection with or in continuation of any line of steamers or other vessels, or any railway line leading to or from another state, was subject to the laws of the United States with regard to enrollment, license and inspection of vessels, and liable to be proceeded against in admiralty for a failure to comply with such laws.50 50 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 566 (19:999). The language in the opinion in the case here cited, more clearly and lucidly, perhaps, defines the navigable waters of the United States, than the language of any other opinion of the court. Field. Justice, delivering the opinion of the court said: "The doctrine of the common law as to the navigability of waters has no application in this country. Here the ebb and flow of the tide do not constitute the usual test, as in England, or any test at all as to the navigability of waters. There no waters are navigable in fact, or at least to any considerable extent, which are not subject to the tide, and from this circumstance tide water and navi gable water there signify substan- * |