ducts us to the conclusion, that the National courts ought to have jurisdiction of this class of admiralty cases, conducts us equally to the conclusion, that, to be effectual for the administration of international justice, it ought to be exclusive. And, accordingly, it has been constantly held, that this jurisdiction is exclusive in the courts of the United States.

§ 327. The other branch of admiralty jurisdiction, dependent upon locality, respects civil acts, torts, and injuries done on the sea, cr, in certain cases, on waters of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, without any claim of exercising the rights of war. Such are cases of assaults, and other personal injuries; cases of collision, or running of ships against each other; cases of spoliation and damage, (as they are technically called,) such as illegal seizures, or depredations upon property; cases of illegal dispossession, or withholding possession from the owners of ships, commonly called possessory suits; cases of seizures under municipal authority for supposed breaches of revenue, or other prohibitory laws; and cases of salvage for meritorious services performed, in saving property, whether derelict, or wrecked, or captured, or otherwise in imminent hazard from extraordinary perils.

§ 328. It is obvious, that this class of cases has, or may have, an intimate relation to the rights and duties of foreigners, in navigation and maritime commerce. It may materially affect our intercourse with foreign states; and may raise many questions of international law, not merely touching private claims, but national sovereignty, and national reciprocity. Thus, for instance, if a collision should take place at sea between an American and a foreign ship, many important questions of public law might be connected with its just decision; for it is obvious, that it could not be governed by the mere municipal law of either country. So, if a case of recapture, or other salvage service, performed to a foreign ship, should occur, it must be decided by the general principles of maritime law, and the doctrines of national reciprocity. Where a recapture is made of a friendly ship from the hands of its

it upon salvage, if the foreign country, to which it belongs, adopts a reciprocal rule; or to condemn it to the recaptors, if the like rule is adopted in the foreign country. And, in other cases of salvage, the doctrines of international and maritime law come into full activity, rather than those of any mere municipal code. There is, therefore, a peculiar fitness in appropriating this class of cases to the National tribunals; since they will be more likely to be there decided upon large and comprehensive principles, and to receive a more uniform adjudication; and thus to become more satisfactory to foreigners.

§ 329. The remaining class respects contracts, claims, and services purely maritime. Among these, are the claims of material-men and others, for repairs and outfits of ships belonging to foreign nations, or to other States; bottomry bonds, for moneys lent on ships in foreign ports, tō relieve their distresses, and enable them to complete their voyages; surveys of vessels damaged by perils of the seas; pilotage on the high seas; and suits for mariners' wages. These, indeed, often arise in the course of the commerce and navigation of the United States; and seem emphatically to belong, as incidents, to the power to regulate commerce. But they may also affect the commerce and navigation of foreign nations. Repairs may be done, and supplies be furnished, to foreign ships; money may be lent on foreign bottoms; pilotage and mariners' wages may become due in voyages in foreign employment; and in such cases, the general maritime law enables the courts of admiralty to administer a wholesome and prompt justice. Indeed, in many of these cases, as the courts of admiralty entertain suits in rem, (that is, upon the thing,) as well as in personam, (that is, upon the person,) they are often the only courts, in which an effectual redress can be afforded, especially when it is desirable to enforce a specific maritime lien, or claim, in the nature of a pledge.

§ 330. So that we see, that the admiralty jurisdiction naturally connects itself, on the one hand, with our diplomatic relations and duties to foreign nations, and their subjects; and, on the other hand, with the great interests

of navigation and commerce, foreign and domestic. There is, then, a peculiar wisdom in giving to the National Government a jurisdiction of this sort, which cannot be wielded, except for the general good; and which multiplies the securities for the public peace abroad, and gives to commerce and navigation the most encouraging support at home. It may be added, that, in many of the cases included in these latter classes, the same reasons do not exist, as in cases of prize, for an exclusive jurisdiction; and, therefore, whenever the common law is competent to give a remedy in the State courts, they may retain their accustomed concurrent jurisdiction in the adminis

tration of it.

§ 331. We have been thus far considering the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in civil cases only. But it also embraces all public offences, committed on the high seas, and in creeks, havens, basins, and bays, within the ebb and flow of the tide; at least, in such as are out of the body of any county of a State. In these places, the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty over offences is exclusive; for that of the courts of common law is limited to such offences, as are committed within the body of some county. And on the seacoast, there is an alternate, or divided jurisdiction of the courts of common law, and admiralty, in places between high and low water mark; the former having jurisdiction when, and as far as the tide is out, and the latter when, and as far as the tide is in, or to high water mark. This criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty is therefore exclusively vested in the National Government; and may be exercised over such crimes and offences, as Congress may, from time to time, delegate to the cognizance of the National courts. The propriety of vesting this criminal jurisdiction in the National Government depends upon the same reasoning, and is established by the same general considerations, as have been already suggested in regard to civil cases. essentially connected with the due regulation, and protection of our commerce and navigation on the high seas, and with our rights and duties in regard to foreign nations,

It is

on the ocean. The States, as such, are not known in our intercourse with foreign nations, and are not recognized as common sovereigns on the ocean. And if they were permitted to exercise criminal or civil jurisdiction thereon, there would be endless embarrassments, arising from the conflict of their laws, and the most serious dangers of perpetual controversies with foreign nations. In short, the peace of the Union would be constantly put at hazard by acts, over which it had no control; and by assertions of right, which it might wholly disclaim.

Un

§ 332. The next clause extends the judicial power "to controversies, to which the United States shall be a party." It scarcely seems possible to raise a reasonable doubt, as to the propriety of giving to the National courts jurisdiction of cases, in which the United States are a party. It would be a perfect novelty in the history of national jurisprudence, as well as of public law, that a sovereign had no authority to sue in his own courts. less this power were given to the United States, the enforcement of all their rights, powers, contracts, and privileges, in their sovereign capacity, would be at the mercy of the States. They must be enforced, if at all, in the State tribunals. And there would not only not be any compulsory power over those courts to perform such functions; but there would not be any means of producing uniformity in their decisions. A sovereign, without the means of enforcing civil rights, or compelling the performance, either civilly or criminally, of public duties, on the part of the citizens, would be a most extraordinary anomaly. It would prostrate the Union at the feet of the States. It would compel the National Government to become a supplicant for justice before the judicature of those, who were by other parts of the Constitution placed in subordination to it.

§ 333. The next clause extends the judicial power "to controversies between two or more States; between a State and the citizens of another State; between citizens of different States, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens

of navigation and commerce, foreign and domestic. There is, then, a peculiar wisdom in giving to the National Government a jurisdiction of this sort, which cannot be wielded, except for the general good; and which multiplies the securities for the public peace abroad, and gives to commerce and navigation the most encouraging support at home. It may be added, that, in many of the cases included in these latter classes, the same reasons do not exist, as in cases of prize, for an exclusive jurisdiction; and, therefore, whenever the common law is competent to give a remedy in the State courts, they may retain their accustomed concurrent jurisdiction in the administration of it.

§ 331. We have been thus far considering the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in civil cases only. But it also embraces all public offences, committed on the high seas, and in creeks, havens, basins, and bays, within the ebb and flow of the tide; at least, in such as are out of the body of any county of a State. In these places, the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty over offences is exclusive; for that of the courts of common law is limited to such offences, as are committed within the body of some county. And on the seacoast, there is an alternate, or divided jurisdiction of the courts of common law, and admiralty, in places between high and low water mark; the former having jurisdiction when, and as far as the tide is out, and the latter when, and as far as the tide is in, or to high water mark. This criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty is therefore exclusively vested in the National Government; and may be exercised over such crimes and offences, as Congress may, from time to time, delegate to the cognizance of the National courts. propriety of vesting this criminal jurisdiction in the National Government depends upon the same reasoning, and is established by the same general considerations, as have been already suggested in regard to civil cases. essentially connected with the due regulation, and protection of our commerce and navigation on the high seas, and with our rights and duties in regard to foreign nations,

The

It is