Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/620

 613 FEDERAL REPORÏEE. �is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United Statea, the place of collision being upon a canal or artificial water- way over -which that jurisdiction does not extend; and (2) that the place where the canal boats were seized by the mar- shal is without the limits of the southern district of New ïork. �1. The first question is one of very great importance to the commercial interest of the country. It haa never been ex- pressly decided by the supreme court of the United States, but the weight of authority is in favor of the jurisdiction. In the case of the The Monitor the district court for the eastern district of New York entertained jurisdiction of a case of col- lision upon the Delaware & Karitan canal, which, like the Erie canal, is an artificial water-way over the land, but com- jnunicating between what are admitted to be navigable waters of the United States. �Upon an application to the supreme court for a writ of prohibition that court refused the writ. It is understood, however, that the eight justices who heard the case were equaUy divided in opinion, and no written opinions were delivered. The point arose, and was expressly ruled in favor of the jurisdiction by Judge Emmons, in the case of The Avon, 1 Brown's Adm. Eep. 170. It is also understood that the jurisdiction is entertained by several of the district courts. The point is somewhat discussed in the case of The E. D. McChesney, 8 Ben. 150, by Judge Blatchford, but the case before him did not call for a determination of the question. Without going at large into a discussion of the reasons for and against the jurisdiction, it is enough for the disposition of the point in this case to say that, upon a careful perusal of the opinions delivered by the supreme court which touch upon the question, it seems to me that the test established for maritime tort not on tide-water, is whether the place iu which it was committed is upon the "navigable waters of the United States," and that an artificial water-way or canal opened by a state to publie use, for purposes of commerce, and while in fact used as a highway of commerce between ��� �
 * determining the jurisdiction in admiralty, in a case of alleged