Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/621

 MALONT V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE. 613 �the states of the Union, and between foreign countries and the United States, is "navigable water of the United States" within the meaning of that term as used to define and limit the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts. Nor, as it seems to me, is there any force in the suggestion that this proposition trenches upon the rightful power and jurisdiction of the state through whose territory and by whase law, in force for the time being, the canal is so opened and used, beeause the exercise of this jurisdiction does not in any way in itself impair or affect the right of the state (whatever that right may be) to withdraw or terminate that dedication of its prop- erty to the public uses of commerce. �At any rate, considering the present state of authority and practioe in the courts inferior to the supreme court, I do not feel at liberty to decline the jurisdiction. The question ia one of national importance, and must, doubtless, soon receive fuU consideration and a final determination in the supreme court. The Genessee Chief, 12 How. 443 ; The Hine, 4 Wall. 555; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15; The Daniel Bail, 10 Was. 557; Ins.Co.y.Dunham, 11 Wall. 1; The Montello, 11 Wall. 411; The Lottaivanna, 21 Wall. 558. �2. In respect to the second objection it is claimed, on the part of the libellant, that the convention between the states of New York and New Jersey, in the year 1833, which was consented to by the United States, with some qualifications, (Eevised Statutes, § 641,) bas enlarged the limits of this district, so that it now extends to high water mark on the New Jersey shore, instead of being limited to the low water mark, as it is admitted to bave been prior to 1833. �This claim, however, was very fully considered and deter- mined in the negative by Judge Blatcbford, in the case of The L. W. Eaton, in this court, (decision January 26, 1878, unreported.) �The only question, therefore, is whether, at the time of their seizure by the marshal, these canal boats were above or below low water mark. The evidence on that point is some- what conflicting, and there is no doubt that in exceptionally low tides, and particularly when a strong north-west wind bas ��� �