Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/96

 ÎIUKRAT ». FERRY-BOAT. 89 �in the first instance, to resort to admiralty proeess." Fol- lowing the above quoted decisions, I hold that the procedure authorized by the statute is a summary and cumulative rem- edy given to the seaman, which he may at his option pursue, but that the statute doea net deprive him of the right in the first instance to the ordinary admiralty process against the vessel upon a direct application to the court or judge. �2. The second reason assigned in support of the motion to dismisB the libel raises the question ■whether a steam ferry- boat, plying between points on the opposite sides of the Ohio river, within the same state and county, is subject to admi- ralty jurisdiction? �Many of the cases bearing upon this question, cited in sup- port of the motion to dismiss, are without authority, since the more recent decisions of the supreme court, which declare that the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts extends to ail navigable waters. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall, 555; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15. �Navigability, so far as water is concerned, is now the only test of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Id. ; The Gen- eral Cass, 1 Brown's Ad. Eep. 334. It is immaterial, there- fore, that the F. B. Nimick plied -wholly within the county of AUegheny, nor is it material, it seems to me, that in the course of her navigation she merely crossed and recrossed the Ohio river; for admiralty jurisdiction does not depend upon the length of the voyage. The General Cass, supra. �The subject-matter of this libel being of a maritime nature, viz., wages earned by an emploj'e upon a vessel navigating waters within admiralty jurisdiction, does the jurisdiction of the court fail merely because the vessel upon which the libellant was employed was engaged in running as a ferry- boat? Clearly not, it seems to me. It is not the form, size, construction, cquipment, or means of propulsion, that estab- lishes the jurisdiction. Ben. Ad. § 21S; The General Cass, supra. In Ex parte Easton, 5 Otto, 68, it was held that a district court has jurisdiction in admiralty to enforce in rem a claim for wharfage against a canal-boat or barge. ����