Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/97

 90 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �Mr. Benedict, in his work on admiralty, (§ 218,) says : "A Bcow, a lighter, a ferry-boat, and probably a raft or timber- Bhip, under certain circumstances, would be held to be a sbip or vessel, and subject to the same maritime law as other ves- sels." A steam ferry-boat of the capacity of the P. B. Nim- ick transports on a large scale both passengers and freight,. and is as much engaged in maritime commerce and busi- ness as if her voyages were longitudinal, instead of across the stream. �In this connection it is worthy of observation that by sec- tion 4426 of the Eevised Statutes, title, "Eegulation of Steam Vessels," the huU and boilers of every ferry-boat propelled by steam are subject to inspection under the provisions of said title, and such boats, for certain purposes, are made sub- ject to the regulations of the boards of supervising inspector8^ and the act provides that "no such vessel shall be navigated •without a licensed engineer and a licensed pilot." �I am aware that in Thackery v. The Farmer, Grilpin's Rep. 524, there is an obiter dictum, and in Hatris v. Nugent, S Cir. G. G. Rep. 649, it was ruled that a ferry-boat is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the United States district courts sitting in admiralty. But these cases vrere decided at an early day, when the admiralty jurisdiction of these courts was supposed to lie within comparatively narrow limits. �On the other hand, in Chesman v. Two Ferry-Boats, 2 Bond, 863, and in Gate City, 6 Biss. 200, it was held that ferry- boats propelled by steam are subject to the jurisdiction of the national courts in admiralty, when running between localities in different states. But, as already seen, it is not essential to admiralty jurisdiction that a vessel should be engaged in inter-state commerce. �In a recent case in this district, The Monongahela Navi- gation Co, V. The Steam Tug Bob Connell* 10 Pittsburgh Legal Journal, (N. S.) 123, the circuit judge (McKennan) held that lockage in the Monongahela river is of a maritime nature, and cognizable in a court of admiralty, and in hia �*S. C. 1 Fed. Rep. 218. See also, Malony v. City of MUwaukee, Id. 611. ����