Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/615

 IN EE LONG ISLAND, ETC., TRiNSPORTATION CO. 603 �the wreck was transferred, a monition as prayed for was issued, and an order was made restraining the prosecution of suits pending this proceeding. �Upon the return-day of the monition serveral parties ap- peared, who filed exceptions to the petition, or moved to dis- miss the petition for want of Jurifidiction in the court, or to set aside the monition and vaoate the restraining order on varions grounds, some of ■which are of general application to ail the claims and some are applicable to particular claims. One of the points made against the jurisdiotion of the court "was that the petition showed that the vessel was engaged only in commerce between ports of the state of New York. The petitioner, upon the hearing of the motions and exceptions, asked leave to amend the petition, and aver that although the service of said steam-boat was between ports ail in the state of New York, yet it formed a link in the chain of commercial intercourse between this state and other states and foreiga countries, and that said vessel was engaged in the transpor- tation over the waters of Long Island sound of merchandise coming from foreign countries and from other states, and destined to points in this state on the route of said steam- boat, and in the transportation over said waters of goods shipped within this state, destined for and addressed to ports and places in other states of the United States and foreign countries, and also in the transportation of passengers des- tined to and coming from other states. �Some of the claimants who have appeared have answered the amended petition, and, upon the hearing, the right of ail parties appearing to answer was reserved till a day to be fixed after the decision of the court upon the motions and excep- tions. So far as the question of iurisdiction rests upon the point that the vessel was, upon the averments of the petition, engaged exclusively in the commerce of the state of New York, and therefore that the limited liability act, oonsidered as a regulation of commerce, bas no application to the case, on the coneeded principle that the power of congress to legislate for the regulation of commerce is limited to the passage of laws for the regulation of commerce between the states and ����