Page:The Supreme Court in United States History vol 1.djvu/176

150 rendered a notable opinion which, in subsequent years, served as the basis for the broad extension of Federal admiralty jurisdiction to inland navigable rivers, to the Great Lakes, and elsewhere off the high seas. The case involved a libel of a vessel for unlawfully exporting arms from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to French dominions. It was contended by Charles Lee in his argument against Peter S. Duponceau, that the English common law should prevail and that an act committed not wholly on the high seas but partly within the confines of a State should be held not to be within admiralty jurisdiction. The Court decided to the contrary; and though the decision was a bold one in its assertion of Federal authority and has been frequently attacked, it has been steadily adhered to as one of the fundamental decisions of American law. In another admiralty case, the fairness with which, in spite of the political prejudices rife at that time, the Court was determined to treat foreign powers was illustrated in Moodie v. Ship Phœbe Anne, 3 Dallas, 319. A French privateer, driven by storm into a United States port and having made repairs there, was libeled for breach of our neutrality; and counsel argued "the impolicy and inconveniency of suffering privateers to equip in our ports." Ellsworth, however, in deciding in favor of France said that: "Suggestions of policy and conveniency cannot be considered in the judicial determination of a question of right; the treaty with France,