C. J., has also said forcibly 8 that if in the cause, "it appears that some title, right, privilege, or immunity on which the recovery depends will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or a law of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction, then the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States." "

Cases affecting ambassadors, etc.

92. "Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls" are cases to which such officers are parties, or so far privies, that the determination thereof will conclude their rights.10

Admiralty.

93. "Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction'' comprehend litigated cases with regard to acts done and

Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375, 384.

'See also Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 379; Osborn v. Bank of the U. S., 9 id. 738, 824; The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252; G.-W. & W. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201; R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 id. 135, 140; Ames v. Kansas, 111 id. 449, 462; K. P. R. v. A., T. & S. F. R., 112 id. 414, 416; Provident Savings Society v. Ford, 114 id. 635; P. R. Removal Cases, 115 id. 1; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 id. 586; Burthe v. Denis, 133 id. 514; Bock v. Perkins, 139 id. 628; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 id. 406; Cooke v. Avery, 147 id. 375; Belden v. Chase, 150 id. 674; N. P. R. v. Colburn, 164 id. 383; In re Lennon, 166 id. 548; A. Ex. Co. v. Michigan, 177 id. 404; W. U. T. Co. v. A. A. R., 178 id. 239; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 id. 276; Tullock v. Mulvane, 184 id. 497; Patton v. Brady, ibid. 608; Howard v. U. S., ibid. 676; V. W. Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 id. 65; Filhiol v. Maurice, ibid. 108; Talbot v. S. C. First Nat. Bank, ibid. 172; Swafford v. Templeton, ibid. 487; Marsh v. N., S. & Co., 140 id. 344; Holt v. I. Mfg. Co., 176 id. 68; Arkansas v. K. & T. C. Co., 183 id. 185; C. C. D. Co. v. Ohio, ibid. 238; N. F. & P. W. v. O. W. S. Co., ibid. 216; F.-G. L. S. Co. v. Springer, 185 id. 47; Kennard v. Nebraska, 186 id. 304; Sawyer v. Piper, 189 id. 154. For cases affecting officers of the United States see In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Sonnentheil v. M. B. Co., 172 id. 401; Bausman v. Dixon, 173 id. 113; Auten v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 174 id. 125; Boske v. Comingore, 177 id. 459; Gableman v. P., D. & E. Ry., 179 id. 335. For cases affecting corporations created by the United States see N. P. R. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465; T. & P. Ry. v. Cody, 166 id. 606. 10 U. S. v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; Blyew v. U. S., 13 Wall. 581.

rights created, or contracts to be performed, upon the high seas or inland navigable waters, or with regard to contracts for the transportation of passengers or goods on the high seas or on navigable waters between different states. The courts of the United States have, therefore, full jurisdiction in admiralty, and, as Bradley, J., said,11 "the boundaries and limits of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are matters of judicial cognizance, and cannot be affected or controlled by legislation, whether state or national.12 But within these boundaries and limits the law itself is that which has always been received as maritime law in this country, with such amendments and modifications as Congress may from time to time have adopted."

The judicial power, being defined by the Constitution, cannot be extended by legislation under the guise of a regulation of commerce, for the legislative regulation of any subject-matter of jurisdiction is in its nature essentially distinct from the creation of a tribunal and the vesting in that tribunal of jurisdiction over any particular subject-matter.13 Congress may legislate as to maritime torts,1 and maritime contracts. Ships navigating the high seas, though in the prosecution of commerce between two ports of the same state, are subject to the federal power of regulation, and may therefore have the benefit of the limitation of liability under the statutes of the United States,15 and the limited liability statutes now extend to all vessels used in navigation of inland waters.16 While states cannot create maritime liens, nor confer jurisdiction upon their courts for the enforcement of such

"In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 14.

12 The St. Lawrence, 1 Bl. 522, 6, 7; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 575. 13 The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 452.

"In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; Workman v. New York, 179 id. 552.

15 Rev. Stat. Secs. 4283 and 4289; Lord v. G. N. & P. S. S. Co., 102 U. S. 541.

16

Act of 19th June, 1886; 24 Stat. 80, 81; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1.

liens, nor authorize their courts to entertain suits for damages for the breach of contracts for transportation of passengers on the high seas,18 nor proceedings in rem in collision cases on navigable waters,19 yet, as the general maritime law does not recognize liens in favour of material men for supplies furnished to vessels in their home ports, or for materials sold for ships in process of construction, the states may by statute authorize liens therefor, which may be enforced by proceedings in rem in the admiralty courts of the United States.20 On the same principle, as both at common law and in admiralty the right of action for a tort is personal and dies with the person injured, and no action is maintainable therefor,21 the right of action in such cases when conferred by a state statute is enforcible in a state court in a case of death caused by collision in navigable waters which are within the jurisdiction of the state, and it is also enforcible when the navigable waters are also within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States 22 in the courts of the United States on the admiralty side,23 and also on the law side.24 In England navigable waters are, in law, only those in which the tide ebbs and flows; and, in that country, the admiralty jurisdiction is further restricted by the requirement that the locus in quo, though within the ebb and flow of the tide, should not be infra corpus comitatus nor at sea infra fauces terræ. In certain

17 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256; The Roanoke, 189 id. 185; The R. W. Parsons, 191 id. 17.

18 The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411.

19 The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555.

20 Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; The Lottawanna, ibid. 558; The Kate, 164 U. S. 458; The R. W. Parsons, 191 id. 17.

21

Higgins v. Butcher, Yelv. 89; Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515.

S. Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99; Butler v. B. & S. S. Co., 130 id. 527.

Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Ferry Co., ibid. 519.

24 Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270.

of the earlier cases in this country the English test of navigability in a legal sense was applied, but, as the reason of the rule failed here, and as its adoption would have taken out of the jurisdiction of admiralty the inland waters and many rivers which are in fact navigable but where there is no ebb or flow of the tide, the 9th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 constituted navigability in fact the test of navigability in law, and the later cases have followed that statutory rule.25

Controversies to which the United States shall be a party.

94. The phrase "controversies to which the United States shall be a party" requires no elucidation further than to note that the United States, as a sovereignty, cannot be sued without its own consent,26 and the constitutional provision does not impose upon Congress any duty to constitute tribunals to take cognizance of claims against the United States. Under this provision the United States may bring suit against a state in the Supreme Court of the United States, but, by reason of the state being a sovereignty, interest upon the principal found to be due by the state will not be awarded, unless its consent to pay interest has been given by its legislative, or executive, act.27

The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; N. J. N. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 id. 344; Fretz v. Bull, 12 id. 466; Allen v. Newberry, 21 id. 244; Maguire v. Card, ibid. 248; The St. Lawrence, 1 Bl. 522; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, ibid. 555; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; The Eagle, 8 id. 15; The Daniel Ball, 10 id. 557; The Montello, 20 id. 430; Butler v. B. & S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527; Belden v. Chase, 150 id. 674; Moran v. Sturges, 154 id. 256; P. R. v. Napier S. Co., 166 id. 280; The Glide, 167 id. 606; Workman v. New York, 179 id. 552; The R. W. Parsons, 191 id. 17.

26

McElrath v. U. S., 102 U. S. 426; Schillinger v. U. S., 155 id. 163; Belknap v. Schild, 161 id. 10; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 id. 255; Ainsa v. U. S., 184 id. 639; Bigby v. U. S., 188 id. 400. See also 24 Stat. 505, c. 359.

27

* U. S. v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211. See U. S. v. Michigan, 190 id.

Controversies between citizens of different states.

95. The phrase, controversies "between citizens of different states," vests in the courts of the United States jurisdiction over all proceedings in personam between such parties. As Marshall, C. J., said in Cohens v. Virginia,28 "If these be the parties, it is entirely unimportant what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the courts of the Union;" and as Field, J., said in Gaines v. Fuentes,20 "It rests entirely with Congress to determine at what time the power may be invoked, and upon what conditions."' 30

A citizen of a territory, or of the District of Columbia, cannot sue under this clause,31 nor can a state.32 That jurisdiction which is dependent on the character of the parties does not include proceedings in rem, or quasi in rem, such as questions of probate, or actions for divorce.34

286 Wheat. 378.

29 92 U. S. 10, 18.

33

30 See also Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170, 175; Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 287; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Dennick v. R. Co., 103 id. 11; Ex parte Boyd, 105 id. 647; Koenigsberger v. R. S. M. Co., 158 id. 41; St. L. & S. F. Ry. v. James, 161 id. 545; St. J. & G. I. R. v. Steele, 167 id. 659. The law applied in controversies between citizens of different states is discussed by Professor Pepper in "Borderland of Federal and State Decisions," and infra, sec. 109. And see Bucher v. C. R., 125 U. S. 555; Friedlander v. T. & P. Ry., 130 id. 416; Clark v. Bever, 139 id. 96; Scott v. Neely, 140 id. 106; Cross v. Allen, 141 id. 528; Ellenwood v. M. C. Co., 158 id. 105; H. F. I. Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 175 id. 91; Dooley v. Pease, 180 id. 126; W. U. T. Co.v. C. P. Co., 181 id. 92. 31 Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322; Koenigsberger v. R. S. M. Co., 158 id. 41; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 id. 395. 32 P. T. C. Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482; Arkansas v. K. & T. C. Co., 183 id. 185; cf. M., K. & T. Ry. v. Missouri R. & W. Comrs., ibid. 53.

608;

Fouvergne v. New Orleans, 18 How. 470; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. Clarke v. Clarke, 178 id. 186; cf. Clark v. Bever, 139 id. 96; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 id. 557. See also Ellenwood v. M. C. Co., 158 id. 105; S. T. Co. v. B. R. Nat. Bank, 187 id. 211.

"Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582.