for the purpose of reclaiming the lands bordering thereon. It was shown that only fishermen and oyster boats used it. The court said that, in order to be public navigable waters, there should be "commerce of a substantial and permanent character conducted thereon."

The admiralty jurisdiction does not extend over the waters of a lake entirely within the borders of a state, and without any navigable outlet. In United States v. Burlington & Henderson County Ferry Co.15 Judge Love seems to think that such waters are without the admiralty jurisdiction, though the point was not directly involved. In Stapp v. The Clyde 16 the question was necessarily involved, and the court decided that such waters were not of admiralty cognizance.

Artificial as well as natural water ways come within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. In The Oler 17 this was decided as to the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. Afterwards, in Ex parte Boyer,18 the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction in the case of a collision between two canal boats. on the Illinois and Lake Michigan Canal, an artificial Canal entirely within the limits of a state, but forming a link in interstate communication, though the vessels themselves were on voyages beginning and ending in the state.

15 (D. C.) 21 Fed. 331.

16 43 Minn. 192, 45 N. W. 430. See, also, Rockaway, 156 Fed. 692; Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 24 Sup. Ct. 8, 48 L. Ed. 73. They are certainly not within the commerce clause of the Constitution. Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 14 L. Ed. 545. Moore V. American Transp. Co., 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674.

172 Hughes, 12, Fed. Cas. No. 10,485.

18 109 U. S. 629, 3 Sup. Ct. 434, 27 L. Ed. 1056. See, also, Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 24 Sup. Ct. S, 48 L. Ed. 73.

THE CRAFT INCLUDED

5. The character of craft included in the admiralty jurisdiction is any movable floating structure capable of navigation and designed for navigation.

The evolution of the ship from the dugout or bark canoe to the galley with gradually increasing banks of oars, then to the sail vessel with masts and sails constantly growing and replacing the human biceps, then to the self-propelling steamers, reckless of ocean lanes and calm belts, is one of the miracles of progress. As to all of these the jurisdiction of the admiralty is clear. But hardly less important, at least in local commerce, are the various nondescripts which dot our harbors, like lighters, rafts, car floats, floating docks, dredges, and barges with no motive power aboard.

Here, again, it must be remembered that the admiralty clause of the Constitution, and not the commerce clause, is being considered. A vessel need not necessarily be engaged in commerce to come within the jurisdiction, though, if it was, the jurisdiction would be clear. The true test is capability of navigation and the animus navigandi. The very same structure, when permanently attached to the shore, and thereby becoming a practical extension of the shore, without any intent of moving, might be out of the jurisdiction; and yet, if temporarily attached, and designed to be shifted from place to place by water, it might be within the jurisdiction. The leading case on this subject is COPE v. VALLETTE DRY-DOCK CO.19 There the court held that the jurisdiction did not include a floating dry dock permanently attached to the shore at New Orleans, and not intended for navigation. It had been moored to the same place for twenty years. Had it been designed to be towed around to different places in the harbor, that would have

§ 5. 19 119 U. S. 625, 7 Sup. Ct. 336, 30 L. Ed. 501.

| been navigation sufficient, and in such case the court would probably have taken jurisdiction. It is difficult to reconcile with this the case of Woodruff v. One Covered Scow,20 in which Judge Benedict took jurisdiction of a floating boathouse permanently attached to a wharf to afford access to shore for persons from small boats. As the Vallette DryDock Case was only decided on January 10, 1887, and this case on February 18, 1887, it is likely that the former was not known to Judge Benedict.

Under the jurisdiction are included lighters of the simplest kind, for they are considered to "appertain to travel or trade or commerce.'

" 21

A floating elevator, used for the storage of grain, but designed to be moved from place to place in a harbor, is included.22

There are many cases extending the jurisdiction over dredges, both those which lift the mud by dippers, and deposit it in scows to be towed away, and those which work on a sucking principle, drawing the mud from the bottom, and delivering it on shore by long lines of pipe.23 The same is true of floating movable derricks, and pile drivers.24

On the other hand, a marine pump dredge, capable of being moved from place to place, but resting on piles, and

20 (D. C.) 30 Fed. 269.

21 General Cass, 1 Brown, Adm. 334, Fed. Cas. No. 5,307; Wilmington (D. C.) 48 Fed. 566.

22 Hezekiah Baldwin, 8 Ben. 556, Fed. Cas. No. 6,449.

23 Saylor v. Taylor, 23 C. C. A. 343, 77 Fed. 476; McRae v. Dredging Co. (C. C.) 86 Fed. 344; Mac, 7 P. D. 126; Richmond Dredging Co. v. Standard American Dredging Co., 208 Fed. 862, 126 C. C. A. 20.

24 Maltby v. A Steam Derrick, 3 Hughes, 477, Fed. Cas. No. 9,000; Lawrence v. Flatboat (D. C.) 84 Fed. 200; Southern Log Cart. & Supply Co. v. Lawrence, 30 C. C. A. 480, 86 Fed. 907; Raithmoor (D. C.) 186 Fed. 849 (reversed on another point, not affecting this question, 241 U. S. 166, 36 Sup. Ct. 514, 60 L. Ed. 937).

not floating, has been held to be excluded from admiralty cognizance. 25

27

In The Public Bath No. 13 26 Judge Brown held that a bath house built on boats, and made to shift from place to place, is within the jurisdiction. This, and U. S. v. Burlington & Henderson County Ferry Co., are good illustrations of cases where the courts treat navigability irrespective of trade or commerce as the proper test of the admiralty jurisdiction in contradistinction to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Judge Cushman has recently held that an aeroplane is not a subject of admiralty jurisdiction.28

In construing the meaning of the word "ship" under the English statutes conferring jurisdiction on the admiralty courts, the House of Lords has held that a floating gas buoy, which had been broken loose, and had been saved, could not be libeled for salvage, as it was not designed either for navigation or for use in commerce.29

The Hendrick Hudson 30 was a dismantled steamer, which was being used as a hotel. While being towed to another place, it was in peril, and salvage services were rendered to it. The court held that it was not within the cognizance of the admiralty.

This decision would seem to be out of line with the more recent authorities. Whether the structure was a hotel or a steamboat, it was engaged in actual navigation. Had the Vallette Dry Dock been so engaged, the Supreme Court would probably have sustained the jurisdiction.

25 Big Jim (D. C.) 61 Fed. 503.

26 (D. C.) 61 Fed. 692.

27 (D. C.) 21 Fed. 331.

28 Crawford Bros. No. 2 (D. C.) 215 Fed. 269.

29 Gas Float Whitton No. 2, [1897] A. C. 337. But the English courts have sustained jurisdiction over a hopper barge. Mudlark, [1911] P. 116.

30 3 Ben. 419, Fed. Cas. No. 6,355.

A ship becomes such at her launching. Prior thereto she is a mere congeries of wood and iron.31

Rafts

Whether a raft is such a structure as to come under the jurisdiction cannot be considered settled. The Vallette Dry-Dock Case seems, in its reasoning, to assume that ships and cargoes of ships alone come under the jurisdiction, and that floating merchandise, never in any way connected with a ship, is not included. Yet in its concluding. paragraph it mentions the case of rafts, and cites several well-considered decisions sustaining the jurisdiction, but without expressing either approval or disapproval.

In Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties,32 Judge Simonton, in sustaining jurisdiction, says that rafts were the original methods of water locomotion. As they are navigated, and designed to be navigated, and not tied permanently to one place, like a dry dock, the weight of reasoning is in favor of the jurisdiction in such case.

31 Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424, 22 Sup. Ct. 195, 46 L. Ed. 264; North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct. 221, 63 L. Ed. 510.

32 (D. C.) 40 Fed. 596. See, also, Mary (D. C.) 123 Fed. 609; Gas Float Whitton No. 2, [1897] A. C. 337.

HUGHES, ADM. (2D ED.)—2