1784.
not permitted evident truth to be regarded. With fuch laboured ingenuity has the jurifdiction of common law courts, as to acts upon the High Seas, been fuftained, to the great mortification of Sir Thomas Rydlye and other learned Civilians,[♦] the former, with much commendation from the reft, very gravely undertaking to prove that a fhip could not fail in Cheapʃide in the city of London, [†]the place ufually affigned in fuggestions, as the fcene of naval tranfactions.
Yet, notwithftanding thefe ftatutes, marine have in England been allowed to fue for wages in the Admiralty, upon contracts made there within the body of a county, ‘‘ againft the ftatute expreffly, ’’ as was held by the Judges, when that great man, Lord Chief Juftice Holt, prefided in the King's Bench. Salk 33. The reafons were, that the remedy was eaʃier, becaufe they could join in the fuit, and better, becaufe the fhip would be anfwerable.
In the prefent cafe, the owners, mafters and failors of the three brigs could not be jointly fued at common law. If they could not, what a multiplicity of actions muft be brought. Suppofing the owners, commander and men of the Argo could join in a fuit at common law, one of them might deftroy the action by a[‡] releafe. The veffels are not liable in the fame manner at common law, as they are in a Court of Admiralty.
If the Court of Admiralty, for this State cannot take cognizance of things which courts of common law may draw into their cognizance, it feems to have been nugatory in the legiflature to have, given that Court any other jurifdiction than in cafes of Prize ; for even in the cafe of wages, juftly a favorable object of Admiralty jurifdiction, mariners may fuw for them at common law.
It appears to have been the intention of the legiflature, that juftice, fhould be done in the eafieft and beft manner, and that by the words ‘‘ not cognizable at common law, ’’ fhould be underftood, ‘‘ not properly cognizable at common law.’’
The next ʃecondary queftion if fo connected with the definition of a cauʃe oƒ Prize, and the treating of that fubject introduces fo many CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING RELATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THESE STATES, AND THE LAW OF NATIONS, and thefe again are fo COMBINED WITH ENQUIRIES AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, that they cannot be conveniently, at leaft, not eafily feparated. We will at prefent therefore pafs to the fecond principal queftion, referving till that fhall be difcuffed, what peculiarly relates to the queftion we now leave.
This State has all the powers of Independent Sovereignty by the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1776 except what were refigned by the fubfequent Confederation dated the 9th of July, 1778, but not completed by final ratification until the firʃt of March, 1781.
♦ Fictio, eft in recerta, ejus quod et (illegible text), adverfus vericatem, pro veistate a jure fact a affumptio. Ductor Godelpbia's view of Admiralty Jurfidication, p. 84 ;
† Zoneb, p. 131. God p. 105. 3, Blacksto(illegible text), 107.
‡ Rev.355.
