This period may be divided into three parts1. The government and jurisdiction of the crown of England began with the settlement of the colonies, and continued until the 5th September, 1774, when a Congress first met to consider of the public grievances, and gradually prepared for and repelled hostilities. At this era the revolution commenced.

2. The government by a Congress continued till the 1st March, 1781, when the articles of Confederation were finally ratified.

3. On the 4th March, 1789, the articles of Confederation were superseded by the adoption of the present Constitution.

It is proposed to consider the subject under these three divisions.

I. Of the period that elapsed while the colonies were dependent upon the crown of England.

During the period antecedent to the revolution, Courts of vice-admiralty were established in some, and probably in all of the States, by the crown of Great Britain; in some instances, by a right reserved in their charters, and in others without. The nature and extent of their jurisdictions depended on the commissions of the crown, and acts of parlia ment conferring additional authorities. The commissions of the crown gave the Courts which were established a most ample jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, and over torts and injuries as well in ports as upon the high seas; and acts of parliament enlarged, or rather recognised this jurisdic

tion, by giving or confirming cognisance of all seizures for contraventions of the revenue laws.*

* De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 470. In the charter of Massachusetts, in 1692, there is an express reservation of the exclusive right in the crown to establish Admiralty Courts by virtue of commissions issued for this purpose. ib. No such reservation, however, is contained in the charter of William Penn, granted the 4th March, 1680. On the contrary, it gives to William Penn and his heirs, their deputies and lieutenants, power to appoint and establish any Judges and justices, magistrates and other officers whatsoever, for what causes soever, (for the probates of wills and for the granting of administrations,) with what power soever, and in such forms as to them should seem most convenient : and by judges by them delegated to award process, hold pleas, and determine all actions, suits, and causes whatsoever, as well criminal as civil, real, personal, and mixed. Sec. 5. By a subsequent part of the charter, William Penn, his heirs, or assigns, were made personally responsible for any misdemeanours committed or permitted by them against the laws of trade and navigation, and subjected to forfeiture of the charter for not paying the damages awarded by the Courts of Westminster. Sec. 14. A Court of vice-admiralty was, notwithstanding, established at an early date for the province of Pennsylvania, and the territories or counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, on the Delaware. It existed in 1708, 1 Proud's Hist. Penn. 486, and continued till the revolution. 1 have perused the records of this Court from the year 1735 to the year 1746, in the course of which time there were three different commissaries or Judges of the Court, which was held at Philadelphia. They were commissioned by the Crown under the great seal of the High Court of Admiralty of England: but the commission itself I have not met with. During the vacancies that occasionally occurred, the proceedings were carried on in the name of the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain. Brown, in his Civil and Admiralty Law, says, that all the powers of vice-admiralty within his majesty's dominions are derived from the High Admiral or the Commissioners of the Admiralty of England, as inherent and incident to that office. Accordingly, by virtue of their commission, the Lords of the Admiralty are authorised to erect Courts of vice-admiralty in North America, the West Indies, and the settlements of the East India Company. 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law.

It is presumed, says Judge STORY, in the note to his learned opinion in De Lovio v. Boit, that the commissions are usually in the same form. One of the latest is to the Governor of the royal province of New Hampshire, in 6 Geo. 3, (1766.) It authorises him “to take cognisance of, and proceed in all causes civil and maritime, and in complaints, contracts, offences, or suspected offences, crimes, pleas, debts, exchanges, actions and demands, accourts, charter parties, agreements, suits, trespasses, inquiries, extortions, and demands, and business, civil and maritime, whatsoever, commenced or to be commenced between merchants, or between owners and proprietors of ships and other yes. T

In England the Court of Admiralty never possessed any jurisdiction in revenue causes; that was

sels, and merchants, or others whomsoever, with such owners and proprietors of ships and all other vessels whatsoever, employed or used within the maritime jurisdiction of our vice-admiralty of our said province, &c. or between any other persons, whom soever had, made, begun, or contracted, for any matter, thing, cause, or business whatsoever done or to be done within our maritime jurisdiction aforesaid, &c. &c. and moreover in all and singular complaints, contracts, agreements, causes, and businesses, civil and maritime, to be performed beyond the sea or contracted there, however arising or happening," with many other general powers. And it declares the jurisdiction to extend "throughout all and every the sea shores, public streams, ports, fresh waters, rivers, creeks and arms as well of the sea as of the rivers and coasts whatsoever of our said province," &c. In point of fact, the Vice-admiralty Court of Massachusetts, before the revolution, exercised a jurisdiction far more extensive than that of the Admiralty in England. De Lorio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 470, 471, note. See also the Little Joe, Stewart's Ad. Rep. 394.

The commission to the Governor of New Hampshire above mentioned may, perhaps, be deemed an extension of the powers of the Courts of Vice-admiralty beyond former precedents. For we find the Congress of 1774 and 1775, on repeated occasions, complaining of these extensions by the crown, in order to enforce the obnoxious statutes passed to impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America. The declaration and resolves of Congress of the 14th October, 1774, mention, among other grievances, that the British Parliament had extended the jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county, 1 Journ. Cong. 27., and that the acts of 4 Geo. 3. c. 15, and c. 34, 5 Geo. 3. c 25, 6 Geo. 3. c. 52, 7 Geo. 3. c. 41, and c. 46, & 8 Geo. 3, extended the power of the Admiralty Courts beyond their ancient limits. ib. 30. See also ib. 41. 47. In the address to the inhabitants of the colonies, of October 21st, 1774, it is stated, that in the year 1768 a statute was made to establish Courts of Adiniralty and vice-admiralty on a new model, expressly for the end of more effectually recovering the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by acts of Parliament formed for the purpose of raising a revenue in America. ib. 48. See also ib. 51. 190.

By the records of the Vice-admiralty Court of Pennsylvania, &c. from 1735 to 1746, before referred to, it appears, that the business was inconsiderable. It consisted of proceedings by the Collector by information against vessels and goods for breaches of the acts of Parliament relating to the revenue: libels for seamen's wages; orders for surveys of damaged vessels and goods, and of wrecks, and appraisement thereof, with power to the commissioners appointed, to adjust the salvage in the cases of wrecks; records of protests; and, towards the end of the time, registers of letters of marque granted by the Governor, and prize proceedings, against vessels captured from the French and Spaniards.

appropriated by the common law to the Court of Exchequer. But the vice admiralty Courts in this country when colonies, and in the West Indies, obtained, by the provisions of the statute of 12 Car. 2, commonly called the navigation act, and 7 and 8 Will. 3. c. 22, a jurisdiction in revenue causes totally foreign to the original jurisdiction of the admiralty, and unknown to it; though it was held that appeals lay from them in such causes to the admiralty in England.*

There is one proceeding to authorise persons to take an inventory of the effects in a vessel, the master of which was drowned in the Delaware after arrival, and one other on a bottomry. It may be remarked, that although the proceedings are very formal, no instance appears of an answer or claim by a defendant or claimant on oath or affirmation.

* 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 491. Yet the extent of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts in the colonies seems to have been, for some time, a subject of considerable discussion and difference of opinion in England. In Chalmers's collection of the opinions of eminent lawyers on various points of jurisprudence, chiefly concerning the colonies, fisheries, and commerce of Great Britain, published at London in 1814, there are several opinions to be found on this subject. In July, 1702, Sir John Cooke, advocate-general, gave an opinion, that penalties and forfeitures under the act of navigation, 12 Car. 2, c. 18, the act for the encouragement of trade, 15 Car. 2. c. 7, the act for preventing planting tobacco in England, and for regulating the plantation trade, 22 and 23 Car. 2. c. 26, might be prosecuted in the Admi alty Courts of the plantations, as well as peDalties and forfeitures under the act relating to the plantation trade, 7 and 8 Will. 3. 2 Chalm. Opinions, 193.

In August of the same year, the Attorney general, Northey, gave it as his opinion to the board of trade, that the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts of the colonies extended only to prosecutions under the 7th and 8th Will. 3. and did not embrace cases arising under the statutes of Car. 2. above mentioned. ib. 187.

In 1720, however, Mr. West, who was assigned as counsel to the Commissioners of trade and plantations, was of opinion, that the statutes 13 Rich. 2. c. 5., 15 Rich. 2. c. 3, 2 Hen. 4. c. 11. and 27 Eliz. c. 11, by which the admiralty jurisdiction in England was limited and confined, were not introductive of new laws, but only declaratory of the common law, and were, therefore, of force even in the plantations; and that none of the acts of trade and navigation gave the admiralty Judges in the West Indies an increase of jurisdiction beyond

In questions of prize in the vice admiralty Courts an appeal lay to the commissioners of appeals consisting chiefly of the privy council. In instance and revenue causes, it lay to the High Court of Admiralty in England, and thence to the delegates.* The power of the High Court of Admiralty to receive appeals from the vice admiralty Courts in revenue causes had been disputed, on the ground that they were not in their nature causes civil or maritime, but that it was a jurisdiction specially given to the vice admiralty Courts by the statute of 7 and 8 Will. 3. c. 22, which took no notice of any appellate jurisdiction in the High Court of Admiralty in such cases. But the point was fully settled in favour of this 1754.†

jurisdiction in the year

Controversies between two of the provinces concerning the extent of their charter boundaries or the like, came before the King in his privy council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feodal sovereignty. Thus in July

that exercised by the High Court of Admiralty at home. He was also of opinion, that the superior Courts of common law in New England had a power to grant prohibitions to the admiralty Courts, and states that prohibitions were the remedy constantly applied there to prevent their encroachment. ib. 200.

It is stated by the Attorney general Northey, in the above mentioned opinion, that an action of trover had been brought and was then depending in the Queen's Bench, against Col Quarry, the Judge of the Admiralty in Pennsylvania, for condemning in his Court an unregistered vessel for trading there.

* 1 Wheat. 19. 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law. 493. Blackstone, (3 Com. 70,) says, an appeal also lay to the King in council. But this opinion of his seems to be relinquished. 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 493.

†2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 493, note. 2 Rob. 248. See the note of Mr. Wheaton to the case of the Sarah, 8 Wheat. 396.

1 Bl. Com. 231. 1 Vez. 444.