Item, For as much as a great and common clamour and complaint hath been oftentimes made before this time, and yet is, for that the Admirals and their deputies hold their se&Mac186;sions within divers places of this realm, as well within franchise as without, accroaching to them greater authority than belongeth to their office, in prejudice of our lord the King, and the common law of this realm, and in diminishing of divers franchises, and in destruction and impoverishing of the common people; it is accorded and a&Mac186;sented, [page 406] That the Admirals and their deputies shall not meddle from henceforth of anything done within this realm, but only of a thing done upon the Sea, as it hath been used in the imte of the noble Prince King Edmond, grandfather of our lord the King that now is.

   Item, At the great and grivous complaint of all the Commons made to our lord the King in this present Parliament, for that the Admirals and their deputies to incroach to them divers jurisdictions, franchises, and many other profits pertaining to our lord the King, and to other lords, cities and boroughs, other than they were wont or ought to have of right, to the great oppres&Mac186;ion and impoverishment of all the Commons of the land, and hindrance and lo&Mac186;s of the King's profits, and of many other lords, cities, and boroughs through the realm, it is declared, ordained, and established, That of all manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies of the Counties, as well by land as by water, and also of wreck of the sea, [page 408] the Admiral's Court shall have no manner of cognizances, power, nor jurisdiction; but all such manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies of Counties, as well by landas by water, as afore, and also wreck of the sea, shall be tried, determined, discu&Mac186;sed and remedied by the laws of the land, and not before nor by the Admiral, nor his lieutenant in any wise. Neverthele&Mac186;s, of the death of a man, and of a maihem done in great ships, being and hovering in the main stream of great rivers, only beneath the bridges of the same rivers nigh to the sea, and in none other places of the same rivers, the Admiral shall have cognizance, and also to arrest ships in the great flotes for the great voyages [page 409] of the King and of the realm; saving always to the King all manner of forfeitures and profits thereof coming: And he shall have also jurisdiction upon the said flotes, during the said voyages only, saving always to the lords, cities, and boroughs their liberties and franchises.

   The first statute in the text, as well from its enactment as its recital, exhibits how much jealousy was anciently entertained in relation to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty in England.
   The prohibition however seems to have been too general and indefinite to have any effect in providing a remedy for the evils complained of; for we find two years afterwards, in the succeeding statute in the text (15 Ric. 2. c. 3.) a recital of the same complaints; and a provision which more definitely and particularly marks out the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. The cause of this jealousy is ascribed to the fact that the Admiralty Court proceeded without a jury, in a method conformable to the civil law; and in this manner tried and disposed of criminal, as well as civil causes; which method of trial, so far as respects the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, was contrary to the ?genius? of the law of England. 3 Blk. Comm. 69. 4 Blk. Comm. 268.
   It is said that the word ?"pountz"? which is rendered in the translation of the 15 Ric. 2 as "bridges" ought to be rendered or construed "points," viz. land's-end; for where a man can see from the one side of the water to the other, it is infra corpus comitatus. 4 Blk. 135, 140, 141. ?Owen?, 121. Mo. R. 892.
   These statutes are recognized and enforced by the St. 1 Hen. 4 c. 11 which gives damages against parties proceeding in the Admiralty against their provisions.
   The jurisdiction of the Admiralty in England is therefore confined to the main Sea, or coasts of the Sea, not being within any county. Sir Henry Constable's case, 5 C. Rep. 107. The Eleanor, 6 C. ?Ruf.? Rep. 39. The Public Opinion, 2 Hagg. R. 398. The Eliza Jane, 3 Hagg. R. 335. Admiralty causes must be causes arising wholly upon the sea, and not within the precincts of any county, either by land or by water; nor of any wreck of the sea, for that must be cast upon the land before it becomes a wreck; but over things flotsam, jetsam and ligam, the Admiralty hath jurisdiction as being in and upon the sea. Rex v. Fourty nine casks of brandy, 3 Hagg. R. 282. And so the Court of Admiralty hath no jurisdiction of any contract within any county on land or water, so that it is not material whether the place be upon the water inter fluxum et refluxum aqua, but whether it be upon any water within the county. Ibid. All rivers, and all ports or ?havers? are within counties; and so the Court of Admiralty cannot hold plea of any matter done upon the Thames, because it is infra corpus comitatus. 4 Inst. 137-139. 6 ?Vine's? Ab. 524. ??? 261. 1 Com. Dig. 276. Mo. 916.
   The coast is properly not the sea, but the land which bounds the sea; it is the limit of the land jurisdiction. This limit however varies according to the state of the tide; when the sea flows, and has ?plenitudinem maris,? the Admiral has jurisdiction of every thing done on the water between the high, and the low water mark; when the tide is out, and the land is uncovered the Common law Courts have jurisdiction: So that below the low water mark the Admiral has the sole and absolute jurisdiction; between the high water mark, and the low water mark, the Common law and the Admiralty have ?divisum imperium,? interchangeably, one super terram, and the other super aquam, unless the water be within a county. See Constable's case, 5 Co. Rep. 107. Rex v. Fourty nine casks of brandy, 3 Hagg. R. 275-283.
   The Constitution of the United States, (Art. 3, s. 2.) provides inter alia, that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; hence the State Courts are excluded from the exercise of jurisdiction over the matters arising upon the seas, and without the bounds of any county. But inasmuch as the Statutes in the text ascertain the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Common law Courts and the Admiralty Courts respectively; and as it may be necessary for the State Courts to resort to it for that purpose; and it is not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law of the United States, or of this State, it is deemed proper to insert it in this collection.
   In the case of The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Amdiralty has no jurisdiction over maritime contracts ?Ec? unless the service is to be performed substantially, on the sea, or upon water within the ebb and flow of the tide. 10 Wheat. R. 428. 6 C????. Rep. 173. Acc. Pey?oux et ali v. Howard et al. 7 Peter's R. 324. Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus?, 11 Peters R. 175. And in Waring v. Clarke, the Court held, that the grant in the Constitution extending the judicial power of the United States "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" is neither to be limited to, nor to be interpreted by, what were the cases of admiralty jurisdiction in England, when the Constitution was adopted by the States of the Union. That in the Courts of the United States, Admiralty jurisdiction is not taken away because the Courts of Common law may have concurrent jurisdiction in a case with the Admiralty: Nor is a trial by jury any test of admiralty jurisdiction:-- The subject matter of a contract or service gives jurisdiction in admiralty; locality gives it in case of tort, or collision. And that in cases of tort of collision, happening upon the high seas or within the ebb and flow of the tide, as far up a river as the tide ebbs and flows, though it may be infra corpus comitatus, Courts of Admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction." (Woodbury, ?Grier? and Daniel J.J. dissenting.) 5 How. Sup. Ct. R.
   But in the recent case of the Propeller Genesse Chief v. Fitzhugh et al., the Supreme Court reviewing the discussions before quoted, and initially over-ruling so far as they confine the jurisdiction to waters within the ebb and flow of the tide, hold that the Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction granted to the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States is not limited to tide waters, but extends to all public navigable lakes and rivers, where commerce is carried on between different States, or with foreign nations. 12 How. Sup. Ct. Rep. 443.-- The decision is based of what court conceives a more correct exposition of the meaning of the term ebb and flow of the tide; they consider that by the term, is intended navigable waters' there being none such in England above the influence of the tides, the latter has in that country become the criterion of the capacity of a stream of water for the purposes of navigation.
   In the discussion of this question of jurisdiciton depending on locality, the Supreme Court is directly to the doctrine of this Common law as expounded and declared by the British Courts. It seems very clear from an examination of the adjudications of the latter, that the locality of a tort or collision being within tide waters will not give jurisdiction to the Admiralty if it is within the body of a County. See the case of The King v. Fourty nine casks of brandy, 3 Hagg. Ad,. R. 282, beofre cited.
   The Supreme Court therefore holds under the last view of the extent of the terms "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," that the act of Congress of Feb. 26, 1845 (5 Stat. at Large 726) extending the jurisdiction of the District Courts to certain cases upon the Lakes, and navigable waters connecting the same is consistent with the Constitution of the U. S.
   The Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction thus assumed by the Act of Congress, and the decision of the Supreme Court is not claimed to be exclusive in the Admiralty Courts of the United States, but to be exercised concurrently with the Common law Courts, when the waters are within the body of a County. Propeller Genesse Chief v. Fitzhugh, sup.