Statement of the Case.

tioners, and from various points along the river, cotton to be transported for each petitioner; and that while making the voyage she took fire and some of the cotton was burned, and other bales were thrown overboard. The owners or consignees of the cotton which had been damaged or lost brought suits against Lawton, as a common carrier, to recover in each case, its value. There were ten actions in all, and their aggregate claims were about sixteen thousand dollars.

Thereupon Lawton filed the libel in question alleging, as set forth in the petition, "that the amount sued for in said cases, and the loss and damage happening by means of or by reason of said fire, exceeded the value of said steamboat and her freight on said voyage, and that said fire was not caused by any negligence of said libellant or of the master and crew of said steamboat, and that under the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1851, as amended by the act of Congress, approved June 19, 1886, said libellant was not in any wise liable for said loss or damage; and claiming further, in the event of any liability, the benefit of the limitation provided in the third and fourth sections of said act of March 3, 1851, a copy of said libel and its Exhibits' being hereunto annexed."

The petition further alleged "That afterwards, to wit, on the 8th day of March, 1888, an appraisement of said steamboat and freight was had, said steamboat being appraised at $3300 and the freight at $196.75, making a total of $3496.75, for which said sum the said John Lawton entered into the usual stipulation on May 4, 1889."

From the answer of the district judge it appeared that the defendants in the admiralty suit had demurred to the libel and had moved to dismiss the same "because the fourth section of the act of Congress approved June 19, 1886, is alleged to be unconstitutional;" and that the court had overruled the demurrer, and dismissed the motion, and ordered the cause to proceed.

This fourth section is as follows: "Section 4. That section 4289, of the Revised Statutes, be amended so as to read as follows: Section 4289. The provisions of the seven preceding sections and of section eighteen of an act entitled "An act to re

Argument for Petitioner.

move certain burdens on the American merchant marine, and to encourage the American foreign carrying trade, and other purposes," approved June twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, relating to the limitations of the liability of the owners of vessels, shall apply to all sea-going vessels, and also to all vessels used on lakes or rivers, or in inland navigation, including canal-boats, barges and lighters."" 24 Stat. 80, 81.

Mr. Samuel B. Adams for the petitioner.

I. Our main contention is that the words here used are none of them limited, as an act of Congress must be in order to be valid; even if the validity of such legislation is not confined to the commerce clause of the Constitution, and may be supported by the clause touching the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and even although this act can be regarded as simply a regulation of the vessel itself.

We must bear in mind that we are not attacking an act of a State, where the legislature has all the powers except those prohibited, but an act of Congress, concerning whose powers it has been properly said in Potter's "Dwarris on Statutes and Constitutions," pages 367 and 368: "When those powers are questioned, the only duty of the court is to see whether the grant of specific powers is broad enough to embrace the act." To the same effect are the decisions of this court in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326; Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 93; and in Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713, 725, 726.

In the Trade Mark Cases this court, in holding that the words "any person or firm" were too broad, uses this clear and emphatic language, "When, therefore, Congress undertakes to enact a law which can only be valid as a regulation of commerce, it is reasonable to expect to find, on the face of the law, or from its essential nature, that it is a regulation of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes. If not so limited it is in excess of the power of Congress."

Argument for Petitioner.

We fully recognize the familiar principle that a law may be constitutional in part and bad in part. Under this principle the words "sea-going vessels," covering maritime commerce, may be saved because they are capable of separation from the rest of the clause; but the courts never change, limit or restrict (which would change) the natural and obvious meaning of words so as to amend the statute into harmony with the fundamental law. If the words used are susceptible of two constructions, one that will harmonize the law with the Constitution, and another which will bring it into hostility, the courts will adopt the former construction. But when the words used are clear and unambiguous, and these words evince an unconstitutional exercise of power, the courts cannot save the law. One of the main purposes of the law as it previously stood, (although the excepting clause was more comprehensive than the necessities of this purpose demanded,) was to save internal commerce from the operation of the limited liability sections. And it seems to us clear that one of the main purposes of the amendment was to include this internal commerce. Whether this was a controlling purpose or not, every word used which can in any wise be applied to the case at bar, is broad enough to necessarily cover every form of internal commerce carried on by water, and every form of craft, no matter how insignificant its draft, and no matter how exclusively local and humble its business. This court will be asked, in order to save the law, that it limit this act of 1886 to the constitutional limitations of Congress, when the purpose of the law is that it be unlimited and unrestricted. If this act be good, there is no limit to the power of Congress in the regulation of commerce. The Constitution does not restrict it to water, and therefore it can pass an act limiting ever so radically the liability of a common carrier anywhere, no matter how thoroughly internal and local its business. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 452; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 8, 9.

If this law can find support in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction clause, then, we repeat, it is still, in all of the terms that are germane, entirely too broad, unless this court

Argument for Petitioner.

can hold that this jurisdiction covers all localities where it chances to be a "little damp," and, under the guise of jurisdiction, the United States courts can be given the power to practically destroy the rights of citizens who are compelled to patronize ships.

Wherever it is applicable, the law was radical enough before. Under the decision of the majority of this court, in Providence and New York Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578, in the case of loss happening by fire, the owner of the ship is not liable at all unless the neglect was shown to be his own personal neglect, and even then, his liability is confined to his interest in the ship.

On account of the importance of the proposition that "it is not within the judicial province to give to the words used by Congress a narrower meaning than they are manifestly intended to bear" in order to save an act from the objection of unconstitutionality, we refer, in addition to the Trade Mark Cases, to the following: United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 220, 221; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269, 304, 305 (a civil case which applies the principle recognized in the Trade Mark Cases, and in United States v. Reese); Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80; State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204, 217, 219; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 647; and Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541.

II. The commerce clause of the Constitution, upon which we submit this legislation must be based, and to which the decisions of this court and of other United States courts refer such legislation for its sanction, not only does not authorize, but it prohibits any act by Congress broad enough to control or regulate internal commerce or traffic between citizens of the same State. This clause was intended to place such commerce beyond its control. See Veazie v. Moore, 14 How. 573 et seq.; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 195; Moore v. American Transportation Company, 24 How. 37 and 39; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 564, 565; The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 95 et seq.; Lord v. Steamship Company, 102 U. S. 543; Sands v, River Company, 123 U. S. 295.

Argument for Petitioner

III. Authority for this legislation cannot be found in the clause providing that the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

We admit that the jurisdiction of the admiralty court is not circumscribed by the commerce clause; that the courts may try cases involving vessels engaged in purely internal commerce, and questions appertaining to such commerce. But this affects only the forum. It does not concern the substantial rights of the parties.

A shipowner entitled to the benefits of the limited liability act of 1851, need not go into a court of admiralty at all; his rights are secured independently of the tribunal. He may assert them by a plea to a common law action in any court: See The Scotland, 105 U. S. 33, 34. Generally it will be found that the remedies of the District Court are more full and complete, but the shipowner is not confined to this court, and his rights are the same in any tribunal. If this be so, the correlative rights of his patrons ought to be the same, no matter in what tribunal they may be adjudicated.

Other cases, in addition to those heretofore cited, hold that the validity of this legislation depends upon the commerce clause. See The War Eagle, 6 Bissell, 366; Lord v. Steamship Co., 4 Sawyer, 292; The Mamie, 5 Fed. Rep. 821; the same case is affirmed in 8 Fed. Rep. 367; American Transportation Co. v. Moore, 5 Michigan, 392 and 393; Headrich v. Virginia &c. Railway Co., 48 Georgia, 549.

If, then, this legislation can be separated from its effect upon the traffic rights and obligations of the parties concerned, and can be confined to a mere regulation of vessels, we insist that no authoritative decision can be found which will sustain the validity of a law of Congress requiring a vessel engaged solely in internal commerce, and entirely dis connected from interstate or foreign commerce, to be licensed, or which otherwisè regulates such a vessel. Many can be cited against this power of Congress, and some of the decisions herein before discussed are in point on this branch of the case.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, in discussing the power of Congress