See BRANDENBURG.
LAUTULÆ, Battle of.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
----------LAW: Start----------
LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
New York University Law School.]
The subject is here treated with reference to the history of
the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,
rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are
discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of
law thus considered which enter into our present systems are
given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,
such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated
in the references placed at the end of this article:
----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.
Law as to Shipwrecks.
"The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt
as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to
renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the
rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were
too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance
of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the
unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when
the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,
the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the
continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the
inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all
navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their
shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry
or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who
reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to
repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the
highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his
death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of
Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction
of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked
persons and property were placed under the special protection
and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death
without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."
_James Kent,
International Law,
edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.
Jurisdiction.
The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
Lord High Admiral of England.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.
Jurisdiction.
"The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief
Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the
Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long
controversy between these Courts as to their relative
jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in
_Benedict's American Admiralty,
3d edition, page 41._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.
Tide-mark.
The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
part of the sea, when the tide is in.
_Erastus C. Benedict,
American Admiralty, 3d edition,
by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
citing Sir John Constable's Case,
Anderson's Rep. 89._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.
United States Judiciary Act.
The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to
all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are
navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons
burthen."
_Judiciary Act,
United States Stat. at Large,
volume 1, page 76._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.
Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.
"Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
and from that time a new direction was given to English
studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
communicated to forensic investigations.
{1956}
Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
been read and admired in every region of the republic of
letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
concern the great social interests of mankind."
_James Kent,
Commentaries,
part 5, lecture 42._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.
Jurisdiction.
The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
Law Courts.
_Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
page 56._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.
Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.
"It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than
fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English
courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt
water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in
1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the
Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the
navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of
this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851
that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the
Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake
Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and
repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do
with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution
upon Federal courts."
_Lyman Trumbull,
Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,
volume 27, page 324._
See, also
_Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726._
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.
Division of Loss in case of Collision
settled by Judicature Act.
"The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision
each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts
the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty
of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict
between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an
end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.
25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to
have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …
There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive
injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from
recovering more than half his loss from one of the two
wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in
an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the
enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done
by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in
operation with the approval of the shipping community for at
least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;
and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the
Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its
very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect
to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is
widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of
shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are
all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."
_R. G. Marsden,
Two Points of Admiralty Law,
Law Quarterly Review,
volume 2, pages 357-362._
For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their
dates,
See
_Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
pages 91-97,_
and
_Davis' Outlines of International Law,
pages 5, 6, &c._
----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------
----------COMMON LAW: Start----------