884); _see also_ Perry _v._ Haines, 191 U.S. 17
(1903) where the admiralty jurisdiction was extended to inland canals.

[370] 10 Wall. 557 (1871).

[371] Ibid. 563. _See also_ The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 (1874), where
this doctrine was applied to the Fox River in Wisconsin after it had
been improved to become navigable.

[372] 141 U.S. 1, 12-15 (1891). This case contains a good review of
admiralty cases to the time of its decision.

[373] 311 U.S. 377, 407-410 (1940).

[374] 316 U.S. 31, 41 (1942).

[375] 3 Wheat. 336 (1818). _See also_ Manchester _v._ Massachusetts, 139
U.S. 240 (1891) which followed this rule and which seems to contain a
rule analogous to the "silence of Congress" doctrine applied in cases
involving State legislation which affect interstate commerce.

[376] Ibid. 389.

[377] The St. Lawrence, 1 Bl. 522, 527 (1862).

[378] The "Lottawanna," 21 Wall. 558, 576, (1875); _see also_ Janney
_v._ Columbian Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. 411, 418 (1825), where it was held
that the admiralty jurisdiction rests on the grant in the Constitution
and can only be exercised under the laws of the United States extending
that grant to the respective courts of the United States.

[379] 4 Wall. 411, 431, (1867); The Hine _v._ Trevor, 4 Wall. 555
(1867).

[380] Knapp, Stout & Co. _v._ McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638 (1900); Red Cross
Line _v._ Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (1924).

[381] Chelentis _v._ Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918).

[382] Rodd _v._ Heartt, 21 Wall. 558 (1875).

[383] Old Dominion S.S. Co. _v._ Gilmore, 207 U.S. 398 (1907).

[384] Ibid.

[385] 312 U.S. 383 (1941).

[386] 244 U.S. 205 (1917).

[387] Ibid. 202, 215-218. This was a five to four decision with Justices
Holmes, Pitney, Brandeis, and Clarke dissenting. Justice Holmes' dissent
is notable among other reasons for his epigrams that "Judges do and must
legislate, but they can do so only interstitially; they are confined
from molar to molecular motions," ibid. 221; and that "the common law is
not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some
sovereign or some quasi-sovereign that can be identified." Ibid. 222.
Justice Pitney attacked the decision as unsupported by precedent and
contended that article III speaks only of jurisdiction and does not
prescribe the procedural or substantive law by which the exercise of
admiralty jurisdiction is to be governed. Ibid. 225-229.

[388] 40 Stat. 395 (1917).

[389] 253 U.S