Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/218

186 Extension defended. The Stamp Act. [1765-89 These complaints were answered by the English Ministry, by judges. and by loyalists. The Stamp Act itself, it was pointed out, had recognised the grievances and proposed a suitable remedy. It contained a clause providing for the creation of such a number of Courts of Vice- Admiralty as would bring trials within the reach of every subject in America. In the execution of that purpose the then Commissioners of the Treasury had in fact formed and submitted to the Privy Council a plan for creating three such Courts, with proper districts, and with ample fixed salaries for the judges, in lieu of all fees. But the repeal of the Stamp Act followed ; u and the Americans will owe the grievances which they suffer from the present situation and constitution of the Court of Admiralty to the administration which" caused the repeal. The extension of jurisdiction of the colonial Admiralty over matters of the common law was itself justified, as the ministry, Crown judges, and loyalists held, on the ground of necessity. " The reason for putting these causes,"" arising under the Stamp Act, "in a course of trial without any jury undoubtedly arose from an apprehension that juries in these cases were not to be trusted." The force of that reason might be abated, it could not be wholly destroyed; no candid man would "take it upon him to declare that at this time an American jury is impartial and indifferent enough to determine upon frauds in trade." It was declared to be "notorious that smuggling had well-nigh become established in some of the colonies." "The way to Holland and back was well-known"; and then Whig and smuggler had been "playing into each others hands." Smuggler had been protected by Whig, Whig in turn had been supported by smuggler, bitterly observed a New England loyalist with truth, if not with the whole truth. "What," said another, "could the government do but apply a remedy as desperate as the disease ? " No definition of Admiralty jurisdiction was given in any of the American constitutions. The subject was probably referred to in certain provisions of State constitutions, or bills of right, that "in controversies respecting property" trial by jury was "preferable to any other," or was matter of "right" except where it had been "otherwise used and practiced." The seventh amendment (passed in 1789) to the Constitu- tion of the United States provides that " in suits at common law, where the controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Great difficulty was found in the Federal Con- vention in fixing jury trials, in civil cases, through the States ; and the subject was finally dropped, and left to the States. As for Admiralty powers, the Federal Constitution simply declares that "The judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The Courts therefore were to determine what that was. Rights of action for damages for improper seizure of goods under revenue laws (to be passed) were left for legislation and the Courts. Judges of the federal Courts were to hold office during good