AMERICAN RAIL ROAD JOURNAL. tory of admirality jurisdiction which excludes from its cognizance contracts to be performed within the country or state in which it is exercised. On the contrary, such contracts, if maritime in their character, were constantly held before the organization of the Union to be proper subjects of that jurisdiction. Within a comparatively recent period, however, doubts have been expressed whether such con- tracts can be enforced by national courts setting in admirality. Such doubts were expressed in 1848 by Justice Nelson, speaking for a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The New Jersey Steam Navi- tion Company '03. The Merchant’s Bank, 6 How, 392. They were founded on the assumption that “the exclusive jurisdiction in admirality cases was conferred on the National Government as closely connected with the grant of commercial power,” and were cautiously stated as follows‘ “ It is a maritime court, instituted for the purpose of administering the law of the seas. There seems to be ground, therefore, for restraining its juris- diction, in some measure, within the limit of the commercial power, which would confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concerning the navi- gation and trade of the country upon the high seas and tide-waters with foreign countries, and among the several states. Contracts growing out of the purely internal commerce of the state, as well as commerce beyond tide-waters, are general- ly domestic in their origin and operation, and would scarcely have been intended to be drawn within the cognizance of the Federal courts.” The principle thus intimated rather than assert- ed was applied ten years later in the case of Allen 123. Newberry, 21 How. 244, to a contract of affreightment to be performed on Lake Michigan, between two ports in Wisconsin; but the decision against the jurisdition over the contract was placed quite as much upon the Act of Congress of Feb- ruary 26, 1845, which restricts admirality jurisdic- tion on the lakes and interior navigable waters to contracts relating to vessels employed between ports in the different states, as upon the more general restriction derived from the limitation of the commercial power. It cannot escape observation that this denial of jurisdiction to the national courts of affreightment contracts to be performed between the ports of the same state, but on navigable waters where, in cases of tort, the admirality jurisdiction is un- doubted, rests wholly upon the assumption that the restriction upon the commercial operates as a constitutional limitation of the jurisdiction in ad- mirality over contracts. 0 Now, without more than a mere reference to the diliiculty of assigning a reason for such a li- mitation of that jurisdiction in matters of contract which would not require the like limitation in tort no such limitation exists, it is proper to observe that it has been more than once distinctly denied by the Supreme Court that any reference Whatever in respect to the jurisdiction in admirali- ty can be drawn from the constitutional provision concerning commerce; Thus in the case of The Genesee chief, 12 How. 452, the late chief justice, speaking for the court, and speaking with special reference to admirality jurisdiction said: “ Nor can the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States he made to depend on regulations of com- merce. They are entirely distinct things, having no necessary connection with one another, and areconferrecl in the constitution by seperate and distinct grants.” So too, in the case of The Propellor Commerce, 1 Black 578,‘ in 1851, the supreme court, noticing an objection to its jurisdiction on the ground that it did not appear that the propeller was engaged in foreign commerce, or in commerce between the states, and speaking through Justice Clifford, said : “ Admirality j urisdiction was conferred-upon the Government of the United States by the con- stitution, and in cases of tort is wholly unaffected by the considerations suggested in the proposi- tion.” - This is the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, and unless it can be shown that jurisdiction in matters of contract is not as “ wholly unaffect- ed by the considerations” referred to, as jurisdic- tion in matters of tort, it seems to be my duty being fully satisfied that this court has jurisdic- tion under the constitution and the law over the contract of the respondents, to award to the libel- lants that justice to which the proofs clearly en- title them, without turning them out of this and requiring them to resort to another court. I do think this can be shown, and therefore. Afirm the decree of the District Court. ' The ‘National Debt. The following is a comparative statement of the Public Debt of the United States: Nov. 1, 1866. Debt bearing int. in coin.$1,333,558,841 80 81,371,068/S91 80 Debt bearing interest in currency.. Matured debt notpresent- __ ed . . .. . . 36,988,909_,21 Debt bearing no interest. 428,680,775 33 Total.. .$2,68l,636,966 34 $2,684,995,875 44 Coin in Treas- Dec. 1,1866. 882,408,440 00 857,622,890 00 22,605,794 71 433,698,598 93 ury;.... .. $99,413,018 55 $95,168,816 15 Currency.... 30,913,942 07 40,195,821 07 $130,326,960 62 $135,364,637 22 Debt less cash in the Trea- sury..... .$2,551,310,005 72 $2,549,631,238 22 The total debt shows an increase since the 1st ‘of November of $3,358,909 10. The balance in the Treasury shows an increase, as compared with November 1st, of 85,037,676 60. Deducting the amount on hand from the aggregate debt, both on the 1st of November and the 1st of December, the decrease of debt would be 81,678,767 50. The total debt on the 31st of August, 1865, stood at $2,845,907,626 56. The balance in the Treas- ury at that date amounted to $88,218,055 13. Deducting the cash in the Treasury from the aggregate debt both on the 31st of August, 1865, and 1st of December, 1866, and the actual de- crease in the Public Debt since that period has “been $208,058,833 21. The Oregon Legislature has passed a bill extending aid to the Oregon Central Railroad, which is to be built from Portland to the northern line of California, connecting with the California and Oregon Railroad. By this bill the State agrees _to pay 7 per cent. interest on $1,000,000 of the company’s bonds for 20 years. 1205 Illinois Central Railroad. The statement of this Company for the month ending November 30, 1866, is as follows : , LAND DEPARTMENT. Acres Construction Lands . ' Sold. . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. 17,979.23 for $177,488 54 Acres Int. Fund Lands sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 321.92 for 3,805 86 Acres Free Lands sold. . 6,111.43 for 62,750 46 Total sales during month - of Nov, 1866. . . .. . . .. 24,412.58 for $244,044 86 To winch add Town Lot Sales .. .. . . 325 00 Total of all....... .. $244,369 86 Acres sold since J an. 1, 1866 .. .. ._... .. .133,166.05 for $1,415,597 03 Cash collected in November . . . . . . .. 243,214 72 Cash collected since Jan. 1, 1866. . . 1,780,300 05 TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT. Receipts from Freight ..$373,545 00 do. Passengers . . .. ..... . . . 136,581 28 do. Mails.... . . . . . . .. 6,358 33 do. Rent of Road . . . . . . . 4,000 00 do. Other Sources . . . . . . .. 50,000 00 Total Receipts in Nov., 1866. . . . . _ _ . . . . $570,484 61 Total Receipts in N ov., 1865. . . . . .. “$624,968 30 -—-————na————:-. Total receipts since I an. 1, 1866 . . . . 86,030,488 90 South Side (L. I.) Railroad. This road is 35 miles in length, extending from Jamaica, in Queens Co., to Islip, in Sufidlk Co. We learn that the whole line is graded and ready for the ties, which have been negotiated for, and will shortly be delivered. We learn, also, that the road is to be extended to Patchogue, in Suffolk Co., and eventually to Williamsburg, in Kings Co., or some other point on the East River. The whole length of the road will then be some 55 miles. The contractors are L. W. Myers and P. C. Shanahan. Cleveland, Zanesvillc and Cincinnati R. R. The projected railroad connection between Cleveland and Cincinnati, via Millersburg and Zanesville, is again receiving attention. It is said that a new company has been incorporated which will absorb the whole line, including the Cleve- land, Zanesville and Cincinnati and the Cincinnati and Zanesville Railroads, and will supply the two links yet to be constructed, viz : from Millersburg to Zanesville, about 50 miles, and from Morrow to Cincinnati, about 36 miles. The :former road is 61 miles in length, extending from lllillersburg to Hudson, a point on,the Cleveland and Pitts- burg Railroad, 26 miles from Cleveland. The latter is 132 miles long extending from Zanesville, on the Central Ohio Railroad, to Morrow, on the Little Zdiami Itailroad, 36 miles from Cincinnati. The only link absolutely required, therefore, is between Millersburg and Zanesville, a" distance of about 50 miles. With this portion of the line constructed, trains can run through from Cleve- land to Cincinnati without change-—tl1e northern and southern portions being supplied by the Cleveland and Pittsburg and Little Miami Rail- road Companies, as now. 1 5 ' ti? Subscriptions to the capital stock of the Ma_nufacturers’ and Consumers’ Railroad Com- pany are progressing, and there is a determination to raise the sum required. The citizens of Potts- uille have resolved to raise one-third ‘of the ‘ amount, if not more.