[302] 22 Stat. 162, -- 4 (1882).

[303] 38 Stat. 803, -- 5 (1915).

[304] 43 Stat. 936, 941 (1925); 28 U.S.C.A. -- 1349.

[305] 3 Stat. 195, 198 (1815).

[306] 4 Stat. 632, 633, -- 3 (1833).

[307] 12 Stat. 755, 756, -- 5 (1863).

[308] 28 U.S.C.A. -- 1442 (a) (1).

[309] 100 U.S. 257 (1880).

[310] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).

[311] 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).

[312] 100 U.S. 257, 264. _See also_ The Mayor of Nashville _v._ Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 (1868).

[313] Lovell _v._ City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938).

[314] Stoll _v._ Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165 (1938).

[315] Indiana ex rel. Anderson _v._ Brand, 303 U.S. 95 (1938).

[316] Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. _v._ Oklahoma, 303 U.S. 206 (1938).

[317] Adam _v._ Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 164 (1938).

[318] United Gas Public Service Co. _v._ Texas, 303 U.S. 123, 143 (1938).

[319] 279 U.S. 159 (1929).

[320] Lane _v._ Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 274 (1939). It is fairly obvious, of course, that whether State courts have exceeded their powers under the State Const.i.tution is not a federal question. This rule was applied in Schuylkill Trust Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 302 U.S. 506, 512 (1938), where it was contended that instead of construing a State statute, the courts had actually amended it by a species of judicial legislation prohibited by the State const.i.tution.

[321] United States _v._ Ravara, 2 Dall. 297 (1793).

[322] Bors _v._ Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884).

[323] Ames _v._ Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449, 469 (1884).

[324] 280 U.S. 379, 383-384 (1930).

[325] 11 Wheat. 467 (1826).

[326] 135 U.S. 403, 432 (1890).

[327] Ex parte Gruber, 269 U.S. 302 (1925).

[328] 1 Stat. 73 (1789).

[329] _See_ W.W. Willoughby, The Const.i.tutional Law of the United States, III, 1339, 1347 (New York, 1929).

[330] Willoughby, _op. cit._, III, 1339.

[331] 1 Stat. 73, -- 9 (1789).

[332] Justice Washington in Davis _v._ Brig Seneca, 21 Fed. Cas. No.

12,670 (1829).

[333] The "Vengeance," 3 Dall. 297 (1796); The "Schooner Sally," 2 Cr.

406 (1805); The "Schooner Betsey," 4 Cr. 443 (1808); The "Samuel," 1 Wheat. 9 (1816); The "Octavia," 1 Wheat. 20 (1816).

[334] New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. _v._ Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 386 (1848).

[335] Waring _v._ Clarke, 5 How. 441 (1847); Ex parte Easton, 95 U.S. 68 (1877); North Pacific S.S. Co. _v._ Hall Brothers M.R. & S. Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919); Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. _v._ Rohde, 257 U.S. 469 (1922).

[336] Sheppard _v._ Taylor, 5 Pet. 675, 710 (1831).

[337] New England M. Ins. Co. _v._ Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 31 (1871).

[338] Knapp, Stout & Co. _v._ McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638 (1900).

[339] Atlee _v._ Northwestern Union P. Co., 21 Wall. 389 (1875); Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 (1872).

[340] O'Brien _v._ Miller, 168 U.S. 287 (1897); The "Grapeshot" _v._ Wallerstein, 9 Wall. 129 (1870).

[341] New Bedford Dry Dock Co. _v._ Purdy, 258 U.S. 95 (1922); North Pac. S.S. Co. _v._ Hall Bros. M.R. & S. Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919); The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438 (1819).

[342] New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. _v._ Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344 (1848).

[343] Ex parte Easton, 95 U.S. 68 (1877).

[344] Andrews _v._ Wall, 3 How. 568 (1845).

[345] Janney _v._ Columbia Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. 411, 412, 415, 418 (1825), cited by Justice Story in The "Tilton," 23 Fed. Cas. No. 14,054 (1830).

[346] 95 U.S. 68, 72 (1877).

[347] The "Belfast" _v._ Boon, 7 Wall. 624 (1869).

[348] Ex parte Garnett, 141 U.S. 1 (1891).

[349] The "City of Panama," 101 U.S. 453 (1880); _see also_ Kenward _v._ "Admiral Peoples," 295 U.S. 649 (1935); The "Harrisburg," 119 U.S. 199 (1886). Although a suit for damages for wrongful death will not lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law, admiralty courts will enforce a State law creating liability for wrongful death. Just _v._ Chambers, 312 U.S. 383 (1941).

[350] The "Raithmoor," 241 U.S. 166 (1916); Erie R. Co. _v._ Erie & Western T. Co., 204 U.S. 220 (1907). _See also_ Canadian Aviator _v._ United States, 324 U.S. 215 (1945).