[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. 149 (1920).
[390] Ibid. 160. For the discussion of the statute as an invalid delegation of power, see ibid. 163-166. Justice Holmes wrote a dissent in which Justices Pitney, Brandeis and Clarke concurred.
[391] 42 Stat. 634 (1922); overturned in Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 (1924).
[392] 44 Stat. 1424.
[393] Nogueira v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 281 U.S. 128 (1930); Vancouver S.S. Co. v. Rice, 288 U.S. 445 (1933).
[394] 244 U.S. 205, 216.