In later cases the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States has been construed to extend to cases arising on canals.7

In the former of these cases it was held that the canals are navigable waters within the meaning of admiralty law; in the latter that canal-boats are ships or vessels within the meaning of the same law. In the latter case the court say: "The only distinction between canals and other navigable waters is that they are rendered navigable by artificial means, and sometimes, though by no means always, are wholly within the limits of a particular State. We fail to see, however, that this creates any distinction in principle. ... If it be once conceded . . . that navigable canals used as highways for interstate or foreign commerce are navigable waters of the United States, it would be an anomaly to hold that such jurisdiction did not extend to the only craft used in navigating such canals." As regards the argument that admiralty jurisdiction should not attach for the reason that the canal-boats are drawn by mules or horses walking on land, the court say: "This ... is an argument which appeals less to the reason than to the imagination. So long as the vessel is engaged in commerce and navigation it is difficult to see how the jurisdiction of admiralty is affected by its means of propulsion, which may vary in the course of the same voyage, or with new discoveries made in the art of navigation."