« 이전계속 »
tuted; k of a judicial officer of any grade ;l and of a sheriff, to induce him to summon jurors to be nominated by the defendant. m And the same rule has been applied to a corrupt agreement between A. and B., that A. shall vote for C. as commissioner, in consideration that B. will vote for D. as clerk.n
§ 2816. Corroboration when more than a single witness is required. - When a statute requires that a conviction for bribery shall not be had on the testimony of a single witness, without corroborating circumstances, the corroboratory evidence must go directly to the fact of the bribe. ni
k Barefield v. State, 14 Alabama, in Com. v. Callaghan, 2 Va. Cases. 603.
460. | State v. Carpenter, 20 Vt. 9. o Russell v. Com. 3 Bush, 469.
m Com. v. Chapman, 1 Va. Cases, 138.
OFFENCES ON THE HIGH SEAS.
§ 2829. For several reasons the statutes heretofore given on this topic are omitted in this edition. They are to be found at large in the sixth edition, since whose publication there have been no new enactments, as well as in Mr. Brightly's Digest. They are now in the process of revision and consolidation by commissioners appointed by the United States. They are, in their present shape, very copious and tautologous, and their insertion would be inconsistent with the condensation which the great expansion of the law in other respects makes necessary. I must therefore now be restricted to a general review of the offence, which will be done under the following heads :
ON, $ 2830.
V. INTENT, $ 2834.
I. DEFINITION a. § 2830. Piracy, being beyond the jurisdiction of the common law, was, it seems, originally no felony thereat, and before the statute of 28 Hen. 7, c. 15, was punishable only by the civil law. On a point argued at the Old Bailey, before Holt, C. J., Treby, C. J., Powell, Powis, Wark, Rokesby, and Turton, JJ., it was held per cur. that “ no attainder of piracy wrought corruption of blood, for it was no offence at common law.” But it would appear to have been ever recognized as an offence against the law of nations, and Blackstone c refers to the enactments on that subject as “ the principal cases in which the statute law of England interposes to aid and enforce the law of nations as a part of the common law.” And it is in this sense Hawkins d is to be understood, when he defines a pirate at the common law to be one who commits any of these acts of piracy, robbery, and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. e
a For forms of indictment, see b R. v. Morphes, 1 Salk. 85. Whart. Prec. 575.
By the law of nations, to adopt a recent and more accurate definition, f a pirate is one who roves the sea in an armed vessel, without a commission from any state, upon his own authority, for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating any vessel he may meet.g
The German and French authorities concur substantially in this view. By them piracy (Seeraub, or Sea Robbery, Piraterie) consists, by the law of nations, in an attack, in the nature of robbery as distinguished from larceny, by an uncommissioned vessel, on trading vessels on the high seas. Whether there must be the lucri causa was originally doubted; though now by the more recent jurists this element is held not necessary. h Privateers, according to this law, are not pirates so far as concerns hostile acts against an enemy's vessels, or bonâ fide against neutral trading ships. Jedenfalls können die von gültig bestellten Kapern verübten, gegen feindliche oder bona fide gegen neutrale Handelschiffe begangenen, Gewaltacte nicht als Seeraub betrachtet werden. i
c 4 Com. 71, 73.
the indefiniteness of the term “ felony." d Pl. Cro. b. 1, c., 37; U. S. v. Mere larceny on the high seas does Smith, 5 Wheat. 159, 161; U. S. v. not make piracy, though robbery does. Pirates, Ibid. 184. See a collection f U. S. v. Baker, 5 Bl. C. C. 6. of the doctrines of the civil, the mar- 9 See, also, Davison v. Seal-skins, 2 itime and the common law, and the Paine, 324. law of nations, in a learned and com- h Heffter, Völkerr. § 104 ; Broglie, prehensive note to U. S. v. Smith, 5 Sur la piraterie, in his works, III. 335. Wheaton, 163 – 180, which is now i Holtzendorff, Rechts lexicon, II. known to have been written by Mr. 449. This was conceded by our govJustice Story, who delivered the opin- ernment in the late civil war, when ion of the court in that case. 1 it sought to make privateering piracy Story's Life of Story, 283; U. S. v. by treaty. See as to qualifications, Palmer et al. 3 Wheat. 630.
post, $ 2833. e This, however, is defective, from
Under the 9th section of the act of 1790, physical force is unnecessary ; ; but the animus furandi is essential. k
II. JURISDICTION. § 2831. United States jurisdiction exists over vessels having no national character, and over our own citizens on board foreign vessels. kl — The United States courts have jurisdiction under the act of 30th April, 1790, c. 36, of murder or robbery committed on the high seas, although not committed on board a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States ; as when she had no national character, but was held by pirates, or persons not lawfully sailing under the flag of any foreign nation. If the offence be committed on board of a foreign vessel by a citizen of the United States, l or on board a vessel of the United States by a foreigner, 21 or by a citizen or a foreigner on board a piratical vessel, the offence is equally cognizable by the United States courts. And it is said that, in such a case, it makes no matter whether the offence was committed on the vessel, or on the sea, by throwing a person overboard, and drowning him ; or shooting him when in the sea. m All persons, on board all vessels which throw off their national character, by cruising piratically, are within the act. n But it is clear that piracies committed on land, or in the waters over which any particular state of the United States has jurisdiction, are not cognizable, under the act, by the United States courts.o The same limitation was adopted, after a careful review of the authorities, by the late learned Judge Hopkinson, in a case which is understood to have received the concurrence of his associate, Judge Baldwin. p It is true that it was once thought that, under the acts of 30th April, 1790, sects. 8, 9, and 10; of 15th May, 1820, sect. 3; and of 3d March, 1825, acts of piracy, when committed by citizens of a foreign country, in foreign vessels, are not punishable by the United States courts. q But maturer reflection led to the conclusion that persons on board piratical vessels, acknowledging the jurisdiction of no sovereign recognized by the United States, are within the statutes. It is otherwise, as will be seen, when the offenders are subjects of a recognized foreign sovereign, under whose flag the vessel sails.
j Malek Adel, in re, 2 How. U. S. n U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184 ; 210; U. S. v. Tully, 1 Gall. 247. U. S. v. Klintoch, 5 Wheat. 144 ; in
k U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Theat. 184; this respect qualifying U. S. v. Palmer, U. S. v. Riddle, 4 Wash. C. C. 644. supra. ki See ante, $ 210 b.
o U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheat. 412 ; 1 Ibid.
Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 P U. S. v. Peterson, 1 W. & M. 306. Cranch, 75.
m U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheaton, p U. S. v. Kessler, 1 Baldwin, 20. 412.
III. WHAT COMPLICITY CONSTITUTES. § 2832. No orders from a superior officer will justify a subordinate in the commission of what the latter knows, or ought to know, to be piracy. 8 But the simple fact of presence on board a piratical vessel, where there was no original piratical design, is not per se to affect a party with the crime. In order to taint all the officers and crew of a piratical vessel with guilt, the original voyage must have been taken with a piratical design, and the officers and crew have known and acted upon such design; otherwise those only are guilty who actively coöperated in the piracy. All who are present, aiding or assisting in the offence, are to be deemed principals. t The same rule applies to presence on board the vessel where the piracy was committed. u
A confederacy by citizens of this country, whether on land or on board of an American ship, with such as are sea-robbers or pirates by the law of nations, or the yielding of a vessel by a citizen to them, is within the provisions of sect. 8 of the act of 1790; so, also, any intercourse with pirates, calculated to promote their views, or an endeavor by a mariner to corrupt the master, so as to induce him to go over to them. v
IV. PRIVATEERING. § 2833. A pirate being hostis humani generis, and having utterly forfeited all national character, w is lawful spoil to be attacked and captured on the ocean by the public or private ships of every nation ; x nor, has it been said in the United States, is there any exception to the rule, that robbery on the high seas is
9 U. S. v. Kessler, 1 Baldwin, 32 ; 1 U. S. v. Gibert, 2 Sumner, 20. U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 632.
u U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. p U. S. v. Klintock, 5 Wheat. 144 ; U. S. v. Furlong, Ibid. 184; and see v. U. S. v. Howard, 3 Wash. C. C. act of March 3, 1847, Brightly, 211. 340.
s U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. w U. S. v. Pirates, 5 Wheat. 184. 209.
x The Marianna Flora, 11 Ibid. 1.