페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

(262 U. 8. 100, 67 L. ed. - , Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ot. Rep. 504.)

INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION COMPANY, Limited, Appt.,

V.
SAME.

COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE Appt.,

V.
SAME.

NETHERLANDS-AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY

(Holland America Line), Appt.

V.
SAME.

LIVERPOOL, BRAZIL, & RIVER PLATE STEAM NAVIGATION COM

PANY, Limited, Appt.,

V.
SAME.

ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY, Appt.,

v. SAME.

UNITED STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF COPENHAGEN (Scandinavian

American Line), Appt.,

V.
SAME.

PACIFIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, Appt.,

v. SAME.

NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA, Appt.,

V.
SAME.

INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY, Appt.,

V. H. C. STUART, Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of New York,

et al.

UNITED AMERICAN LINES, Inc., et al., Appts.,

v. SAME.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

.

(262 U. S. 100, 67 L. ed. —, Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504.) Intoxicating liquors — application of 18th Amendment to foreign vessels.

1. The 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution covers foreign merchant ships when within the territorial waters of the United States.

[See note on this question beginning on page 1322.]

- meaning of "transportation" and Constitutional law implied excep“importation.”

tions to operation. 2. The words "transportation" and 10. An exception of foreign vessels "importation," as used in the 18th from the operation of the provisions Amendment to the Federal Constitu- of the 18th Amendment to the Federal tion, are to be taken in their ordinary Constitution when within the terri. sense.

torial waters of the United States Definition — "transportation."

would tend to embarrass the enforce3. The word "transportation" com- ment of the Amendment and defeat prehends any real carrying about, or

the attainment of its obvious purpose, from one place to another.

and therefore cannot reasonably be -"mportation.”

regarded as implied. 4. “Importation" consists in bring- Intoxicating liquors scope of Na ing an article into a country from the tional Prohibition Act. outside.

11. The provision in the supplement - "territory."

to the National Prohibition Act that 5. The word “territory,” as used in

it shall apply to all territory subject the 18th Amendment to the Federal to the jurisdiction of the United Constitution, means the regional area States means that its field coincides of land and adjacent waters over

with that of the 18th Amendment to which the United States claims and the Federal Constitution. exercises dominion and control as a effect of exception with respect to sovereign power.

Canal Zone. Intoxicating liquors - 18th Amend 12. The exception in the National ment - what territory subject to.

Prohibition Act of liquor passing 6. The territory subject to the ju- through the Panama Canal Zone indi. risdiction of the United States, within cates that where, in other provisions the meaning of the 18th Amendment of the act, no exception is made in reto the Federal Constitution, includes spect to merchant ships, either dothe land area under its dominion and mestic or foreign, within the waters of control, the ports, harbors, bays, and the United States, none is intended. other inclosed arms of the sea along - operation of Prohibition Act. its coast, and a marginal belt of the 13. The National Prohibition Act sea extending from the coast line out- applies to all merchant vessels, ward a marine league, or 3 geographic whether domestic or foreign, when miles.

within the territorial waters of the - effect on s.zips outside territorial United States, except in the Panama waters.

Canal Zone, but does not apply to do7. The 18th Amendment to the Fed- mestic vessels of the United States eral Constitution does not cover do- when outside the territorial waters of mestic merchant ships, outside the the United States. waters of the United States.

International law — power of ConInternational law – ships as part of gress over domestic vessels in fornational territory.

eign waters. 8. The metaphor that a merchant 14. Congress has power to regulate ship is a part of the territory of the the conduct of merchant ships of the country whose flag she flies partakes United States when on the high seas, more of the characteristics of person- and to exert such control over them al than of territorial sovereignty, and when they are in foreign waters as is chiefly applicable to ships on the may be affirmatively or tacitly permithigh seas, where there is no territorial ted by the territorial sovereign. sovereign.

Intoxicating liquors – effect of an[See 24 R. C. L. 1027.]

cient practice on interpretation of - jurisdiction over foreign ships.

act. 9. A merchant ship of one country, 15. The fact that the practice of voluntarily entering the territorial carrying intoxicating liquors for limits of another, subjects herself to beverage purposes as part of a ship's the jurisdiction of the latter.

sea stores is ancient, of wide extent, [See 15 R. C. L. 136; 24 R. C. L. and has received the recognition of 1027.]

Congress, does not indicate that the

(26% U. 8. 100, 67 L. ed. -, Ado. Ops. p. 552, 45 Sup. Ot. Rep. 504.) practice was not intended to be dis- within the territorial waters of the turbed by the National Prohibition United States are carried only as sea Act.

stores does not take them out of the - ship's stores status of.

operation of the National Prohibition 16. That liquors carried on vessels Act.

(Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Sutherland dissent.)

APPEALS by complainants from decrees of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York dismissing bills filed to enjoin the enforcement of regulations with respect to seizure of liquors on vessels in territorial waters. Affirmed in part.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George W. Wickersham, for Kestor, 110 Fed. 432; Patterson v. foreign steamship lines, appellants: The Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, 47 L. ed.

Neither the 18th Amendment, nor 1002, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 821; Wildenthe National Prohibition Act, proper- hus's Case (Mali v. Keeper of Comly construed, requires the application mon Jail) 120 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 565, 7 of the prohibition to every place wher- Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Sandberg v. Mcever the United States may exercise Donald, 248 U. S. 185, 63 L. ed. 200, its power.

39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84; Neilson v. Rhine National Prohibition Cases (Rhode Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. Island y. Palmer) 253 U. S. 350, 64 L. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; Re Moncan, ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486, 588; 14 Fed. 44; United States v. Ah Fook, Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 259 105 C. C. A. 325, 183 Fed. 33; United U. S. 80, 66 L. ed. 836, 22 A.L.R. 1116, States ex rel. Anderson v. Burke, 99 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423.

Fed. 895; United States v. Jamieson, A foreign ship temporarily within 185 Fed. 165, appeal dismissed in 223 the waters of the United States is not U. S. 744, 56 L. ed. 639, 32 Sup. Ct. "territory subject to the jurisdiction" Rep. 532; Taylor v. United States, 207 of the United States, within the mean- U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. ing of the 18th Amendment and the Rep. 53; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. National Prohibition Act.

Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. 2 Moore, International Law Dig. p. Ct. Rep. 28. 292; 8 Ops. Atty. Gen. 73; Taylor, In- Sea stores on merchant ships are ternational Pub. Law, 1901, § 268; considered as part of the ship itself, Wheaton, International Law, 5th Eng. and always have been exempted from ed. 1916, p. 169; 11 Whart. Conf. L. 3d tariff and other laws affecting mered. 1905; 42 Alb. L. J. 345; 1 Oppen- chandise introduced into the country. heim, International Law, 1920, 3d ed. United States v. Twenty-four Coils $ 189; 2 Mich. L. Rev. 333; 1 Halleck, of Cordage, Baldw. 502, Fea. Cas. No. International Law 1908, 4th ed. by 16,566; United States v. One Hempen Baker, pp. 245, 246; Wildenhus's Case Cable, Fed. Cas. No. 15,931a; The Sat(Mali v. Keeper of Common Jail) 120 ellite, 188 Fed. 717; The Penn, 273 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 565, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. Fed. 990; Pelly v. Royal Exch. Assur. 383.

Co. 1 Burr, 341, 97 Eng. Reprint, 342, The court will never give a

14 Eng. Rul. Cas. 30; Brough v. Whitstruction to a statute contrary to in- more, 4 T. R. 206, 100 Eng. Reprint, ternational law or to the accepted cus

976, 2 Revised Rep. 361; The Dundee, tom and usage of civilized nations, 1 Hagg. Adm. 109; United States v. when it is possible reasonably to con- Hawley & Letzerich, 160 Fed. 734. strue it in any other manner.

Even if the foreign steamships The Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 44 L. ed. within American ports or waters 320, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290; Murray v. should be considered as territory subThe Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, 64, 2 ject to the jurisdiction of the United L. ed. 208; The Exchange v. M'Fad- States, nevertheless the carriage of don, 7 Cranch, 116, 3 L. ed. 287; The intoxicating liquors as part of their Brig Wilson v. United States, 1 Brock. sea stores under the circumstances 423, Fed. Cas. No. 17,846; Brown v. described in the bill is not a violation Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L, ed. 595; of the Amendment or the statute. The State of Maine, 22 Fed. 734; The Swan & F. Co. v. United States, 190

con

U. S. 143, 47 L. ed. 984, 23 Sup. Ct. 10 A.L.R. 1548, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep 31; Rep. 702; The Conqueror, 49 Fed. 99, Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, aflirmed in 166 U. S. 110, 41 L. ed. 937, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Street v. Lincoln Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Safe Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 65 L. The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 41 L. ed. ed. 151, 10 A.L.R. 1548, 41 Sup. Ct. 937, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. Rep. 31; United States v. 254 Bottles The district judge erred in holding of Intoxicating Liquor, 281 Fed. 247; that vessels of the United States on Corneli v. Moore, 257 U. S. 491, 66 L. the high seas and in foreign ports are ed. 332, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Grogan territory subject to the jurisdiction of v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 259 U. S. 80, the United States within the meaning 66 L. ed. 836, 22 A.L.R. 1116, 42 Sup. of the 18th Amendment, and subject to Ct. Rep. 423; United States v. Chain the penalties of the National ProhibiCable, 2 Sumn. 362, Fed. Cas. No. tion Act, and hence were not free to 14,776; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Penn- sell intoxicating liquors on the high sylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, seas and in foreign ports. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 238 U. 826.

S. 190, 59 L. ed. 1267, L.R.A.1916C, Messrs. John M. Woolsey, Cletus 273, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 824, Ann. Cas. Keating, J. Parker Kirlin, and Ira A. 1915D, 1167; United States v. Lanza, Campbell, for International Company, 260 U. S. 377, 67 L. ed. 314, Adv. Ops. appellant:

p. 169, 43. Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Tennessee The district judge erred in holding v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 29 L. ed. that intoxicating liquors which have 833, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Re Ross, 140 been legally acquired, and which are U. S. 453, 35 L. ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. kept on, and used only as sea stores Rep. 897; American Banana Co. v. by, vessels of the United States, are United Fruit Co. 213 U. S. 347, 5) L. within the purview of the 18th ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511, 16 Ann. Amendment.

Cas. 1047; Brown v. Duchesne, 19 Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. R. 206, How. 183, 15 L. ed. 595; Taylor v. 100 Eng. Reprint, 976, 2 Revised Rep. United States, 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 361; The Dundee, 1 Hagg. Adm. 109; 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Scharrenberg Gale v. Laurie, 5 Barn. & C. 156, 108 v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. Eng. Reprint, 58, 7 Dowl. & R. 711, 4 ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; United L. J. K. B. 149; Lowndes, Gen. Aver- States v. Innes, 218 Fed. 705; Neilson age, 5th ed. $ 76, p. 375; United States v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, v. Twenty-four Coils of Cordage, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; Baldw. 502, Fed. Cas. No. 16,566; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, United States v. One Hempen Cable & 49 L. ed. 726, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429; De One Hempen Hawser, Fed. Cas. No. Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 45 L. ed. 15,931a; United States v. Hawley & 1041, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 743; Dooley v. Letzerich, 160 Fed. 734; The Satellite, United States, 182 U. S. 222, 45 L. ed. 188 Fed. 717; 21 Ops. Atty. Gen. 92; 1074, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762; Downes v. The Mary, 1 Gall. 206, Fed. Cas. No. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 9,183; Arnold v. United States, 9 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Dorr v. United Cranch, 104, 3 L. ed. 671; United States, 195 U. S. 138, 49 L. ed. 128, 24 States v. Lyman, 1 Mason, 482, Fed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, 1 Ann. Cas. 697; Cas. No. 15,647; Brown v. Maryland, United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Meredith 10 L. ed. 573; United States v. Hughes, v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 10 L. ed. 70 Fed. 972; Re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 34 258; Harrison v. Vose, 9 How. 372, 13 L. ed. 219, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760; Ex L. ed. 179; United States v. Ten Thou- parte Morgan, 20 Fed. 298; New York sand Cigars, 2 Curt. C. C. 436, Fed. ex rel. Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. Cas. No. 16,450; United States v. Vow- 468, 53 L. ed. 286, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; ell, 5 Cranch, 368, 3 L. ed. 128; The National Prohibition Cases (Rhode Missouri, 4 Ben. 410, Fed. Cas. No. Island v. Palmer) 253 U. S. 357, 64 9,653, affirmed in 9 Blatchf. 433, Fed. L. ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486, 588. Cas. No. 15,785; United States v. The unnecessary adoption of a ficEighty-Five Head of Cattle, 205 Fed. tion in constitutional construction 679; Swan & F. Co. v. United States, that would attribute to the word "ter190 U. S. 143, 47 L. ed. 984, 23 Sup. ritory,” as used in the 18th AmendCt. Rep. 702; Street v. Lincoln Safe ment, a 'meaning which would include Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 65 L. ed. 151, vessels of the United States upon the (262 U. 8. 100, 67 L. ed. -, Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ot. Rep. 504.) high seas and in foreign ports, would Fed. 993; Ex parte Morgan, 20 Fed. lead to embarrassing international 298; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. situations.

526, 10 L. ed. 573; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Wildenhus's Case (Mali v. Keeper Cranch, 332, 3 L. ed. 240; American of Common Jail) 120 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Foppiano v. 511, 7 L. ed. 242; Johnson v. M'Intosh, Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 50 L. ed. 288, 26 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L. ed. 681; Benner v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 138; Scharrenberg v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 13 L. ed. 119; Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Gaston, Wil- 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. ed. 1046; Church liams & Wigmore v. Warner, 260 U. S. of Jesus Christ, L. D. S. v. United 201, 67 L. ed. 210, Adv. Ops. p. 16, 43 States, 136 U. S. 1, 34 L. ed. 478, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Hall, International Sup. Ct. Rep. 792; Downes v. Bidwell, Law, p. 263.

182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Neither the history nor purpose of Ct. Rep. 770; Dorr v. United States, the 18th Amendment and its enforce- 195 U. S. 138, 49 L. ed. 128, 24 Sup. ment acts indicates any intention on Ct. Rep. 808, 1 Ann. Cas. 697; New the part of Congress to extend prohi. York ex rel. Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. bition to vessels of the United States S. 468, 53 L. ed. 286, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. while on the high seas or in foreign 190; Interstate Commerce Commission ports.

v. Humboldt, 224 U. S. 474, 56 L. ed. Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 849, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; United L. ed. 595; Taylor v. United States, States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 9 L. ed. 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. 1004;

United States v. Cole, 5 McLean, Ct. Rep. 53; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. 518, Fed. Cas. No. 14,832; The LottaS. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 wanna (Rodd v. Heartt) 21 Wall. 558, Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; United States v. 22 L. ed. 654; White's Bank v. Smith Innes, 218 Fed. 705; Edwards v. Dar- (White's Bank v. The Robert Emmett) by, 12 Wheat, 206, 6 L. ed. 603; United 7 Wall. 646, 19 L. ed. 211. States v. Gilmore, 8 Wall. 330, 19 L. A ship is not territory within the ed. 396; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. meaning of the 18th Amendment or 374, 23 L. ed. 47; United States v. the enforcing legislation. Moore, 95 U. S. 760, 24 L. ed. 588; Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63, Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568, 46 L. J. Mag. Cas. N. S. 17, 13 Cox, C. 28 L. ed. 1079, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648; C. 403, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 946; CharUnited States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. tered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands 52, 30 L. ed. 559, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 413; India Steam Nav, Co. L. R. 10 Q. B. United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169, 30 Div. 521, 52 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 220, 48 L. ed. 627, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Schell L. T. N. S. 546, 31 Week. Rep. 445, v. Fauche, 138 U. S. 562, 34 L. ed. 5 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 65, 47 J. P. 260– 1040, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; United C. A.; Westlake, International Law, States v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 142 U. pt. 1, p. 168; Hall, International Law, S. 615, 35 L. ed. 1134, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 263; Re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 35 L. 396; Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897; Schar248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. renberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. Rep. 89.

122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Messrs. Reid L. Carr, George Adams Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 50 Ellis, and Frederick H. Stokes, for L. ed. 288, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 138; NeilUnited American Lines, appellants: son v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S.

The word "territory," as employed 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; in the 18th Amendment, must be con- United States v. Innes, 218 Fed. 705; strued according to the meaning fixed Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120, upon it in our constitutional history. 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53;

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 ed. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. L. ed. 595; People ex rel. Pacific Mail 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Holmes v. Jennison, S. S. Co. v. Tax & A. Comrs. 58 N. Y. 14 Pet. 540, 10 L. ed. 579; Tennessee 242; Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610, 21 v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 29 L. ed. L. ed. 430; Lindstrom v. International 833, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Calder v. Nav. Co. 117 Fed. 170; Wilson v. McBull, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L. ed. 648; Thomp- Namee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. ed. 234; son v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 42 L. ed. The Hamilton (Old Dominion S. S. 1061, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620; McPherson Co. v. Gilmore) 207 U. S. 402, 52 L. v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 36 L. ed. 869, ed. 264, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133; Martin 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3; The Danube, 55 v. West, 222 U. S. 191, 56 L. ed. 159,

« 이전계속 »