(262 U. B. 100, 67 L. ed. Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504.) INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION COMPANY, Limited, Appt., V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE Appt., V. NETHERLANDS-AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (Holland America Line), Appt., V. LIVERPOOL, BRAZIL, & RIVER PLATE STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, 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. 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., (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.] 5. The word "territory," as used in the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, means the regional area of land and adjacent waters over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power. Intoxicating liquors 18th Amendment what territory subject to. 6. The territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning of the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, includes the land area under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays, and other inclosed arms of the sea along its coast, and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or 3 geographic miles. - effect on ships outside territorial waters. ships as part of 7. The 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution does not cover domestic merchant ships, outside the waters of the United States. International law national territory. 8. The metaphor that a merchant ship is a part of the territory of the country whose flag she flies partakes more of the characteristics of personal than of territorial sovereignty, and is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas, where there is no territorial sovereign. [See 24 R. C. L. 1027.] -jurisdiction over foreign ships. 9. A merchant ship of one country, voluntarily entering the territorial limits of another, subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the latter. [See 15 R. C. L. 136; 24 R. C. L. 1027.] Constitutional law implied exceptions to operation. 10. An exception of foreign vessels from the operation of the provisions of the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution when within the territorial waters of the United States would tend to embarrass the enforcement of the Amendment and defeat the attainment of its obvious purpose, and therefore cannot reasonably be regarded as implied. Intoxicating liquors scope of Na tional Prohibition Act. 11. The provision in the supplement to the National Prohibition Act that it shall apply to all territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means that its field coincides with that of the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. -effect of exception with respect to Canal Zone. 12. The exception in the National Prohibition Act of liquor passing through the Panama Canal Zone indicates that where, in other provisions of the act, no exception is made in respect to merchant ships, either domestic or foreign, within the waters of the United States, none is intended. -operation of Prohibition Act. 13. The National Prohibition Act applies to all merchant vessels, whether domestic or foreign, when within the territorial waters of the United States, except in the Panama Canal Zone, but does not apply to domestic vessels of the United States when outside the territorial waters of the United States. International law power of Congress over domestic vessels in foreign waters. 14. Congress has power to regulate the conduct of merchant ships of the United States when on the high seas, and to exert such control over them when they are in foreign waters as may be affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the territorial sovereign. Intoxicating liquors effect of ancient practice on interpretation of act. 15. The fact that the practice of carrying intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as part of a ship's sea stores is ancient, of wide extent, and has received the recognition of Congress, does not indicate that the (262 U. 8. 100, 67 L. ed. Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504.) practice was not intended to be disturbed by the National Prohibition Act. - ship's stores status of. 16. That liquors carried on vessels within the territorial waters of the United States are carried only as sea stores does not take them out of the operation of the National Prohibition 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 foreign steamship lines, appellants: Neither the 18th Amendment, nor the National Prohibition Act, properly construed, requires the application of the prohibition to every place wherever the United States may exercise its power. National Prohibition Cases (Rhode Island v. Palmer) 253 U. S. 350, 64 L. ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486, 588; Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 259 U. S. 80, 66 L. ed. 836, 22 A.L.R. 1116, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423. A foreign ship temporarily within. the waters of the United States is not "territory subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, within the meaning of the 18th Amendment and the National Prohibition Act. 2 Moore, International Law Dig. p. 292; 8 Ops. Atty. Gen. 73; Taylor, International Pub. Law, 1901, § 268; Wheaton, International Law, 5th Eng. ed. 1916, p. 169; 11 Whart. Conf. L. 3d ed. 1905; 42 Alb. L. J. 345; 1 Oppenheim, International Law, 1920, 3d ed. § 189; 2 Mich. L. Rev. 333; 1 Halleck, International Law 1908, 4th ed. by Baker, pp. 245, 246; Wildenhus's Case (Mali v. Keeper of Common Jail) 120 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 565, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. The court will never give a construction to a statute contrary to international law or to the accepted custom and usage of civilized nations, when it is possible reasonably to construe it in any other manner. The Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 44 L. ed. 320, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290; Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, 64, 2 L. ed. 208; The Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch, 116, 3 L. ed. 287; The Brig Wilson v. United States, 1 Brock. 423, Fed. Cas. No. 17,846; Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L. ed. 595; The State of Maine, 22 Fed. 734; The Kestor, 110 Fed. 432; Patterson v. The Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, 47 L. ed. 1002, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 821; Wildenhus's Case (Mali v. Keeper of Common Jail) 120 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 565, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Sandberg v. McDonald, 248 U. S. 185, 63 L. ed. 200, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84; Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; Re Moncan, 14 Fed. 44; United States v. Ah Fook, 105 C. C. A. 325, 183 Fed. 33; United States ex rel. Anderson v. Burke, 99 Fed. 895; United States v. Jamieson, 185 Fed. 165, appeal dismissed in 223 U. S. 744, 56 L. ed. 639, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28. Sea stores on merchant ships are considered as part of the ship itself, and always have been exempted from tariff and other laws affecting merchandise introduced into the country. United States v. Twenty-four Coils of Cordage, Baldw. 502, Fed. Cas. No. 16,566; United States v. One Hempen Cable, Fed. Cas. No. 15,931a; The Satellite, 188 Fed. 717; The Penn, 273 Fed. 990; Pelly v. Royal Exch. Assur. Co. 1 Burr, 341, 97 Eng. Reprint, 342, 14 Eng. Rul. Cas. 30; Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. R. 206, 100 Eng. Reprint, 976, 2 Revised Rep. 361; The Dundee, 1 Hagg. Adm. 109; United States v. Hawley & Letzerich, 160 Fed. 734. Even if the foreign steamships within American ports or waters should be considered as territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, nevertheless the carriage of intoxicating liquors as part of their sea stores under the circumstances described in the bill is not a violation of the Amendment or the statute. Swan & F. Co. v. United States, 190 U. S. 143, 47 L. ed. 984, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 702; The Conqueror, 49 Fed. 99, affirmed in 166 U. S. 110, 41 L. ed. 937, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 65 L. ed. 151, 10 A.L.R. 1548, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; United States v. 254 Bottles of Intoxicating Liquor, 281 Fed. 247; Corneli v. Moore, 257 U. S. 491, 66 L. ed. 332, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 259 U. S. 80, 66 L. ed. 836, 22 A.L.R. 1116, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; United States v. Chain Cable, 2 Sumn. 362, Fed. Cas. No. 14,776; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826. Messrs. John M. Woolsey, Cletus Keating, J. Parker Kirlin, and Ira A. Campbell, for International Company, appellant: The district judge erred in holding that intoxicating liquors which have been legally acquired, and which are kept on, and used only as sea stores by, vessels of the United States, are within the purview of the 18th Amendment. Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. R. 206, 100 Eng. Reprint, 976, 2 Revised Rep. 361; The Dundee, 1 Hagg. Adm. 109; Gale v. Laurie, 5 Barn. & C. 156, 108 Eng. Reprint, 58, 7 Dowl. & R. 711, 4 L. J. K. B. 149; Lowndes, Gen. Average, 5th ed. § 76, p. 375; United States v. Twenty-four Coils of Cordage, Baldw. 502, Fed. Cas. No. 16,566; United States v. One Hempen Cable & One Hempen Hawser, Fed. Cas. No. 15,931a; United States v. Hawley & Letzerich, 160 Fed. 734; The Satellite, 188 Fed. 717; 21 Ops. Atty. Gen. 92; The Mary, 1 Gall. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 9,183; Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch, 104, 3 L. ed. 671; United States v. Lyman, 1 Mason, 482, Fed. Cas. No. 15,647; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 10 L. ed. 258; Harrison v. Vose, 9 How. 372, 13 L. ed. 179; United States v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 2 Curt. C. C. 436, Fed. Cas. No. 16,450; United States v. Vowell, 5 Cranch, 368, 3 L. ed. 128; The Missouri, 4 Ben. 410, Fed. Cas. No. 9,653, affirmed in 9 Blatchf. 433, Fed. Cas. No. 15,785; United States v. Eighty-Five Head of Cattle, 205 Fed. 679; Swan & F. Co. v. United States, 190 U. S. 143, 47 L. ed. 984, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 702; Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. 254 U. S. 88, 65 L. ed. 151, 10 A.L.R. 1548, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep 31; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 41 L. ed. 937, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. The district judge erred in holding that vessels of the United States on the high seas and in foreign ports are territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 18th Amendment, and subject to the penalties of the National Prohibition Act, and hence were not free to sell intoxicating liquors on the high seas and in foreign ports. Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 238 U. S. 190, 59 L. ed. 1267, L.R.A.1916C, 273, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 824, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1167; United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 67 L. ed. 314, Adv. Ops. p. 169, 43-Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 29 L. ed. 833, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 35 L. ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 U. S. 347, 53 L. ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L. ed. 595; Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; United States v. Innes, 218 Fed. 705; Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. ed. 726, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 45 L. ed. 1041, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 743; Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222, 45 L. ed. 1074, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 49 L. ed. 128, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, 1 Ann. Cas. 697; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 10 L. ed. 573; United States v. Hughes, 70 Fed. 972; Re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 34 L. ed. 219, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760; Ex parte Morgan, 20 Fed. 298; New York ex rel. Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468, 53 L. ed. 286, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; National Prohibition Cases (Rhode Island v. Palmer) 253 U. S. 350, 64 L. ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486, 588. The unnecessary adoption of a fiction in constitutional construction that would attribute to the word "territory," as used in the 18th Amendment, a 'meaning which would include vessels of the United States upon the (262 U. B. 100, 67 L. ed. —, Adv. Ops. p. 552, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504.) high seas and in foreign ports, would lead to embarrassing international situations. Wildenhus's Case (Mali v. Keeper of Common Jail) 120 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 50 L. ed. 288, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 138; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Gaston, Williams & Wigmore v. Warner, 260 U. S. 201, 67 L. ed. 210, Adv. Ops. p. 16, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Hall, International Law, p. 263. Neither the history nor purpose of the 18th Amendment and its enforcement acts indicates any intention on the part of Congress to extend prohibition to vessels of the United States while on the high seas or in foreign ports. Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L. ed. 595; Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; United States v. Innes, 218 Fed. 705; Edwards v. Darby, 12 Wheat, 206, 6 L. ed. 603; United States v. Gilmore, 8 Wall. 330, 19 L. ed. 396; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, 23 L. ed. 47; United States v. Moore, 95 U. S. 760, 24 L. ed. 588; Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568, 28 L. ed. 1079, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 30 L. ed. 559, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 413; United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169, 30 L. ed. 627, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Schell v. Fauche, 138 U. S. 562, 34 L. ed. 1040, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; United States v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 142 U. S. 615, 35 L. ed. 1134, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306; Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89. Messrs. Reid L. Carr, George Adams Ellis, and Frederick H. Stokes, for United American Lines, appellants: The word "territory," as employed in the 18th Amendment, must be construed according to the meaning fixed upon it in our constitutional history. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 4'9, 6 L. ed. 678; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 10 L. ed. 579; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 29 L. ed. 833, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L. ed. 648; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 42 L. ed. 1061, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 36 L. ed. 869, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3; The Danube, 55 Fed. 993; Ex parte Morgan, 20 Fed. 298; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 10 L. ed. 573; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 3 L. ed. 240; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L. ed. 242; Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L. ed. 681; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 13 L. ed. 119; First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. ed. 1046; Church of Jesus Christ, L. D. S. v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, 34 L. ed. 478, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 792; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 49 L. ed. 128, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, 1 Ann. Cas. 697; New York ex rel. Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468, 53 L. ed. 286, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Humboldt, 224 U. S. 474, 56 L. ed. 849, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72, 9 L. ed. 1004; United States v. Cole, 5 McLean, 518, Fed. Cas. No. 14,832; The Lottawanna (Rodd v. Heartt) 21 Wall. 558, 22 L. ed. 654; White's Bank v. Smith (White's Bank v. The Robert Emmett) 7 Wall. 646, 19 L. ed. 211. A ship is not territory within the meaning of the 18th Amendment or the enforcing legislation. Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63, 46 L. J. Mag. Cas. N. S. 17, 13 Cox, C. C. 403, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 946; Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands India Steam Nav. Co. L. R. 10 Q. B. Div. 521, 52 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 220, 48 L. T. N. S. 546, 31 Week. Rep. 445, 5 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 65, 47 J. P. 260C. A.; Westlake, International Law, pt. 1, p. 168; Hall, International Law, p. 263; Re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 35 L. ed. 581, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. 245 U. S. 122, 62 L. ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Foppiano v. Speed, 199 U. S. 501, 50 L. ed. 288, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 138; Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co. 248 U. S. 205, 63 L. ed. 208, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; United States v. Innes, 218 Fed. 705; Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120, 52 L. ed. 130, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L. ed. 595; People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Tax & A. Comrs. 58 N. Y. 242; Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610, 21 L. ed. 430; Lindstrom v. International Nav. Co. 117 Fed. 170; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. ed. 234; The Hamilton (Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore) 207 U. S. 402, 52 L. ed. 264, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133; Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 191, 56 L. ed. 159, |