*1 MAUL UNITED STATES. Syllаbus. we take error jurisdiction
While cannot on the writ of can, 237(c) so under improvidently allowed, we the writ was Code, papers Judicial treat whereon for certiorari if presented allowed a and as petition they presented this Court at the the judge time examined who allowed The papers the writ. have been under that of opinion treating we are section; that, a certiorari, them as for petition they disclose a case situation should petition granted. be which dismissed, petition Writ error as such but as for certiorari granted.
MAUL v. UNITED STATES.1 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT THE OF APPEALS FOR COURT.
SECOND CIRCUIT. Argued January 19, 20, No. May 31, 655. 1927. Decided 1927. by 1. Officers are authorized, Coast Guard of Rev. virtue Stats. coast to seize on the seas more than 12 miles from the subject an American vessel to forfeiture for violation the revenue Pp. 503, laws. 512.
2. Section Statutes, providing the Revised that “It shall duty of the several officers of the customs seize and secure any vessel or merchandise which shall become liable to seizure any respecting
virtue of law revenue, as well without as within respective districts,” their /was paragraph not affected the first September provides pri- Act marily boarding searching for any place-in “at leagues United States or within four coast,” to discover and prevent smuggling, secondarily intended prompt searching the vessel officer if the search a violation disclose subjects of the law which her to forfeiture. P. 505. construing In3. altered revenue system laws the re- whole must be garded alteration, in each and no existing disturbance .allowed of legislative general application beyond rules of clear intention of Congress. P. 508. 4. Sections 4337 and subject Revised Statutes, which forfeiture enrolled vessel, or licensed in the trade,. coastwise Underwriter,” (2d)
1 “The 13 F. TERM,
Opinion of the Court. U.S. foreign voyage giving up her proceed which shall being duly registered, and without enrollment or license employed in other than that for which she licensed vessel trade *2 (besides protection licensed, revenue, to the of the was are directed commerce,) therefore come being regulations of and within the 3072, supra. respecting . as used in “law the revenue” term § P. 508. “ having customs,” of the officers Coast are of the Guard Officers 5. ” “ 3072, and are meaning Stats. of Rev. the districts within 509. P. make seizures thereunder. authorized by of officers the 3072, for seizures provision of Stats. The Rev. 6. (cid:127) respective districts,” is to their well without as within as customs the sea outside to include respects domestic be construed districts. P. customs on the domestic vessels seizure of power to authorize Congress has laws. P. 511. of the revenue violation high sea for (2d) 433, affirmed. F. to a decree the Circuit. (273 684) S.U. Certiorari Court, the District reversing one Appeals Court of libel for the forfeiture which dismissed (2d) 6 F. the revenue with violations of charged vessel a domestic was that the seizure of dismissal of the ground laws. miles, coast, from the than twelve more the veásel law, unwarranted Guard, Coast was officers jurisdiction. without therefore Court was the District that Long Messrs. M. Howard April, with whom Mr. Nathan brief, petitioner. for Halle on the Louis Willebrandt, with whom 'Attorney General Assistant Henderson, A. W. Mr. Mitchell General Solicitor General, were on the Attorney Assistant Special United States. for the brief, delivered the opinion Devanter Van
Mr. Justice Court. for forfeiture information is a libel This .of Underwriter, American enrolled and licensed an vessel of forfeiture are set Five causes coastwise trade. for MAUL v. UNITED STATES. Opinion Court. that,
forth. in violation of One Revised Statutes, in a other than employed the vessel was trade is that, she Another was licensed. Statutes, §of of the Revised vessel violation on a foreign voyage from United States proceeded and license and without up her enrolment giving now The others are not insisted being duly registered. on. December,
In the Coast Guard seized thirty-four seas, miles the vessel on to the collector customs her over coast, turned libel Connecticut, whereupon the London, New- at arrested. filed and the vessel an agreed statement facts was heard case Maul, claimant, to the court’s by the
and an exception *3 on theory was the The sustained jurisdiction. exception author Coast Guard were without that the officers miles from the vessel at sea more than twelve ity to seize the libel was entered. dismissing and a decree coast, held the Appeals 937. Circuit Court (2d) 6 Fed. The two of for sustained the causes untenable, exception reversed the decree. stated, accordingly feiture before and for a petitioned 433. The claimant re (2d) 13 Fed. and the petition Court on certiorari view this granted. agreed here that question
The claimant does not forfeiture, but does insist establish the two causes facts partic- and authority, that the seizure was made not of the Coast Guard were ularly authorized more than high seas twelve make a seizure such has question phases several miles the coast. from will be considered. which in mind that the case involves is to bear neither
It well nor an exercise of foreign of a vessel asserted seizure vessel, search a or for- and domestic authority to board detecting thwarting and in- for the purpose eign, TERM, Opinion 274TJ.S. of the Court. American ves- of an tended The seizure was smuggling.. miles than twelve sel, then on the seas and more high “ from liable to coast, which had become ” vio- accomplished forfeiture of definite and by reason enrolled and. under she was lations of the law licensed. “ Proceedings 45 of Code declares: Section the Judicial high for forfeiture under seas, on seizures made on the be States, may prosecuted dis law of the brought trict into which the property so seized originated instituted.” This with proceedings provision Act of c. Judiciary hаs remained force ever since, § 734 Stats., plainly Rev. recognizes may that seizures for forfeitures made on be Merino, 401-402; seas. See The Wheat. Abby, Fed. p. True, Cas. it does not indicate how or the seizures may effected; whom be but.other provisions speak point. There is need to trace them beginning; doing so it should in mind that officers of the Coast Guard are to be deemed officers, explained customs matter which will be later on. July 31, 1789,
The Act of regulating the collection of duties on the tonnage of vessels and on importation merchandise, contained provi- several sions that vessels declaring violating its provisions should forfeiture, be liable to seizure and a section (26) also customs officers to make authorizing seizure of and vessel, secure or any ship goods, merchandise, which *4 shall be. to seizure virtue of this Act, liable their well without as within respective districts.” That repealed by Act was thé Act of August 4, 1790, enlarged Stat. which prior c. regula- (50) giving and contained section customs offi- tions authority to make seizures was given the same that cers STATES. v. UNITED MAUL Opinion of the Court. c. of March Act Next came before. and con- regulations enlarged the again
Stat. which like which was seizures (70) respecting a section tained § is now This last provision acts. prior that in the as follows: and reads Statutes of the Revised cus- officers- of the several duty be the It shall or merchandise which any vessel to and secure toms seize any re- virtue law liable to shall become their as within as well revenue, specting districts.” respective carefully preserved, thus provision with
Along it distinct other provisions contained several acts and search to board customs officers authorized their inspect and to the United States vessels bound unlad- their cargoes, prevent examine manifests, A Act supplemental in. coming were they while ing provision 178, enlarged 1866, 201, July 18, c. making the officer appeared if declaring that, the laws of violation of been a that there had the search merchandise the vessel whereby States the United make seizure forfeiture, he should liable thereon was enlarged became 3059 so The provision of the same. early In the acts the Revised Statutes. only not to vessels bound limited, was and search board as were the tеr- States, but to such within the United four leagues States or within of the United ritorial waters coast. But the Act of 1866 and miles) of the (twelve the words expressing the Revised Statutes 3059 of Possibly omitted. the omission these restrictions were ex- for the same restrictions not significant, of the Revised which related Statutes pressed searching of boarding vessels. to the 21, 1922, September The Act of 3059 and 3067 of the Revised Stat- repealed §§ dealing subject with the same provision and enacted a utes reading as follows: *5 TERM, 1926.. of Opinion the Court. 274 U.S. Boarding “Sec. vessels. Officers of cus- the toms or the Guard, of Coast and or other agents persons authorized the of or Secretary Treasury, the appointed for that by a at purpose may any in collector time writing go on board of any any or vehicle in place vessel at the United or States within four of leagues the coast of the United States, well without as as within their respective districts, to examine the manifest search, and to inspect, and examine the thereof, vessel or vehicle, every and part and any person, trunk, package or on board, and to this hail end to and stop vehicle, such vessel or if way, under necessary and use all if compel force compliance, and it shall appear any that or of breach violation the laws of the United States has been in committed, whereby or of consequence vessel or or vehicle, such the mer- or any thereof, on of chandise, part board or imported or by such vessel vehicle is liable to it forfeiture, shall be duty of such officer make seizure the same, of and or, case or arrest, escape of attempted escape, to arrest pursue any person engaged in such or breach violation.
“Officers Department Commerce and other department authorized persons may go such on board at in the any vessel or any place States within four leagues coast United States, and hail, board such vessels stop, and enforcement of the case, or, laws navigation arrest escape or escape, pursue engaged arrest attempted person or of the navigation violation the breach laws.” provision paragraph of this relates to the last ap- naviga- individuals prehension violating arrest not to the laws, tion and neither party argument contention or bases it. So it may be here. passed bearing as without But claimant contends and the Court District ruled now the source and paragraph first sole meas-
MAUL v. UNITED STATES. Opinion of the Court. ure of Coast Guard officers to seize ves- only for seizure sels, that, provides within the twelve coast, United States within miles a seiz- *6 ure is- unlawful. The outside these limits contention is Statutes, § in it of the Revised that aside .3072 faulty puts to seize authorizes customs quoted, before which “ respect- liable to seizure virtue law vessel ” words, limiting ing declares, and without revenue “ as well authority may that this be exercised districts.” respective within their in of 1922 is the Act
Without doubt the provision Re 3059 and 3067 place § § to take the tended ac subject and is It the same deals with vised Statutes. But it sections. express repeal an those companied and there is repeal a accompanied by is not is intended to thinking repeal no reason for otherwise provision new that section. disturb While.the both directed to related and are closely are free from revеnue, they distinct, are protection may stand One together. pro and well repugnance, real boarding searching vessels, within for primarily vides smug intended prevent to discover limits, prescribed seizure of ves secondarily .prompt for gling, searching if the search a officer discloses vio sel her to forfeiture. other subjects lation of law for place, and without restriction as to broadly, provides which, through violation of of vessels the laws the seizure have become liable to seizure. revenue, While respecting to board and search to restricts former and the high limits —the territorial waters seas particular from the coast —it does pur outward not miles twelve restriction on seizures. Where a the seiz lay such port boarding and search under that pro incidental ure is - of the vessel within the prescribed the presence vision fix place limits' seizure. -operates Possibly the only seizure, to affect such a may be said but restriction TERM, Opinion of the Court. TJ.S. in a In limited sense. other are seizures, of which there many, restriction has bearing no .and no So effect.. no appears thinking Congress reason clearly intended to displace the general long provision continued § 3072. In this situation effect should be to the given familiar rule construing altered revenue laws system whole must regarded be each alteration, and no disturbance of existing legislative gen allowed rules of eral application beyond the clear intention Congress.” Russell, Saxonville Mills 21; U. S. Wood v. States, 342, 363; Pet. Sixty United States v. Packages Goods, seven Dry How. far it
Thus has been assumed that the seizure came within the terms of questions but are suggested in this connection which will noticed. *7 question One is whether the vessel’s to liability “ by
was virtue of law respecting the revenue.” The liability arose from a violation of 4337 and 4377 §§ the Revised Statutes —in vessel, that being enrolled and for the trade, licensed coastwise proceeded on a for- eign voyage giving her up enrolment and license and without being duly registered,2 employed and a trade other than that for which she was licensed. The sections violated are a found in subdivision of the Revised Statutes entitled “Regulation of Vessels in-Domestic but Commerce,” the arrangement of sections the Revi- sion without special significance, is Rev. Stats. That subdivision includes several provisions designed to regulate by commerce vessels and also to protect reve- nue, being subjects. these related A reading of the sec- violated in tions connection with others in the same sub- being distinction between being enrolled and licensed and registered that the former a condition employment in the is. pertains coastwise trade while the latter foreign trade.
MAUL STATES. UNITED Opinion of the Court. the pro- directed to that are they makes it plain division3 they come within therefore revenue; and tection of the regulations also That are they terms them the less not make vessels does commerce ' the revenue. respecting laws of the Coast Guard is whether officers question Another to make the section authorizes those whom among are ” “ and speaks officers of the customs says It seizures. districts.” respective of “their 62-64) Congress established the (§§ of 1790 Act
By the express purpose pro- for the Service Revenue Cutter its expenses paid revenue, directed tecting merchandise on imported of duties collected out that its officers and declared should vessels, tonnage customs.” the Act of By officers deemed “be enlarged and re- 97-102) these were (§§ provisions given were power of customs direc- enacted, collectors assignments subject and wide the service tion over Treasury, Secretary supervision authority to hail given vessels liable of the service were submission. enforce or examination” to seizure included in the Revised enlarged provisions force, 2747-2765) still in save that and áre (§§ Statutes the successor of the Guard became in 1915 the Coast took over its personnel, ves- Cutter Service Revenue 38 Stat. 800. powers, sels, duties Secretary the. issued Treas- The regulations early became the time show that from time to ury and officers this service to assign practice subject their and to activi- *8 districts particular customs the collectors of customs.4 the direction of largely to ties January 16, 1895, 4320, 4321, 4324, 4336, 4371; Act Rev. Stat. §§ 3, 624. 24, 28 Stat. § XV, XVI, XVII; IX, Regulations, 1871, 1843, pp. Regulations, Regulations, 1894, 20, 21, 22, 16, 17, §§ §§ 141, 476. TERM, 1926. Opinion Court. 274 U.S. And it appears practice otherwise this became so settled that the vessels and when assigned officers ” “ particular districts. The regarded as to the belonging Eliza, 8 Fed. Cas. Friendship, 9 Fed. Cas. p. 455; p. 822.
In yeаrs recent number the personnel enlarged have been and provision has been made imposing additional not duties requiring special notice here. The practice assigning vessels and their officers to particular customs districts also has been changed to the extent that now the assignments are of one more vessels to divisions, coast one including or more customs districts.5 Otherwise the duties practice in respect protection the revenue remain practically as before.6
It is apparent this review of the statutes and reg- ulations that Coast Guard officers are to be deemed offi- cers of the customs within the meaning of 3072, and § also that their connection with particular customs dis- tricts —whether one or more —is such that they properly bemay said to have districts the sense intended term their respective districts.” The term is pecul- not iar to It applied 3072. § Revenue Cutter officers 31 of Act of 1799, Act 3059 and Statutes, §§ Revised and is now applied to Coast Guard officers 581 of the Act of question remaining relates to the meaning clause indicating where may seize. It says well without as within their rеspective “as districts.” suggested Two constructions are restricting the —one treating the natural clause if saying sense as “as ”; well within other customs districts within own their accepting and the other natural sense. The difference Regulations, 1923, §§ Regulations, 2501, 2503. §§ *9 MAUL v. UNITED 511 STATES. 501 Opinion of Court. .the is one and the that excludes other includes the outside sea customs In districts. actual the latter construc practice tion adopted has been and it to be appears right. Besides giving natural of the clause, effect to the it is bet import ter adapted purpose to the attainment the sec If violating tion. the revenue laws and thereby- liability to forfeiture could incurring escape - departing avoiding from or waters within customs d’ tricts the to forfeiture would liability practical little be. in checking effect violations; improbable and is most Congress intended to leave the avenues escape broad, unguarded. thus The terms it has easily used are situation "effectively, United States. enough to meet Bowman, 98-100, U. 260 S. no reason sug v. them perceived cutting gested down as respects If Congress domestic vessels. power to pro of such for the seizure vessels on high vide sea, a justified. might construction restrictive there is But regard. this power high no want sea is common foreign none; all nations evéry nation hav regulate has power there them ing vessels and also to The Apollon, 9 them for a violation of its laws. seize McNamee, Wilson v. 102 371; Wheat. S. 574; U. Lord Co. 102 U. Steamship The Hamilton, 544; v. S. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit 207 U. 398, 403; S. Co., Mellon, Cunard S.S. Co. v. 213 U. S. 355; 129; Opinions U. S. A. 405; G. Kent’s Com. 7th In ed., Hyde Hall’s International *26; Law, § 77; Law, § ternational
Some distinctions have recognized been in respect of seizing domestic vessels in foreign when waters and of seizing foreign vessels on the sea, Cunard S. S. Co. v, Mellon, Apollon, supra, 123-124; supra, 370-371; Hubbart, Church v. Cr. 187, 234-235; The Marianna Flora, Manchester Massachusetts, 1, 42; Wheat. Hyde 240, 258; U. S. International Law, 236; West- TERM, JJ., 274TJ.S. Law, p. Int. but the application lake éxtent these distinctions are not involved this case.
It follows in that the seizure this instance the by of the Coast Guard was lawful and therefore that the jurisdiction the exception to District Court’s was ill grounded. if by Whether the seizure—made federal offi- in ruling Dodge States, cers—were unlawful the v. United apply U. S. need would not be considered. ,The decree the Circuit Court of Appeals is
Affirmed. Mr. Justice Brandéis,
I in concur the judgment the Court. But I cannot agree to the construction of the statutes on the decision is rested. The Court holds that the statutes con- fer the Coast Guard express authority to seize on the séas beyond the twelve-mile limit an American vessel which has become liable to forfeiture for violation of the navigation laws; the reason assigned.is that “ ” these are respecting law's the revenue within the of the meaning § 3072 Revised Statutes. IAs read confer the do not statutes, they express authority, but because it is to be authority implied the exists as an inci- duties of ocean police patrol dent which Congress the Coast Guard. Mere imposed upon has difference of in construction of opinion the intricate statutes can rarely true, justify expression dissent. This is especially in the lead, particular the two views case, where to the instance, this But, same result. construction may the Court have other cases far-reach- adopted results. regrettable ing “ ” laws respecting Enforcement revenue ocean patrol imposed duties only part forms the Coast Guard. And seizure on the Congrеss upon which have become of vessels liable to seiz- high seas ” required does not exhaust the services ure the Coast MAUL v. UNITED STATES. JJ., concurring. to ensure enforcement there of the respecting
Guard laws authority has the revenue. Coast Guard Unless and to thereon found violat- seize the arrest ship persons so. no American official is authorized to do ing laws, óur to the Coast granting If the are construed as statutes to make the authority question express Guard authority granted so revenue, order protect may obviously very narrow, express grant pos- is be- authority read conferred exhausting as sibly showing in other words, the twelve-mile limit; yond For this reason no is conferred. implied Iwhy cannot assent to me to state important it seems Court. expressed the view States, the United that, concedes within
The claimant charged duty enforcing with Guard the Coast board, for this purpose, may navigation laws, our *11 there; naviga- that our American vessels and seize search, merchant vessels on the high American govern tion laws could by appropriate the United States and that seas; Guard to a seize, the Coast authorize legislation high our law on the violating such vessel warrant, any United from our coast. of distance See regardless seas, Bowman, Steamship Cunard 94, 97; 260 v. U. S. States Mellon, 125, 129. His contention 262 U. S. v. Co. impose does not Congress is that apparently to enforce the any duty navigation Guard Coast of the the twelve-mile beyond limit; seas laws duty, it has not if conferred impose it does even that, by means of a compliance authority to enforce for decision question The is the power there. made to be beyond American vessels Guard seize Coast limit.1 twelve-mile
1 in The vessels, upheld American was power, in relation to The (2d) passing upon M., 4 F. point affirmed without Rosalie Homestead, Contra, See The (2d) (2d) 7 F. 415. 970. 12 F. in 55514° —28-33 TERM, 1926. JJ., concurring. 274U.S.
The Coast Guard is a part civil establishment. It ais bureau of the Treasury Department,2 established ofAct January 28, 1915, c. Stat. lieu the existing Revenue Cutter Life-Saving Service and Service. These had thereofore separate been Reve —the nue Cutter Service a division, the Life-Saving Service bureau, of the Treasury. Louisville & R. Nashville R. States, Co. v. United S. 374. U. The Revenue Cut ter Service was established by August Act of 4, 1790, 62-65, 1 175. 145, 164, §§ 31 That statute supersedеd the Act of March c. 22, §§ 70, 97-102, 668, 678, 699, 700. provi The sions of the Act of 1799 concerning search and seizure by revenue specifically cutters were embodied without substantial change Revised Statutes, §§ 2760, 2761, 2763, 3067, 3069, and 3072. Their scope pur will be later. They discussed are pose now full force, far they repealed by so Tariff except Act of may by § 1922 or have been modified 581 thereof. The Bentley, United (2d) States, States Lee v. United 466; v. F. (2d) 400, United Court, F. this Lee, post, p. States v. reversed foreign beyond vessels, seizures of waters, For territorial under States, see Ford United treaties, run The 593; hour’s v. 273 U. S. Top, Pictonian, The Over The (2d) 145; (2d) 3 F. 838; 5 F. Henning, (2d) 488, States 7 F. (2d) reversed The 74; F. Haughan Sagatind, (2d) v. United States, 673; 11 F. (2d) 13 F. foreign beyond treaty For seizures limits, see Louise, (2d) Panama, Frances - (2d) F. 6 F. 326. For foreign seizures of -vessels between the three and twelve limits, mile hovering statutes, treaties, *12 under before the see United States v. Bengochea, Ruby, The 537; Grace and 475; 279 Fed. United 283 Fed. 1,250 Intoxicating Liquors, States Cases v. Arch 486; 292 Fed. of States, (2d) 382. 13 F. 1915, 1, law, provides The Act of like the earlier the Coast operate part subject Navy, "shall as a of the Guard to the orders Secretary Navy, of the of the time of war or when the Prеsident so shall direct.” v. UNITED STATES.
MAUL and JJ., abridge Act 1915 did not in any respect add to cutters. existing powers duties and of officers revenue It Guard the duties merely transferred to the Coast and powers theretofore possessed. established,
When the Revenue Cutter its Service was In of the revenues. protection duties were limited to 1793, navigation also the laws was duty enforcing imposed.3 time, from Thereafter, duty time enforcing many relating other laws in transactions operations marine was added. Revenue cutters volving America’s ocean But their patrol.4 became thus civil our law. enforcing municipal service is not limited to also lives They protecting have been employed in inter against foreigners property and Americans war; they and have falling national controversies short enemy.5 against during. operations served wars armed Naval discipline, Revenue cutters are cruisers. Their ships. on all the officers prevail drill and routine men enlisted, and their like commissioned, are Army, Navy Marine'Corps. men and them to a Treasury assigns Secretary particular assigned usually particular the vessel is to a vessel; mаke such transfer of an officer may But he station. from another, vessel one vessel one he Both deems desirable. the Sec another, station may the President Treasury direct retary February 8, 27, 1 305, 315. Act of duty regulations Coast Guard make it officers to Regula maritime laws of the all . . United States.” . enforce frequently The cutters are called tions, Art. departments transportation other assistance to other furnish Reports of Revenue Cutter Service and Coast Government. 11-13; 1891, p. 4; 1914, p. 101; 12; 1873, pp. Guard, p. 130-140; 1916, p. 21. pp. 1891, p. 13; Report Report for for Revenue Cutter Service p. Report p. Coast Guard *13 TERM,
516 1926. JJ., 274 U.S. Holmes, Brandéis revenue cutter to-cruise in in order to perform waters States, Wiley v. 40 Ct. any duty service. 2, 326; Cl. 36 Stat. 406; April 21, 1910, 182, Act of § c.. (1923), of Coast Art. 101. Regulations Guard enlargement With the of the revenue cutters’ functions an necessarily came extension of the field of opera their the seas or far They range coastwise into tions. ' ocean, particular occasion and duties demand. regulations-6 Secretary earlier issued enforced, those Treasury, included.among the laws to be the slave the laws to trade,7 neut рrohibiting preserve suppression laws for the and the law rality,8 piracy,9 cutting removing pub timber prevent 10 any foreign country.” for exportation. lic lands 11 recited the later are Among regulations the duties medical aid to vessels the United States en lending enforcing fisheries;'12 sponge sea gaged deep fishing the oceans14 distress assisting law;13 “ 6 officers of the Revenue Cutter Instructions United States Treasury Department 3, p. 1834, 1; issued Service” “ October Regulations for the Government the United States Rules and Marine, 1, 1843,” p. Revenue issued November ix. 7 347; 22, 1794, 11, 1, April 20, c. 1 1818, c. 91, Act of March Stat. § 451; 450, 3, 1819, 101, 1, March 2, see c. 3 4, 3 Stat. Stat. 532. §§ 8 5283-5287; 4, 321, of March 1909, Act c. 35 Stat. Stat. Rev. §§ 15, 1090; 1917, 30, V, 1088, 217, Act June c. Title 40. Stat. 221. Report 1897, pp. Revenue Cutter Service 21-22. See 9 113; April 30, 1790, 9, 8, 112, 3, Act of c. 1 Stat. of March Act 1819, 77, 1, 4, 510, 511, May 1820, 3 513. Act of 15, c. Stat. See §§ 113, c. 3 Stat. 600. 10 2, 3, 1, 1817, 22, 4, Act of March c. 3 Stat. 347. §§ Guard, 1923, Regulations Coast c. 2. U. S. 24, 1914, 124, c. Act of June 38 Stat. 387. 3442, 313; August of June c. Act of Act 1914, c. Stat. 692. April Act of 1-3, Rev. Stat. §§ 7-9; Reports of Revenue Cutter pp. Service, 1873, 15; 1891, pp. pp.
MAUL UNITED STATES. JJ., concurring. Lakes;15 Great derelicts;16 removing suppressing mutinies;17 the North Pacific patrolling Bering and the Sea for enforcing protec the laws for purpose *14 tion otter;18 of the fur оf seal and sea and the service ice observation and of patrol, pursuant the .Convention January 20, 1914, designed promote safety Atlantic, following North the International Conference of 1913.19 no or 12, regulation November act is the By activity of field restricted to the twelve-mile Some limit. imposed the duties revenue cutters involve neces miles hundreds of American sarily service coast.20
15Rev. Stat. 2759. § 16 May 12, 2454, Act 1906, c. 34 Stat. 190. 17 Reports, 14-23; g., 1881, pp. 1915, p. See e. 20. - 18 cutters in Concerning service of revenue with connection killing seals, etc,, otter, forfeiture of fur vessels waters Alaskan July 1868, beyond, the Acts of 27, 273, 6, 7, see 15 Stat. c. §§ 241; 2, 1889, 415, 3, Stat. 1009; 1870, 25 240, July 1, March c. 180; 189, 20, 1878, 359, 212; c. 16 Stat. June c. 20 206, Stat. March 3, 377, 386; 1879, 182, 29, 3, 20 Stat. December 1897, 8, c. c. 227; 3, 429, March 226, 1899, 173-183, Stat. c. 1253, 30 Stat. §§ 4, 1279-1281; 3299, 263, 264; April June c. Stat. 21, , give July 7, To effect to the 183, c. 36 Stat. convention of 1910 1911, Russia, England, Japan, (37 between and the United States Congress 1542), passed August 24, the Act of 1912, c. 373, specifically provided (§ 9) for the search seizure of American on the seas. An earlier statute giving treaty a similar England effect to between and the United provision. same April 6, States carried the Act §§ Cooper, 472; 55. See also In 28 Stat. re The 143 U. S. Swan, James Ninfa, G. La 108; 513; Fed. 75 Fed. Alexander, 519; Swan, The James G. Fed. 77 Fed. 473; Gray, States The Jane 77 Fed. 908. For years special some assigned fleet of revenue vessels has been Bering to the patrol, sea cooperation Navy sometimes in with Department of Com merce, Report 1920, pp. for g., See e. 22-31. Report 1914, p. See Reports, 1891, pp. 3, 14; See 1897, pp. 21-22; 42; 1914, 1913, p. pp. 35, 85, 126, 149-151, 158-161; 1915, pp. 7, 11, 14, 16-18, 24, TERM, 1926. 274 U.S. Holmes, JJ., com- is a offending punishment vessel Forfeiture laws, navigation our for violation monly prescribed are re- cutters which revenue other laws many many there are Of these enforcing. quired to aid collection with the way in no concerned which are adequately, laws to enforce these In order the revenue.21 Government shall officials of the some necessary that it is 118; 19-20, 102, pp. 13-14, 130-140; pp. 11-13, 21, 926, p. 22. acts, referred registry and enrollment the customs and Aside from many providing for text, have been statutes length in there to at made which is -vessels, penalty or for a and forfeiture the seizure power statutes confer of these upon the vessel. Some a lien specifically by reference cutters, either revenue upon the seizure revenue; рrovide for some officers of of the customs or to officers navy usually under the direction means, by some other specific provision for seizure. President; majority make no *15 specifically upon revenue or enforcé conferred (1) to seize Power acts: Joint Resolution of Embargo non-intercourse cutters. 400; May 22, 1794, 33, c. Act of 1 Stat. 1794, 1 26, Stat. March 379; 29, 22, 2 Act of December 18, 1806, c. Stat. 369; April Act of April 25, 1808, the Act of (supplemented 451 1807, 5, 2 c. Stat. 1, 1809, 24, 528; March c. 2 499); Act of Stat. 66, § 7, 2 c. Stat. 700; Act December 49, 17, 1813, 2 of 4, 1812, Stat. April c. of Act February 28, 1803, 10, 2 Act of c. Stat. trade: 1, 88. Slave c. 3 Stat. forbidding admission); states Act importation into (prohibiting 205 (not providing for the use of the 22, 2 426 1807, c. Stat. 2, of March by giving seizing part crew of recognizing that use cutters, but be made an armed vessel of whether the proceeds, thereof”); 3, March cutters Act of States, revenue the United (same provision). Miscellaneous: of Act 101, 532 1819, 3 Stat. c. (failure report board); aliens on 58, 570 1798, 1 25, c. Stat. June (closing ports 255 3, 7, 12 Stat. confederate July 13, 1861, c. Act of § citizens); August of 15, 1914, Act forfeiting confederate vessels of fishing (regulating sponge Mexico); in Gulf of 253, 692 38 Stat. c. 5, 121, (illegal carriage 140 113, § 10 Stat. 31, 1852, c. August Act of 235-237, 335, 283, 17 312 8, 1872, c. Stat. mаil); of June Act §§ 49, (anchorage 54 6, 1896, c. 29 Stat. (same); March St. Act of 31, (state May 1796, quaran 1 River); 27, c. Stat. 474 Act of Mary’s 1832, 204, (same); c. 4 Joint of July 13, Stat. 577 laws); Act tine MAUL v. UNITED 519 STATES. JJ., 501 have authority to seize American vessels which found are violating Many them. of the offenses are such char- acter they anywhere can be on committed the high seas. The challenge Coast Guard May 26, 1866, (same); Resolution 14 7, Stat. 357 Act of June (Oil 1924, 604, Pollution Act). 316, 7, c. 43 605 Stat. § (2) Power to seize or enforce conferred some other arm of government (not excluding necessarily power a similar in the cutters). Embargo revenue and non-intercourse acts: Act of Feb ruary 9, 2, 613; February 1 Act 1799, 27, 1800, c. Stat. 10, c. 2 Stat. 7; January 9, 1809, 5, Act of c. 2 Neutrality Stat. 506. laws: 50, 1794, 381; April of June 1 5, 20, 1818, Act c. Stat. Act of 88, c. 447; 10, 1838, 212; 3 Act 531, Stat. of March c. Stat. Act of June 15, 1917, V, 217, Piracy 40 30, c. Title Stat. laws: Act of March 3, 1819, 77, August 5, 3 c. Stat. Act of 1861, 48, 12 c. Stat. 314. May 10, 1800, (slave Miscellaneous: Act of 251, trade); c. Stat. 70 February 4, 31, (trading Act of c. 1815, enemy); 3 Stat. 195 with the August 2, (seizure 1813, 57, Act of c. 3 Stat. 84 of American vessel English using pass high seas); February 19, 1862, Act of 27, c. trade); (coolie September 12 8, 1916, Act 463, 806, Stat. c. 340 § 756, (vessel departing clearance); 39 Stat. 799 Act of June 15, 1917, 217, (regulations 30, II, governing c. 40 Stat. 220 Title ves emergency). sels in territorial waters time of (3) express provision Navigation No for seizure or enforcement. regulations: 1817, 1, 31, Act of March (foreign c. 3 Stat. 351 coasting trade); 3, 1817, 39, Act of March c. (same); 361 Stat. 2, 1819, 46, (excess Act of March c. passengers); Stat. Act February 2, 22, 1847, 16, 127, (same); c. 9 Stat. Act of (same); March 213, July c. 4, Act 1864, 249, (false passenger list); July c. Act of (inspection c. vessels); 5 Stat. 304 and license steam May 5, 1864, Act of (deception 13 Stat. name *16 vessel); February 28, 1871, 100, 45, of Act of 1, 440, c. 16 Stat. §§ (same); 3, 1805, 42, 3, 342, (armed 453 Act of 2 March c. Stat. 343 § departing clearance); 4, 30 1897, 4, 7, vessel without Act of June c. § 96, (rules navigation); 9, Stat. 103 1910, 268, 7, of Act of June c. § 462, (motorboat regulations); 36 463 May 28, Stat. Act 1906, documented). 2566, 1, (foreign-built dredge 34 Stat. 204 c. not § Embargo 1 13, and non-intercourse acts: Act June 1798, 53, c. 565; February 1806, 2 28, 9, 351; Stat. Act c. April Stat. Act of TERM,
520 274 U. S. JJ., limit presents, the twelve-mile beyond make a only not enforcement affecting therefore, questions, laws, of the customs but also navigation laws, If the officers Law, and others. National Prohibition seize Ameri- authority to revenue cutters were on the our laws violating found can merchant vessels or-to seize such limit, twelve-mile seas high beyond have known theretofore to thеre which are vessels found limits, many those or within violated our laws without extent, to that com- might, our laws against offenses For no other arm of the clearly impunity. mitted with authority. such possesses Government early necessitate into questions presented enquiry . legis- as well as into practice, and recent administrative I first whether shall consider decisions. judicial lation authority to seize on the officérs of revenue cutters had navigation laws prior seas for violation high 432; May 1820, 70, 122, 602; Act of 1818, 15, c. 3 c. 3 18, Stat. Stat. Trading enemy: 1, 22, 3 with the 1823, c. Stat. 740. Act of March Quarantine laws: Act 129, July 6, 1812, 2 Act of c. Stat. 15, 416; February Act of August 839, 6, 414, 26 30, 1890, c. Stat. § February 23, 1887, Opium laws: Act of 1893, 114, c. 27 Stat. 449. 614; February 100, 35 9, 1909, c. Stat. 210, 24 Act of c. Stat. 275. Miscellaneous: Act of January 17, 9, 38 1914, Stat. Act c. 22, (piracy); Act of March 112, April 30, 1790, 9, 8, 1 c. Stat. § 22, 1817, c. (slave trade); 1, March Act of 1794, 11, 1 c. Stat. navy lands); Act (transportation cut from of timber Stat. 1825, (same); 3, Act of March 2, 1831, 66, 4 March c. Stat. foreign port); (taking 107, 4 wrecks on Florida coast c. Stat. May 10, 58, 61, amended 6, 1882, 126, Act of c. (Chinese exclusion); 115, 117 July 5, 10, 23 c. Act July (property trans Act of c. 26 Stat. 9,1, trade); August 13, ported Act of restraint §§ seas). See (use apparatus on 302, 308 of radio on vessel 37 Stat. certain offensеs criminal enumeration of under the code which also the Bowman, usually States place high seas, take S.U. 98-100.
MAUL v. UNITED STATES. 521 501 JJ., concurring. Brandéis and Holmes, the Tariff Act of 1922; then, whether Act abridged their authority.
First. The provisions of the navigation alleged laws to have been violated, in have been force since begin- ning of our Government. Act of February 18, c. 1793, 8, 8, §§ 132, 305, 308, 316; Stat., 4337, Rev. Stat. §§ The express authority to board and in search terms be- the territorial limits the United States yond appeared first in 31 64 §§ customs-collection Act of August 4, 1790, 35, c. 145, Stat. 164, which estab- lished the Revenue Cutter Service. The authority there conferred upon was to board and search within United States or within four leagues [twelve miles] the coast.” It all applied as well foreign as vessels— American; but was limited inbound vessels.. These sections, which granted board power search, con- tained no power to seize. express grant Express statu- in tory to seize terms beyond the territorial limits of the United States for violation of its laws was in respect not until the Tariff Act conferred, Con- any in in except offence those few instances gress, pursuance specific treaties, provided that any vessel, .foreign American, might be seized.22 We are only concerned' right here with the of the Coast Guard to seize an for American vessel violation of a law appli- cable vessels. solely such statutory authorization only express upon Which, to the Tariff Act of a claim of
prior power official to seize vessel on for a waters violation laws navigation possibly could predicated February (a the Act of c. by its omission from navigation law), repealed which was 18, supra, See, example, mentioned note the treaties giving statutes effect thereto. TERM, 1926. 274 TJ.S. Holmes, JJ., July the Act of Statutes;23 Revised law), which (a customs-collection part Revised Statutes 3059 of the
embodied “ ” *18 upon Imports; of Duties Collection XXXIV, Title with dealt Statutes, which of the Revised § 3072 “ reven respecting law any for violation seizures 24 cus officer of the any 3059 authorized Section ue.” “go cutter,” revenue “of a those toms, including” inspect, search any vessel ... on board that shall appear if it .; the same . . examine of the United States laws of the breach violation vessel . such whereby . . committed, been has make seizure forfeiture, liable to ... ...” same and the earlier 3072, 3059, § § cus- officers “of the all conferred
acts, expressly dis- as within his “as well to seize was toms” foreign between there made No distinction trict.” inbound and outbound nor between vessels; and domestic July 31, in the Act of first appeared clause vessels. regulating law 29, 1 43, Stat. earliest 5, 26, c. 1789, § clause there used, As of customs. the collection collectors, naval and sur- only meant clearly authority to seize in other districts have the veyors should ones to which particular besides States of the United expressly repealed. In the “Revision of 27 was never 23 Section (1872), as Drafted the Commissioners” Statutes States United 36, appear 10. It does not 620 of Title c. appeared as § 5596, finally enacted, however, hence, under Revised Statutes § repealed, have been of the omission, deemed to because since must be February many 18, 1793, were other sections Act included phraseology similar to 2 It is substance of the Act therein. § July 1866, 18, 201, c. Stat. 178. provisions That section also is a of identical re-enactment 22, earlier customs collection laws. Acts of March c. See 678; August 4, 1790, 50, 145, 170; c. Stat. § July 31, 1789, v.
MAUL UNITED STATES. ’ Holmes, JJ., concurring. Brandéis and they For respectively appointed. the clause ante- dated the first authorization of either search or express States; without the territorial limits of and antedated also the of the Revenue establishment Cutter Service.25 Did the his phrase “without ... district,” when used in continue to mean within some other customs collection district of the United States; or did it acquire meaning'of the' new anywhere, even without the territorial waters United States? Compare Taylor United States. How,
If the former meaning is the true there was one, prior Tariff -the Act express authority no in officers of revenue cutters for violation seize law beyond the territorial limits of the United States. If the latter meaning is the true one, only not officers of revenue cut- *19 ters, but all also other customs given officers were by .3059 express authority to seize anywhere on the high seas foreign vessel, found American, violating our my In opinion laws. the former meaning is clearly the Congress true one. have cannot intended to confer the general authority foreign to seize vessels upon high seas.26 And question the clause in is used in 581 of the Act of 1922 in the same sentence with an express terri- torial limitation. But it does not follow that American violating beyond vessels our laws the territorial limits could not Authority be seized. to seize American vessels Report
25 See also Alexander Hamilton’s of February 2, 1795, Papers, Finance, American I, State pp. Vol. No. 348, 349, urging the insertion of a similar in the dealing clause statutes with power officers, who, course, operate internal revenue on land only. 26 commonly that, It has been asserted even under the hovering sovereign laws, may foreign not seize a vessel until it enters the beyond territorial waters. These do not extend the three-mile limit. Moore, Digest John Bassett 1 Law, International 726; L. H. Woolsey, Foreign Relations of the United (1912), p. States 1289; Charles Cheney Hyde, Law, pp. group Int. 417-420. But see last of cases cited 1, supra. in note TERM, 1926.
524 JJ., 274 TJ.S. Brandéis and by of revenue cutters upon there was conferred authority as an incident implication. They possessed They are officers of the patrol. théir office ocean exe- charged with the faithful Government branch of the they seas laws. Wherever cution with our laws, compliance with сharged enforcing , Amer- authorized seize were, my they opinion, there distance our coast.27 regardless of the vessels, ican Macdaniel, United 7 United States v. Pet. Compare 5 Atty. Gen. Tingey, 115, 126; Op. States v. Pet. 124, 549, 552. sovereign right of the upon is no limitation
There its registered under seize without a warrant and the to that the common law laws, imposed similar upon arrest of persons Constitution v. See Carroll and effects.” papers peace and to seize power ordinary officers to arrest As originally been conferred statute. seem to have does not appointment, the method of tenure sheriff, dealt with statutes powers. See of his qualifications, but not with the extent office, and Watson, passim.; 339-346; Sheriff, Comm., Dalton, Blackstone Sheriff, Similarly as constables and watchmen. See I, III. c. including course powers, Comm., 292. These Blackstone country thought offices, inhere in these arrest, are this power to See South v. may except they statute. in so limited far State, 401-2; Mayor Maryland, Baltimore v. 15 Md. 18 How. Kirksey Bates, justices peace); v. (constables and Doering State, (Ala.) 529, (notaries); v. Ind. 7 Port. Butler, (N. Y.) 490, Hawley v. 54 Barb. 494-495 (policeman); Reichman, (sheriff). 653, 661-662, 667 (marshals); State 135 Tenn. *20 Allor Board Mechem, Compare v. Officers, Public See Auditors, (constables); People (N. Keeler, 43 Y.) Mich. 76 v. Hun. 29 Brunst, Dews, 178; 412; State State v. v. 26 Wis. R. M. Charlt. Lorenzo, 613, overruling N. L. v. De 81 J. State 439; (Ga.) O’Cull, Commonwealth Vroom, 139; v. Freeholders, 38 7 v. Virtue Holtzman, Turner v. 150; 54 Md. (Ky.) Marsh J. J. Quinn Heisel, 40 Mich. v. 159-160; 28 States, Boyd 116 S. v. United U. 622-624. The also See municipal sovereign seize vessel for violation to right the MAUL v. UNITED STATES. JJ., concurring.
States, 267 U. S. 132, 151-153. Smuggling commonly attended violation of the navigation laws. From the beginning of our Government officers of revenue cutters have, for purpose enforcing the been customs laws, the expressly authorized to board and search inbound ves- sels on high the seas within twelve miles of our coast. It is not lightly assumed that Congress intended to deny revenue cutters so engaged authority to seize American vessels found navigation to be our violating laws. Nor is it lightly to be Congress assumed that in- deny tended to to officers of revenue cutters engaged enforcing other laws of the United States the beyond twelve-mile limit, *to American seize violating found to be navigation our laws beyond those limits.
From the beginning our government, it been has practice revenue cutters to make such seizures. judicial The official records and rev- decisions show that employed enue cutters were early our history, have they employed been continuously since, in enforcing our navigation laws upon regardless seas of dis- coast;. tance from the that, whether operating within or without, United States they have, regardless coast, distance seized American vessels found laws, violating regard our without to whether laws violated related to revenue.29 Congress has its ac- respects analogous right law, recog is in some of a belligerent, law, seize nized international contraband. 2 Moore, See 309; Flora, The Marianna Digest Law, International 11 Wheat. Eugenie, United La Jeune States 26 Fed. 15,551. Cas. No. cases, merely report law, In most the cutters violations of reports making show, however, The do seizures. that when necessary thought' arrest American vessels, seizures regard to The Elizabeth, 8 Fed. Cas. See made without location. Eliza, (1810); The (1813); Fed. Cas. No. No. Ann, Little v. 15,611 Fed. Cas.
States (1809), No. reversed Brig Ann, (1815); 8, 397; Cranch, in 15 No. Fed. Cas. *21 TERM, 1926. ¡- JJ., concurring. 274 U. S.
Brandéis of It the power. supported tion sanctioned this exertion increasing appropria- of the service ever activities Guard) Coast before the Tariff tions.30 It equipped of which 1922, cutters,' many cruising Act of with able the twelve-mile beyond in engaged largely patrol American on the ves- To seize seas anywhere limit. Op. (1816). Compare 3 Trevitt, 2, Fed. No. Burke v. Cas. in the United “Instructions Officers Atty. Gen. 405. See also 1834, 9; “Rules p. Service,” October Revenue Cutter States Marine,” the Revenue Regulations for the November Government regard vessels, the' specific in American 1, 1843, Thus, xv. p. “ frequently out orders to seize sends confidential Commandant’s office ”, to board and search whenever and wherever found or whenever and wherever found.” September 1, 1922, to files of the Coast show from
The Guard February ‘seventy-five least American vessels were seized at beyond limit, Prohibition Act for violations of twelve-mile alone; twenty-one were made more than of these seizures at least thirty miles the coast. adoption Eighteenth Congress After the Amendment made Guard; year large appropriation for Coast each a increase acquisition additional vessels of the cruiser provided for year’s appro type. рassage the Tariff Act of 1922 Before the acquisition $9,800,000 and the or con priations had been increased cruising had been On of additional vessels authorized. struction appropriation $12,194,900 for special made April 2, was reconditioning ocean-going and for of additional construction Navy it authorized the to transfer equipping those vessels which for increased appropriation maintenance to the Coast Guard. $20,800,000 aggregate 2,005; vessels boarded was In reported 31,653; 53,080. number of vessels seized It 1,887 in 1925. from 601 of law increased violations penalties for comparatively few of the minor should be noted that February By the Act of are collected. of the law infractions penalties and power to remit 1903, 552, 10, 32 Stat. vessels”, “relating to merchant of laws forfeitures for violation given Secretary Treasury, hands of the in the theretofore liberally poweir exer- This has been Secretary of Commerce. to the Navigation, Report g., 1913 Annual See e. Commissioner cised. p.23.
MAUL UNITED STATES. and Holmes, JJ., concurring. seis found violating our laws was I thus, think, within the implied its officers before the ofAct *22 It remains to consider whether that Act abridged the authority theretofore possessed.
Second: The Tariff Act of 1922 includes Title IV a as revision of the in customs administrative then provisions force. 858, et In the 948, seq. § 642 it recites provisions of the earlier law which the Act repealed. Among these §§ are 3067 of and the Revised Stat- utes. The former is the section which conferred upon of officers the customs express to power seize or within without his district.” The latter section is the which con- ferred them authority to board and search inbound vessels within twelve miles of our coast. The sections parallel §to 3067, relating to specifically of rev- cutters, enue first found in 64 of the Act of re- 1790, §as enacted of of 1799, the Act and again as §§ 2762 of the Revised Statutes, were neither repeated nor repealed the Act of Nor it- did or repeat § 3072. repeal provisions For it repealed substituted which, material, so far is as follows:31 paragraph The second solely relates to Department officers of vessels of Commerce. It as follows: Department persons
“Officers of Commerce and other department may go authorized such any on board vessel at any place in leagues the United or States within four of the 'coast stop, of the States hail, United and board such vessels in the navigation of the or, enforcement laws and arrest escape case of attempted any or escape, person engaged pursue and arrest in the navigation breach or violation of the laws.” Secretary Treasury charged Prior with both navigation administration and the enforcement of the laws. The part administration was committed in to the collectors of the ports, part Navigation. the Bureau of The enforcement was commit- part collectors, part ted in to the Revenue Cutter Service. year Congress Department In that created the of Commerce and Navigation. Tabor and transferred it the Bureau of Act of Feb- ruary 14, In became Stat. 825. that bureau a TERM, 1926. JJ., U.S. or of the customs
“Boarding Vessels.—Officers authorized persons or. other Guard, agents Coast that pur- appointed or Treasury, Secretary any go on time may collector at writing by pose in the any place at or vehicle any board of vеssel coast of the United leagues four States or within without, districts, respective their States, as within as well exam- search, and inspect, and to the manifest examine every thereof, and part -vehicle, or ine the vessel end to and to this board, package or person, trunk, way, and if under hail, vehicle, or stop such vessel and if compel compliance, force to necessary use all or violation .that breach laws appear shall inor committed, whereby has been the United States mer- vehicle, or the such vessel consequence *23 by thereof, imported of or or on board chandise, any part it forfeiture, liable to shall such or vessel vehicle same, seizure of the to make duty the such officer attempted escape, or to in case of arrest, or, escape to in or engaged such breach any person pursue arrest violation.” by quoted adopted Congress above provision change substantial from the draft of bill con- Upon in the the Revision the Customs report tained ” Tariff made United States Administrative the Laws in Ways on Means to the Committee
Commission intentionally in 1921. Whether 1918, and re-submitted 581 quoted the above introduced not, paragraph part Department March of the new of Commerce. Act of Thereby respect certain duties to the admin- 37 Stat. 736. navigation passed Department laws to the of Com- istration of the part To to some also in the enforcement of merce. enable it take navigation Congress provided with it a few cutters. Annual laws See Navigation, 1915, pp. Report of Commissioner of 31-32. above Department paragraph the instance of the of Com- was inserted at Administration law was in the conference merce when the Customs committea
MAUL v. UNITED STATES. . JJ., concurring. two changes into statutory law. Unlike the earlier statutes, did to right it not limit to vessels the inbound statutes, board and search. the earlier And, unlike the inclusion of the apparently (through grant conferred of authority to seize the same with paragraph grant of authority search) to board or all customs right officers the to seize any vessel on waters within The reports twelve-mile limit.32 of the Commission Congress many those Committees of discuss proposed changes the customs administrative laws. But in the reports nowhere or of Con Commission enacted, or in the gress, statute is there a suggestion abridge purpose provision this there possessed by the Coast tofore Guard make seizure the high It seas. seems clear that Congress did not this revision power intend that seize on the seas for violation of respecting laws the revenue should remain, but that the similar power to seize for violation of other laws should away. be taken
Since, my opinion, R. S. 3059 had not conferred any express power to seize beyond I waters, territorial do not think repeal its shows away intention take then, existing implied power of the Coast Guard to seize American anywhere on the high seas, violation of any law the United States. is no There foundation for the assumption the claimant first paragraph was intended as the exclusive grant power seize. The primary purpose of *24 that to paragraph was not provide for the seizure of American vessels of known or suspected guilt. It was to facilitate, means of boarding and examination manifest before arrival in both port, the entry of admit- tedly innocеnt vessels and the collection of revenues. This end was furthered by enabling customs officers to vessel, and search any foreign board or domestic, within 26, supra. See note 55514° —28-34 TERM, Holmes, JJ., S.
Brandéis U. establishing necessity limits, stated for- and search The to board probable authority cause. doubtless limits would eign vessels the territorial beyond of the customs not as a mere incident implied have been to it duties, probable officers’ prob- in the absence board and search American regarded able not as clear. cause was Other action of taken at time Congress about the same no purpose had to the Coast Congress abridge shows that The acts appropriation activities powers. Guard’s in large equipment increases and per make provision smuggling to enable it to combat increased sonnel of the National following enactment operations Moreover, negoti conventions were Prohibition Law. foreign and other nations se with Great Britain ated if their vessels on seas to seize permission cure Neither operations.33 in smuggling found engaged reference nor the cоnventions was negotiations The limitation agreed upon limit. made a twelve-mile covered from our coast. distance an hour’s run exceed often miles greatly run would twelve the hour’s necessary it Congress did not deem our coast. But order make legislation in supplementary to enact conventions effective.34 England, proclaimed. been bave nine suck treaties At least 1761; Norway, May 24, 1924, 43 Stat.
January 43 Stat. May 19, 1809; Germany, May 29, 1924, 43 Denmark, Stat. 1772; 1830; Italy, May 1924, 43 1815; Sweden, 1924, 43 Stat. 1875; Panama, June 43 Stat. June 21, 1924; Cuba, March August Netherlands, Secretary (Mr. Hughes) State addressed 3, 1924, the March On Foreign on Affairs Committee the House communication treaty self-executing, is, sense, a strict proposed it was said: Congress part legislation on the make effective.” no requiring Foreign Affairs on H. Res. TTpa.rings Committee House before . p. Session, 7 Cong., 1st 68th *25 NICHOLS v. COOLIDGE. Counsel for Parties.
In my opinion, then, the Coast Guard is authorized to arrest American subject forfeiture under our law, no place matter what seizure and no matter what the law violated. joins
Mr.- in this opinion. Justice Holmes NICHOLS, COLLECTOR, COOLIDGE et al.,
EXECUTORS. ERROR TO THE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT POR COURT
DISTRICT OP MASSACHUSETTS. Argued January May 31, 1927. No. 1927. Decided 1. An conveyance money absolute of real con estate made grantor’s
sideration deed to the children is not a transfer possession enjoyment intended to take or effect at or after the grantor’s (c) within §402, par. death the intendment of approved February Revenue Act although Tax,” Estate premises contemporaneously grantees leased grantor -year thereof, subject for one or renewal but right to the during year, lessors’ terminate the term although parties contemplated grantor that enjoy should the property purposes long for residential desired, as she but agreement no made valid to that effect. P. 538. (c), supra, requires Section far so as it shall there gross property included estate value of transferred a prior passage, merely conveyance decedent to its because the was to enjoyment possession
take effect in at or death, after his violates the Fifth Amendment. P. 542. (2d) 112,
4 F. affirmed. judgment Court, the District Error recovered by Coolidge Loring, Nichols, Executors, Col- lector, representing the amount certain federal estate unlawfully taxes assessed and over protest. collected their Lewis, Jr., Mr. Thomas H. Attorney Bureau of Internal Revenue, whom with Solicitor Mitchell, General