*1 STATES RODGERS. UNITED of Statement tlie Case. that he of court was trial guilty right holding without the other So, considering
contributory negligence. will record, judgment presented questions affirmed. of since the Court
As decision by Territory Supreme admitted into the Union as the two has been that Territory Dakota, and South as the coun- of North Dakota States ties of the trial are the State South the mandate Dakota, to the of that State. Court will go Supreme
Affirmed. STATES v. RODGERS. UNITED EASTERN OF OPINION FROM DISTRICT DIVISION CERTIFICATE IN THE OF MICHIGAN. April 30. Submitted 21, 1893. 20, 1893. Decided November No. seas,” provision St’at., 5346, in the “high used in Rev. §
The term any sea, person who, upon every arm the or in or river, basin, haven, creek, admiralty jurisdiction any bay, States, particular State, jurisdiction any on and out United States, any any belonging in Whole or to the United board vessel perpetrate weapon, thereof, dangerous or with intent to citizen with punished,” etc., is any felony, another shall lie commits an assault Takes, open, . applicable between Unenclosed Great waters connecting is a stream. the Detroit River jurisdiction, under have that section The courts of the States United weapon, Statutes, person try dangerous with a for an assault Revised belonging to a citizen United when on a vessel committed River, any particular Detroit out of vessel such State, of the Dominion of Canada. territorial limits qualification punishable that the offences The limitation haven, river, any inor arm of the are committed on vessels State,” creek, basin, bay jurisdiction of “without Union, does means State without lakes, only on apply vessels seas” of the vessels on ; so on designated connecting far as vessels them with authority concerned, named to the limitation there no those seas are States. United Robert S. defendant, Rodgers In 1S88, February, of the United States were in the District Court indicted others, TERM, Statement o£ the Case. for the Eastern District of Michigan assaulting, August, a one 188J, James dangerous weapon, Downs, board Alaska., a vessel the steamer to citizens of the belonging *2 and then United States, being admiralty jurisdiction and not States, of the United jurisdiction of the United State viz. within States, particular territorial the Dominion of limits of Canada. indictment contained
The six counts, the offence charging committed in to have been different or with different ways, remitted and was to the Circuit intent, Court for the Sixth n Circuit of the Eastern District of There the Michigan. filed a defendant to the Dodgers plea of the jurisdiction it had no court, alleging matters on appeared charged, indictment, the.face a demurrer was filed. this demurrer the Upon pie,a judges of the Circuit Court -were divided trans- opinion, mitted to this court certificate of division: following Dimisión Opinion. “ Certificate of “ of America. States United Circuit Court of the United for the Sixth Circuit and States Eastern District of Michigan. “ Sates The United
vs. S.
Dobert Dodgers. defendant in this cause was indicted on the twenty- fourth of our Lord one thousand day February, year hundred and in the District Court of the eighty-eight, eight States for the Eastern District of United Michigan, together John Gustave with Beyers others, under section charged, of the Devised Statutes of 53JG States, with United having an assault with made one James dangerous weapons upon Alaska, assault taken on the Downs, steamer having place owned citizens of the vessel United such by while 'was-in the Detroit Diver, vessel out of the of the United State States and within the territorial the Dominion of Canada, limits of and the said Dobert S. the others indicted a,nd with him, after Dodgers, having first,
UNITED STATES v. RODGERS. oí,
Statement the Case. come into the United States the Eastern District assault, of Michigan. On the our twentieth day September, year Lord thousand the defend- one hundred and eight eighty-nine, ant and on the same indictment arrested, Rodgers day on for the Eastern motion the United States Avas, attorney District of of the District Court for order Michigan, district, such to the for such district, remitted Circuit Court all certified such theretofore and, taken, proceedings Circuit Court. of our On the twenty-third-day year September, thousand the defend- Lord one hundred and eighty-nine, eight of. called in the Circuit Court ant, being plead United States the Eastern District Michigan, per- of the court mission abatement pleaded that under section Revised court, claiming States the courts the United States Statutes of United *3 offences in the Detroit have no of committed River jurisdiction limits of on a of United States territorial vessel of Canada. Dominion' “ P. C. United States States, Black, United attorney, T. States for and assistant United Willems, Charles attorney demurred to such'plea, Eastern District of Michigan, on demurrer. defendant joined “ toon matter of the of the- coming jurisdiction plea for the in the of the United States be Court heard Circuit third of on the October, District of day Eastern Michigan, hundred of our Lord one thousand eighty- eight year defendant and the and district before circuit nine, judges, the said circuit were judges court, district being present ‘ the courts on the : Whether divided opinion question under United States have section jurisdiction, 53Jf of an a States, to person Statutes United try Revised for a vessel committed ok belong- assault, weapon, dangerous vesselis in the when such States, a citizen the United ing State River, out cmyparticular Detroit jurisdiction of Oa/nada.’ the Dominion and within territorial limits of the United And at the defendant so, request TERM, 1893. Opinion of the Court. States for this the circuit and district, district attorney judges do at the same term state this which hereby point .upon direct the same to be certified under the disagree, hereby seal of Court of the United for the Circuit States Eastern District of to the Court the United Michigan Supreme States at its for its session, next thereon. opinion E. Circuit Judge. Howell Jackson,
“ Henry B. Brown, District Judged Section 5346 of the Bevised the in- Statutes, dictment was found, is as follows:
“ Sec. who, or Every person arm the or in river, haven, creek, or any basin, admiralty States, United bay, and out of the State, board any particular vessel whole or to the United belonging part, citizen with a thereof, or with intent dangerous weapon, an commits assault on another shall any felony, perpetrate fine of not more than three thousand dollars punished at hard labor not than more three by imprisonment years.”
The statute of trial in this case is con- relating place tained section 730 Bevised which is as fol- Statutes, : lows The trial of all Sec. offencescommitted out elsewhere, any particular shall be district, district, State where the offender is into he found or is first brought.” General' Mr. Assistant Parker Attorney the United *4 States.
No Bodgers.. appearance Eield delivered Mr. Justice of the court. the.opinion of interest Several arise construction questions of the Bevised which the Statutes, indict section STATES UNITED RODGERS.
Opinion of tlie Court. one whether was found. is ment this case principal used, as there seas,” the term applicable open, of the Great between which Lakes, unenclosed The term is a stream. was Detroit River connecting formerly writers law, used, public generally particularly between different official communications governments, or of ocean, unenclosed waters of designate open, their and havens. At one time outside of seas, British ports or of it, claimed that the were ocean, it was subject portions nations. The the exclusive use Spaniards, to exclude all asserted others the 16th century, right Ocean. The with the claimed, from the Pacific Portuguese under Alexander the ex YL, Pope grant Spaniards, west and of a of the Atlantic'Ocean south clusive use desig in the And the lYth claimed line. century, nated English, the seas Gréat the exclusive surrounding right navigate Law7, on International Britain. "Woolsey § took of and In the discussions place support the term seas” these pretensions “high extravagant against used in in the was also sense was stated.. applied, There no courts and law writers. was sense by English dis7 the waters of other seas: The them as to cussion with public limited of the consideration were discussions generally the- unenclosed is, seas, open, whether question could be thereof, defined, portion as above nation, under the exclusive jurisdiction ..or property of all and free to navigation were whether they courts generally English nations. inquiry of the admi- whether the limited to question such exten- harbors, to the waters bays extended ralty constituted a whether the fact sion depending seas. Matthew Hale Sir In his treatise on rights lies within that which The sea either body says: sea which arm or branch lies That or without. county, a man discern may reasonably within ths where term, fauces within at 'least be, shore, is, between shore therefore, of a and, body county, *5 TERM, 1893.
Opinion Court. which, the sea lies within That or sheriff coroner. De the main or ocean.” called sea county body means “main Hale here sea.” c. iv. Maris, Jure By — “mare sea” term “high by the same thing expressed “ meer.” or le /unit altum,” that 453, this court said 5 How. Clarke, v. In Waring common English it been adjudicated the. frequently had Richard II. and statutes of law courts'since restraining the sea mean that “that seas IY., portion Henry high Grush, In v. United States coast.” open washes in the Unitéd it held Mr. Justice was Mason, 290, Story, by usual the term its seas,” Court, Circuit high States or that ocean the unenclosed portion sense, expresses coast, sea in con terra on the without the which is sea fauces between surrounded or enclosed which is tradistinction unen open, narrow headlands promontories. waters of or the unenclosed ocean, waters open, closed in his constituted the seas” sea, “'high judgment. him ocean and no made between the There was distinction no occasion such there was for distinction. was whether the issue offences were question alleged .The coast, on Massachusetts the sea committed county latter case committed it, were they without and within the statute. It-was held that seas high hot Suffolk, committed and thus were were county the statute. covered by were no seas other than If there the term ocean, ” limited be unenclosed seas would waters open, as there But are other seas besides the there ocean, ocean. seas other than A must- those the ocean. large and,the conducted on seas commerce is other than ocean equally necessary distinguish English between and their and to havens, their open ports provide for colli- for offences vessels waters and those navigating them. term does in either not, sions between but' indicate of water; distinct case, any separate body waters of ed the sea ocean, distinguís]) only havens headlands from waters within narrow ports, UNITED STATES BODBEES.
Opinion of Court. This on the coast. distinction was observed Latin writers between the and havens of the Mediterranean and ports *6 — the latter waters termed the open seas.1 being In high that sense the term also be used in may properly reference to the waters the Baltic and the Black open Sea, both of inland seas, are their to the ocean a finding -way by narrow and distant channel. Indeed, wherever there are seas the all free to fact, nations and on navigation people their their outside waters borders, open sur- portion rounded or enclosed between narrow headlands or promon- tories,” on the as Mr. coast, stated Justice by Story, “ without as a declared Sir body Matthew county,” by are Hale, characterized as seas, whatever properly high by of water- of which are a name the bodies be part may do not Their names determine their character. designated. seas on the above, There said are, high Mediterranean, of the enclosed its outside -watersalong coast,) (meaning the ancient commerce of was which the -world con- principal naval battles- To ducted and its hold that on great fought. are no within the true seas, such seas there high meaning no that that unencloséd free is, to term, open, waters, on all nations and their borders, would people navigation a that term narrow be to contracted place upon meaning. it in true sense, We use its to to as'applicable open, prefer of all than adhere to the seas; waters common unenclosed -whenit term two centuries ago, generally meaning ocean and of seas waters limited to the open surrounding -was then the freedom of which Britain, Great principal If it think it conceded, we must of discussion. subject- unenclosed waters Mediterranean that the are be, open, concession is a sufficient answer to claim that seas, óf that denote waters always open ocean. n term is waters Whether the open applied
“1 Insula/worn laterum, qnibus objectu omnis ab aVn Efficit inque Erangitur, sesc umla reducios.” sinus scindit -The Æ Lib. neid. 159-161. TERM,
Opinion of the Court. a will sea, case, ocean or of depend, upon or circumstances all use, context cases attending It be con less, more affect, meaning language. if a is made that vessel on the ceded that statement if circumstance, without any qualification language will be understood as the vessel is meaning generally of one of the oceans of the world. waters open writers ocean is often on true, also, spoken as the are then ascribed law characteristics public which are the ocean the sea properly applicable generally that its for alone; as, instance, open are. highway the fact that there nations. Still remains are other seas of all- whose waters constitute free than ocean highway nations their residing people navigation not a other nations and free borders, and highway *7 free access to those seas there be waters by open except people, conventional arrangements. by As be as term would seem to defined, thus applicable Northern lakes as is waters great open of those bodies as seas. The waters usually designated Lakes essential characteristic of seas. Great possess every extent in and breadth; are of are length they They large the whole distance either direction by largest navigable are known to commerce; objects distinguishable vessels shores; instances, they many from opposite separate, and in instances constitute the between some boundary and their after nations; waters, passing long independent their into the ocean. The fact that waters debouch distances, their tides, and not to the does not affect fresh subject tideless, seas. seas are and the character Many essential n waters in a are saline very some only slight degree. of these of Lake the most northern waters Superior, miles, 400 with an average after lakes, nearly traversing which 100 and those of Lake miles, of over Michigan, breadth of 05 miles, 350 with an breadth miles, average extend over an miles, about 250 with after Lake Huron, and, flowing join Clair; St. into river miles, breadth pass average the Detroit the small hike of St. Clair into through thence UNITED STATES v. RODGERS.
Opinion 'oí the Court. into Lake thence Erie into and, Eiver, Elver; Niagara whence the river St. Ontario; Lake they Lawrence, pass, a total of over 2000 distance miles. ocean, making Ency. vol. 178. The area the Great Britannica, Lakes, p. miles. Ibid. round is vol. numbers, 100,000 p. 217. square than inland seas are of dimensions which many They larger from distance the ocean. The are at an greater equal Black Sea a like distance before travel they n comeinto Their outlet is conta’ctwith the ocean. first through and for is about 20 which miles long Bosphorus, a mile into the sea width, of its less than Way greater Dardanelles, that to the of Marmora, through four width, 40 miles in and less than miles about length find their the islands of Greek and then through' way Sea, the Mediterranean past Straits Archipelago, up of over miles.. also, ocean, distance, Gibraltar court, in con 12 How. In the Genesee ease, Chief of the United whether admiralty jurisdiction sidering Lakes, extended to Great speaking, through. States character those lakes, .of Chief Justice Taney, general lakes, Thpse Different inland seas. States are, truth, said: pn nation side, them one foreign border on on is carried on commerce A other. growing great nation, and a different States foreign them between that attend commerce hazards incidents and all the subject on them, have encountered fleets Hostile on the ocean. for the which existed reason made; every been prizes general government of admiralty grant There force to the lakes. the Atlantic seas equal applies *8 for the power for the instance prize is an necessity equal law, to administer international court of the admiralty the other'.” can neither established, be one cannot if the 453.) (p. commented Justice the Chief
After this language, using in the administration exist, which would the inequality if, the lakes, on the States of the citizens of between justice, lakes, in those water they of tide the absence oh account of of afforded remedies by grant entitled to the were not VOL. CL—17 TERM,
Opinion of Court. and the citizens of Constitution, admiralty jurisdiction, on the ocean or waters upon navigable the States bordering (cid:127) the reason court, that the tides. affected by perceiving did not in fact of depend upon for exercise but their of the waters, tidal character practical of test commerce, for disregarded purposes navigability in as to our tide water England prevailing inapplicable with its vast extent of inland waters. country Acting upon considerations term seas” like application are Lakes, the waters of Great equally navigable, commerce, all with the bodies for respects, purposes in no seas, water are usually designated respect tidal or saline character of their we by waters, affected made salt and fresh distinctions between water disregard and hold that the reason of the essential, which are not seas, violent on statute, for assaults protection against providing no tidal is identical waters, vessels greater similar on for assaults vessels reason providing -against that nor waters are neither tidal saline. statute navigable intended to extend be- vessels protection persons citizens the United only upon longing seas, kind but in all waters of out of the navigable every whether moved State, tides any particular by from their influence. or free
The character these lakes seas was recognized by in the recent Lake Front where we case, court said: Chicago all the “These lakes characteristics possess general and in the waters, freshness their absence seas, except “ In ebb flow the tide.” other we respects,” inland and there is no reason 'added, prin .or of dominion over and the assertion sovereignty ciple the State of lands covered tide by ownership to its and dominion and is not applicable ownership equally the fresh waters over lands covered of these sovereignty Railroad v. 146 U. S. Illinois, lakes.” Illinois Central one term of its also observed denote that which common, is used to open, significations, *9 STATES u UNITED RODGERS. 2§9 Opinion of the Conrt. ' road or river Thus every way
and navigable public. ” n a So a is is used high way. freely by public large body other than a is of an extent river, water .which navigable one’s' vision, the measurement of unaided is bejmnd and not under the exclusive control of and unconfined, any but is the free one nation or highway people, adjoining- must fall under the definition of nations or people, high "We statute. as seas” meaning appro- unenclosed waters the lakes open, priately designate the- as similar lakes, as waters désignate high seas of "the ocean, of the' ocean as similar high waters of the Mediterranean as the seas of the Mediter- high ranean. section immediately following language for violent
term" seas,” assaults declaring penalty arm of'a vessel when committed on board sea or any haven, creek, basin, river, bay, admiralty out of the of the United as when committed on State, board of equally particular a vessel on lends force construction given be read in to that term. The used must language conjunction with waters out of term, referring- navigable with State, connecting seas mentioned. The Detroit Diver, at the time the assault was committed, steamer Alaska of Lake Huron which, connects as stated (with Lake the waters of above, Superior Michigan join) Lake. the waters of Erie, Dominion of separates Lake from the United States, constituting boundary Canada line between be- them, nearly running dividing midway tween banks, commissioners, established pursuant between-the two Stat. 214, countries. treaty three river is about 22 one miles from miles length' and vessels width, year at all seasons navigable size. through The number of vessels passing largest each 1880 and 1892, 'the year immense. years Between inclusive, thousand from forty they averaged thirty-one from sixteen to year, having tonnage varying twenty-four TERM,
Opinion'of the Court. the river In millions.1 constantly traversing passing *10 of the one nation to that territorial from the jurisdiction far as however, All of so transactions had them, the other. to be within the are deemed concerned, board are country on a constitute of their owners. Constructively they nation to which'the owners Whilst' belong. territory waters of the river are within are on the they navigable they of that This country. jurisdiction admiralty jurisdiction the fact that each of-.the not nations' by neighboring changed over cases assert its own on some authority persons may to them within in relation acts committed its vessels by such In what cases each limits. by territorial jurisdiction country it and to what is not extent, be thus asserted will necessary on that for for no our con- presented question point inquire, ' rule is that the to which The general country sideration. all will exercise over matters affect jurisdiction vessel belongs without her, or those interference vessel belonging ing unless involve its the local peace, government, dignity, in which it assert case tranquillity, authority. s 12; U. S. TIalleck on case, Wildenhus’ International vii, c. 112. Law, p. admiralty jurisdiction § the owners of the steamer which the offence country was committed is not denied. citizens of They charged being statement, by Poe, following furnished Colonel O. M. Engi Corps,' through years the traffic neer shows Detroit River for the indicated: Registered Registered Number of Number of
Year. Year. Tonnage. Tonnage. Vessels. Vessels. 40,521 38,261 18,968,005 18,864,250 19,099,060 1880. 1886. 20.235.240 35,888 35,199 40,385 38,742 88,125 31,404 1881. 1887. 17.572.240 17,872,182 1882. 1883. 1888. Í7,695,174 IS,045,949 32,415 1889. 19.640.000 n 1884. 35,040 34,251 21.684.000 22.100.000 24,785,000 34,921 16,777,828 1891. 1892. 33,860 vessels, ; Colonel Poe : adds This does not include Canadian statement channel, large number nor does it include vessels which use included, clearing from a consider- these various custom houses. Were ably greater showing They could bo are not because made. included statistics cannot be obtained.” UNITED STATES v. RODGERS.
Opinion of the Court. and the steamer upon navigable the United being it is deemed be within waters, admiralty therefore, competent the United States. was, perfectly an assault enact that on board committing parties Congress when should be brought with punished dangerous weapon the United Court District be But will claimed States. Congress hardly com- assaults intended violent question legislation citizens on owned mitted vessels persons without the the Detroit Biver, United States and that similar State, should be punished, any particular like owners offences vessels upon persons law If the can lakes should be for. unprovided adjoining committed on vessels deemed offences applicable basin, *11 river, haven, creek, connecting bay, navigable it State, of out' of the lakes, particular jurisdiction any be that would not reasonable Congress suppose intended for com- no afforded similar offences should be remedy on the to which vessels mitted on vessels the lakes, upon in whose directed, almost all are river, instances, The more reasonable are to be they chiefly engaged. unen- to include the inference is that intended open, Congress spas. of the under the of closed waters lakes designation term, reason, applicable open, eye waters, of all bodies of unenclosed portion large navigable and the one’s vision, whose extent cannot be measured by on their of which is to all nations and free people navigation bodies be whatever names those borders, locally desig- called seas, nated. In some countries lakes are small In countries of the Sea of in Palestine. other case Galilee, denominated bodies of than bodies water, large greater many how- nomenclature, called basins. The seas, lakes, gulfs, nor either, the real character of should ever, does change it affect our terms properly applicable construction waters, term the con- to the either. By giving and sense the whole struction there indicated, is consistency . term if it If the statute, but is neither be there disregarded. to the unenclosed waters lakes, appli- open, applies TERM, Opinion of the Court. to the cation of case under indictment legislation cannot be the Detroit River is a water questioned, connecting such all that is north of portion line between the United States Canada is with- boundary out the State the Union. But if they - considered as not thus is difficult to applying, force give any rest statute- without supposing Congress intended to violence- on board of provide against vessels havens, riverá, creeks, navigable basins, without bays, State, omitted intentionally the much more for like dis- important violence and provision turbances vessels the Great Lakes. All vessels river, haven, creek, basin, navigable lakes, whether bay ' within or without the would any particular State, find their some time the waters of the way lakes; and it is not a reasonable inference that intended that Congress the law’should offences on a limited apply only portion route which the were over vessels expected pass, that no should be made for such offences over a provision much on the distance lakes. greater in thus unenclosed
Congress designating open, portion vision, bodies water, largo one’s extending beyond used the same term to indicate it as naturally was used reference to similar of the ocean or of bodies portions had been "When seas. first designated Congress, term used that the existence of the Great Lakes was known ; had visited been numbers great persons trading with the and their Indians, immense extent aud neighboring *12 character were understood. Much more generally accurate was this when the act of March knowledge 3, 1825, was 4 Stat. c. 115, 65, of passed, when section provisions 5346 reenacted in were the Revised Statutes in In all cases, these when for the Congress of provided punishment violence on of it board vessels, must have intended that the should extend to on vessels those provision waters the same as to on seas, vessels so called. There were no technically bodies of water in the United States to of which any portion the term seas” was if not to “high applicable open, v. STATES RODGERS.
UNITED Opinion the Court. of tlie Lakes. does Great waters of not seem unenclosed intended that to confine its Congress reasonable suppose and to its ocean, seas of navigable legislation without baúns, creeks, bays, rivers, havens, for offences no on those of make State, provision any the United States. inland waters of There are bodies vast of those inland seas now on of vessels every description carrying on than the commerce other inland any on a commerce greater we cannot believe that the And world. seas Congress left for a States those who of the United century purposely who were vessels those those conveyed navigated without any protection. under consideration provides The statute every person river seas or with them, who, any connecting within the as we construe its admiralty jurisdiction language, and out -of States, of the United board on vessel commits, -State, belonging to the United citizen States, in whole with a thereof, an another dangerous weapon assault etc. ivith shall. intent a felony, punished, perpetrate is within the admi- shore, The Detroit Eivei’, from shore with the connects of the United ralty jurisdiction — as we hold them to be, lakes waters.of line, From statute. boundary meaning it is out of the near its shore to the Canadian centi’e, jurisdic- therefore, tion case State presented Michigan. The act within its Sep- directly Congress provisions. to the Eev. Stat. tember c. 4, Stat. 424, 874r(l Sup. of crimes for the punishment chap. p. 799,) providing' does Lakes, not, committed on the Great subsequently the law course, affect the construction of existing. previously it held Wo are that was not unmindful the fact Court of Tyler, Michigan, Supreme Michigan People did courts the criminal Federal not extend committed on the lakes. to offences vessels able and distin- who rendered that decision were judges but that calls a careful whilst guished; fact, justly not render their conclu- consideration of their does reasoning, *13 26é TERM,
Opinion of Court. tlie sion or this court. Their authoritative binding opinions did show that doctrine accept extending on the to cases lakes and admiralty jurisdiction navigable which is now we rivers, almost univer- generally, might say received sound tribunals of the sally, by the'judicial country. true, stated, is as there as a that, general principle, laws a criminal nation do not its territorial operate beyond and that to tribu- limits, or its give government, judicial act or a nals, crime, transaction as right punish it must have' occurred within those limits. We this accept doctrine as a but there rule, are to it as general exceptions as the doctrine itself. One of those fully recognized exceptions is that offences committed vessels to 'citizens belonging of the -within States, United their admiralty jurisdiction, (that is, within out of the territorial waters,) navigable though ' limits of the States, United considered judicially when the vessel and within their territorial parties brought wo a As have before is jurisdiction, stated, vessel deemed to which she territory country belongs. we Webster, of Mr. Upon subject quote language while letter Lord State, his Ashburton Secretary for the of the United August, government Speaking he with doctripe stated clearness and groat force which is now bv countries. He said: It is recognized all natural to consider the vessels of a nation as its terri- parts o.f at as the State retains its tory, over though them; and, received according commonly custom, is over the vessels even in preserved part's sea to a dominion. This is doctrine of the subject foreign law of laid down nations, writers of received clearly- as it conformable, is authority, entirely supposed, modern If nations. a murder practice be committed Of on board of an-American vessel one the crew another on one of the upon passenger, by passenger crew or another while such in a passenger, vessel lying port of a State foreign sovereignty, offence court of cognizable punishable by proper in, the United States if same manner as such offence had STATES RODGERS. UNITED (cid:127) Opinion tlie Court. *14 the seas. on the vessel on committed board
been true that It is same. is to be the law of England supposed it, to while a nation a of over vessel belonging the jurisdiction exclu- wholly in the of is not necessarily another, port lying it. unlawful For do any sive. "We so consider or so assort not contracts for all and acts done her while thus by lying port, and she owners, into her master or there, entered while by the laws of to the place. be answerable must, doubtless, they break in such if board her while on Nor, crew, port, master crimes, of commission the of the the peace community by nevertheless, them. But, can be claimed for exemption of of I the statutes it, law as have stated and nations, govern- to them, referred show ments founded on that I law, as have modern, hold do nations, times, clearly that enlightened her of nation that and laws accompany jurisdiction harbors, into but not over only ports ships for the water-borne, or wheresoever else be general they may rights,duties, .purpose governing regulating the extent that, to those on board 'thereof, obligations are considered as exercise of parts jurisdiction, "Works, herself.” 6 "Webster’s nation territory 806,807. do not because treaty, doctrine that, by
We accept Britain the between the arid Great boundary United States the centre line the two is between through countries run that their is character seas hikes, juris- charged-, to diction of vessels belonging United States regulate offences and to their citizens those ptrnish navigating ' impaired. committed such vessels, respect between, line "Whatever effect be to the boundary given over the United States two the' countries, jurisdiction and the of their those waters vessels citizens navigating on limitation board remains unaffected. The persons the offences punishable by qualification or in are committed on in- of the sea, vessels arm river, haven, creek, basin, or without bay without State,” which means any particular the high State of not vessels tany does Union, apply TERM, Opinion: Gray, J. but to vessels on the waters seas the lakes, only designated with them. So far as vessels on those are seas connecting there no limitation named concerned, authority is true that so called, lakes, United States. properly whose dimensions are water measure- is, capable bodies of within the limits vision, ment the unaided are State, by of its bodies territory subject jurisdiction, of. measured the un- water an extent which cannot be times, at all aided and which are all vision, navigable' or Stakes or and border on different nations directions, people, find their outlet the ocean as case, present And in’ however be seas fact, they may designated.’ fact do cease because lakes, and become such, *15 local custom be so called. they may our the the Eastern
In District Court of District judgment of had defendant to the Michigan jurisdiction try upon indictment and it found, been to Circuit transferred having had Court, that court trial, to with the jurisdiction proceed and the demurrer should have been over- ' ruled. Our in answer to the is that certificate, opinion, The cou/ris the United States ham under jurisdiction, of section Revised Statutes, to try person 5346 of for an with a assault, dangerous committed on a %oeapon, vessel to a citizen belonging Stales, United when of
such vessel is in Detroit River, out the jurisdiction of State, and within the any particular territorial limits of the Dominion audit will be returned Canada; the Circuit Court the United States the Sixth Cir- cuit and Eastern District it is so Michigan, ordered. Gray Mr. Justice dissenting. opinion court is majority based avowedly wafers, hypothesis of the Great Lakes
áre seas,” within the “high of section 5316 of the meaning Revised on which Statutes, in indictment this case is founded. ’ That I am unable to hypothesis me accept. appears STATES v. RODGERS.
UNITED Opinion: Gray, J. “ settled with the the term meaning to be inconsistent high and in common law, in as our seas,” speech, especially in the Crimes as used Acts United hereto- States, court, fore this justices uniformly expounded by by thereof. to all “the without authorities,
According exception, all common ocean, seas” denote the highway as sometimes excluding, bays nations—rsometimes including, coast,, arms of the or waters next States—- the dominion and not but con- never immediately extending the sea. necting in States sec of- United first Crimes-Act provided, or other of murder offence 8,
tion for the capital punishment haven, river, basin committed “upon State;” and, any particular out bay, ?r who should for the 12, any person section punishment seas,” mention commit manslaughter upon 30, Act of other waters. April that section any ing decided In United States ; Wiltberger, c. Stat. it was com manslaughter court adjudged one of the a mer seamen, master board mitted low mark of a below water of the United chant vessel China, was not into the sea manslaughter river flowing 1790; within the act Chief seas,” nor the high said: If the Marshall, words delivering judgment, Justice of mankind, the common taken understanding according *16 ‘ sense, in and if their received be taken high popular to the ocean which if in all instances confined not seas,’ half extend to a river about a mile can never coast, washes a 76, 5 Wheat. 94. of a and in the interior wide, country.” this court held that the In v. United States Brailsford, in State,” sec- words any particular “out of and Union, not 8 meant a State 1790, tion of the act (cid:127) in an at anchor and that a State; lying ship open foreign and not shore, of a a marine roadstead, league foreign found or by jury in a basin river, haven, might bay, A 200. similar 189, Wheat. 181, be on the 5 seas. high TERM, 1893. 268 Opinion: Gray, J. decision had been made Mr. Justice by previously Story. United v. 1 624. Ross, Gallison, States
In United States v. Mr. Justice held Hamilton, Story in an enclosed within the ebb and dock, flow the larceny in a tide, was not foreign port, larceny seas,” high under section 16 of the act of 1 152. In Mason, United v. States was held Mr. Justice Baldwin Morel, by Judge that an indictment on the. same section was not Ilopkinson, sustained in a land-locked harbor of one by proof stealing Bahama the court Islands; “The sea, saying: is that sea, which ocean, common high highway the common domain within nations, of no body country, under or of no particular right sovereign, free and common all as a alike, common and open, 13 279, American 282. And in Jurist, right.” United equal v. a like decision was Jackson, States made Mr. Justice Betts as' to harbor of .Thompson Judge larceny because “the Cruz, Vera seas were, high speaking, properly territory country. Leg. within1 the of no State 2 N. Y. 3, Obs.
In United States 4 Robinson, 307, was art Mason, indictment on the act of March c. Stat. 26, 1804, 10, (2 290,) a vessel “on the seas” with intent to defraud destroying high Mr. underwriters, Justice held that a land-locked Story bay Bermuda could be considered as the And, seas. under the same Mr. statute, Justice Nelson Betts Judge River, held that a vessel the East or western extremity Island was not Sound, seas. United States Long v. Wilson, Blatchford, 435.
The Crimes Act March 1825, c. was drafted Mr. Justice the defects Story, of former acts. supply Life of 297, 437, 439, 440; 2 ib. 402. That Story’s Story, 4, 6-8, sections act, for the provided punishment with a of assaults murder, or with inten dangerous weapon t various other kill, crimes, .artd or in arm’of basin or river, haven, creek, all tide thus waters, basin, a dock bay,” covering including or a land-locked from tide ebbs flows bay, *17 (cid:127) UNITED STATES v. 269 RO.DGERS. Opinion: Gray, J. the sea, if “within State, though, a.foreign admiralty of the United and out of State 4 Union. Stat. 115-118,122.
In
Grush, Mason,
United States v.
which
was aii
indictment on the
section
of the act of
provision
in the
(reenacted
section of the Revised Statutes
.in
very
now
for an
with
assault
question,)
dangerous weapon
intent to
Mr.
kill,
Justice
that a
Story,
deciding
place
Boston Harbor within the
aof
was a
or
body
county
bay
haven or arm of
sea,
was not
seas, said:
high
“ There
I
cannot,
think,
as to
doubt
what is the true
’
£
of the words
seas
this statute. Mr:
meaning
Justice
in his
Blackstone,
Commentaries, Com.
uses
(1
words
110,)
£
’
’
‘
sea
main
mare,
sea
le
haut
as
(album
meer)
£
and he adds,
that
main sea
at
synonymous;
begins
low watermark.’- But
be one
sense of the
though
(cid:127)
terms, to
the divided
which the
distinguish
admiralty
empire,
water and low water
when it
possesses
mark,
between'high
full
from that
sea,
which the common law
when it
possesses,
is ebb
sea;
more common
is,
sense
yet
express
open,
ocean,
unenclosed
is without
portion
terree on the
in contradistinction to
sea-coast,
that,
fauces
which is surrounded, or
narrow headlands or
enclosed between
promontories.”
after
to United States
And,
Wilt
referring
above
he
cited, and other
concluded: From
berger,
authorities,
this view of the
well
satisfied,
I am
subject,
entirely
the-
words in
authorities,
language
descriptive
’
£
in this
statute
used
context,
words high
in'
contradistinction to
creeks,
arms
the sea,
bays,
&c.,
within the narrow
'coast;
headlands-of the
comprehend
-the
.only
ocean,
sea-coast,
washes
included within
the body
county
any particular
’State.”
.- Story, opinion had drafted in all the -the who had taken wiio act, pre- n (cid:127) (he had and who this court Subject vious .decisions often considered it seas” at that the words the circuit', enactment now before us very only comprehend (cid:127) OCTOBER TERM, 1893. *18 Opinion:
Dissenting Gray, J. which washes the sea-coast, or is not ocean, included open in within the State.” county body any any particular So Chancellor Kent The seas mean the says:'“ waters high . of the oceatr without the and boundary any county, are within the exclusive admiralty up the tide is full. water mark when The ocean which high open is used contradistinction to washes sea-coast arms of the sea thé enclosed narrow terree, headlands fauces and and under head are included promontories: rivers, harbors, creeks, basins, where the tide ebbs &c., and bays, flows.” 1 Kent Com. 867. If we turn to the American we find dictionaries, principal ” “ “ definitions seas : In Worcester, following high high “ seas, Webster, ocean.” In open high {law) open
sea; the ocean not territorial waters of any' distant three miles or more usually sovéreignty, ” “ the coast line.” In the from Century Dictionary, high “ ” are defined as the sea or ocean; waters; highway in.law, either the waters of the and, ocean to water (1) high “ those not within the mark, territorial (2) nation, the free of all nations, the waters highway of the ocean exterioi to a line direction parallel general shore and distant a marine and it therefrom;” league “ added : The Great Lakes are not deemed seas.”
A
after the
of the act of
fortnight
1825, this
passage
court,
Mr. Justice
decided
that the
admi-
speaking
Story,
general
n
of the courts of the United States
lim
ralty jurisdiction
ited to tide waters. The Thomas
UNITED RODGERS. Opinion: Gray, J. intention to never indicated extend the And Congress of the courts of criminal the United States “to ” Lakes and the waters until three the Great years connecting in the indictment in after the assault this case. Act alleged . c. 26; Stat. 4, 1890, September of this court in in The Genesee judgment Chief, 12 How. The Thomas the cases overruling Jefferson of 1S45 it, which followed act to be constitu holding did not tional, that the proceed Great assumption but" Lakes were seas; broad ground and the waters “the lakes them are connecting undoubtedly waters,” therefore within the public grant admiralty *19 in the Constitution of the States.” 12 United Justice How. Chief 457. that Taney, delivering judgment, the Great Lakes from the seas. clearly distinguished high “ in his statement of the whether This appears question in matters of contract and jurisdiction, tort, which admiralty the courts of United States exercise on the lawfully can be extended under seas, lakes, 'the high power ” as well as in his commerce; regulate observations, pregnant “ These lakes inland seas. truth, Different are, States border on them on one and a side, nation on the foreign other.” 12 452, How. 453.
So
Wall.
in which it
15,
was
Eagle,
decided
over all
admiralty jurisdiction
waters,
navigable
having
declared in
been
The Genesee
the Con
depend upon
Chief
stitution, and not
act of
extended to the
upon any
Congress,
British side
the Detroit
Mr. Justice
River,
Nelson, speaking
for this
the same
court,
distinction,
observed
that the
saying
District
all
Courts could take
civil causes of
cognizance
the-
lakes
waters
admiralty jurisdiction upon
connecting
them, the same
seas,
and rivers
bays,
navi
$s
from the sea.”
In Stat. c. 22, 29, (1 St. 2, 1799, 649,) Act of March § between the United then Biver, boundary forming Mary’s of a vessel bound and the territory, up Spanish States held waters possessions, Spanish river Spanish said that,' court, Mr. Justice unlawful, Story, speaking law of nations, principles general be as common river must considered to both of the whole as a common nations, for all purposes navigation, highway, for the use of its own territorial necessary advantageous rights ” and he the waters of the distinguished possessions; the two between whose nations dominions common river, ocean, the common all nations.” from flowed, highway 9 Wheat. The Apollon, “ The sea not of a nature to Mattel says: pos- as to able to settle there so hinder others no one sessed, being lib. c.1, it.” 280. “No Mattel, nation, over from passing § *20 of to take the sea, the has therefore, possession open right the it, to other nations.” use the sole exclusion to claim included in a lake, entirely belongs country, 281. “.Every | the which in itself country, possessing nation owning to the as to is considered itself having appropriated territory of a it as seldom that the it; and, included happens everything size to of- considerable falls individuals, of a lake property the nation. If this is situated be- lake common remains it is to be divided them between States, presumed two tweén as there is neither nor constant title, so middle, long at the. to determine c. otherwise.” custom, 22, manifest 274. .and § “The sea become the cannot Wheaton says: exclusive.prop- UNITED STATES v. RODGERS. Opinion: Gray, J. nation. And use of the the erty sea, consequently
these and commerce, re- (navigation, purposes,” fisheries,) mains common to all mankind.” Wheaton’s open Inteiv Law, national The (8tl| the State ed.,) territory § seas and includes lakes, enclosed within rivers, entirely its limits. The fivers which flow also through térritory form a of the domain, from their sources their mouths, as as far flow within the territory, including bays or estuaries formed their with the sea. Where a junction river, forms the of conterminous boundary States, navigable the middle of channel is taken as the line of generally between the two of law separation presumption is common to being right navigation both; actual presumption may destroyed by proof prior undisturbed to one of occupancy possession, long giving exclusive title entire river.” riparian proprietors § after no Phillimore, can arise observing difficulty to rivers and lakes enclosed within the limits respect entirely óf a State,” in rivers which flow discussing rights more'than one tlie State, through rights in narrow seas straits, and. in of the sea next portions or between “With headlands, to seas says: coakt respect so as to land, enclosed constitute a entirely salt-water lake, of -law that general is, presumption they belong or territories in full and territory surrounding complete a manner as a fresh-water lake. and the Black Caspian Sea And this class.” he naturally to show belong proceeds that the than other nations rights Russia Turkey the Black Sea from- the Mediterranean navigate rest upon 1 Phillimore’s International c. only. Law, treaties (3d ed.) c. 155; Wheaton, See also and note; 205a. § §§ § of 1862 United the Ottoman Treaty States with Empire, art. 11,12 Stat. 1216. into Sea, the Atlantic opening directly Mediterranean
Ocean at the Gibraltar, Straits shores washing countries of has, different such many sovereigns, excepting thereof or the of Yenice Mes-- portions Gulf Straits yon. cu—is *21 TERM, 1893. 274 Opinion: Gray, J. n and been considered all nations for sina, centu- by recognized ries, free to all mankind. part Martens, du Droit des 190. Gens, Wheaton, Precis And it ivas 42;§ § one known to sea the ancients as altum familiarly mare, .the sea or sea,” ciltum, deep deep. simply freedom-of the Baltic and of Sea, the Sound connecting it with the North Sea, and controverted, was long earnestly established 1857 of the five finally treaty powers n whose bordered 'thereon with other- na- European territories and tions, between the United States separate treaty "Wheaton,' n §§183-185, Denmark. 1 note; Phillimore, 187 c. 5, c. 11 8, 206; 179; §tat. § § As to the Great Lakes of North there has never America^ . doubt.-
been the' heart of the far They continent, above the flow tide from the sea. Lake of. Michigan limits and dominion of wholly .the the United and of States of the those Union which surround it. Illinois Central Railroad v. 146 Illinois, ; U. S. Opinions General, 172. The Attorneys middle line Lakes Superior, Erie and and of Huron, Ontario, them, waters connecting forms between the States and boundary United State of other Michigán Union, States one and the British hand, on the other. possessionsiin Canada, Treaties of Paris in art. 2, of Ghent in art. and Decision Commissioners article; under this 8 Stat. 81, Charters and 221, 274; Constitutions, 994, 1453, No nation has the other right them, navigate except by permission, subject laws, United States and Britain, n Great' respectively. between the conUoversy United States Great Britain as to the right navigating the river St. Lawrence turned the effect to -be given the fact that one side of the Great Lakes and of the waters them connecting each fact belonged country, against the that both shores of the St. Lawrence beloiv to Great belonged Britain; was never third nation had suggested a free and common right the lakes and their navigation On connecting.-waters.. of. exclusive contrary, right United States and Great Britain to the lakes wras navigate - UNITED STATES v. RODGERS. *22 Dissenting' Opinion: Gray, J. of the American
made the basis claim to the of the navigation 19, river. On Mr. June Clay, State under Secretary President John a letter to Quincy Adams, Mr. Gallatin, then Minister to said: “The England, United States and Great Britain between have, them, exclusive of navi right The lakes. St. Lawrence connects them with the gating ocean. The to both lakes and the right navigate (the ocean) includes that of from the one to-the other passing through link.” Documents, natural 1827-28, No. Congressional 205. The of citizens of- 19; Wheaton, the United p. right § States to Lawrence, St. well as a to navigate right British to Lake was secured subjects navigate Michigan, treaties between the two countries 1854 and 1871. Stat. 1091; 17 Stat. See also Act c. July 26, 1892, 248, 27 ' Stat. International Law 267; Wharton’s Digest, §§ No instance has been which words produced, “high seas” have been used to fresh inland waters, the designate entire and control of those nations belong lie, within or whose territories between whose territories they form they boundary. seems me The conclusion inevitable that no held
Great Lakes can be
to be
within the
seas,”
mean-
high
of section 5346
the Revised Statutes.
ing
section,
of this
the term
immediately
language
following
“ or in
at m of
or
seas,”
is
any river,
basin or
haven, creek,
clear
bay.”
Detroit
quite
an
River is not
“arm
a
sea,”
“haven, creek, basin or
“ river,”
Is it a
of this
?
enactment
bay.”.
meaning
with the rest of the
I
court that the
point
agree
Upon
be read in
with the term
used must
conjunction
“the
language
to waters
with
seas,” and
connecting
referring
and' that
mentioned;
cannot be
to have
Congress
supposed
fresh-water
and not to
include
include the
rivers,
intended
flow,
which,
from into which
lakes
together
But
for vessels.
if the
form a continuous
lakes
them,
passage
nor included
act,
not
seas,”
consequence
“high
(cid:127) would seem to
the word “river”
held to
cannot be
the lakes.
two of
include
fiver connecting
TERM, 1893.
Opinion: Gray,
J.
before the court
now
one, arising
question
the extent
civil
general
comprehen-
proceeding,
in the Constitution
“admiralty
sive
maritime
grant
States.
the courts of-the United
But it is a
jurisdiction”
criminal
in a
-the construction
prosecution,
arising
question,
in a
statute,
cannot be extended
words
penal
.
case,
to a similar
not within their
analogous
the court
natural and obvious meaning.
'
(cid:127)
Detroit River within
territorial
limits
The place
this offence is
Canada,
Dominion
where
alleged
doubtless
committed,
have
admiralty
been
*23
under the
in
States,”
the United
decision
of
jurisdiction
“was out of the
of
jurisdiction
and
any particu
Genesee Chief;
decision in
States v.
United
unaer
State,”
Brailsford,
lar
Nor is
cited.
there
doubt
189, 200,
particular belonging to a or United.States, whole or citizen thereof. part “ covered seas, must also be description, upon high of the or in sea, river, arm basin haven, creek, or any upon any or bay.” are words this
The leading description applicable watgrs and but the within the ebb ocean nothing adjacent of the in the tide; and flow word every description aptly uesig- . tide all the waters; nates weirds,'taken together, point and no other tide waters come within their waters; natural in which and obvious connection are used. meaning, The evident intention of collected- from the Congress,.-to was to words offenees sea,' punish employed, or' watei’s of the con- <sea, any forming part immediately far not -within the it, mark, water necting high Union; of State the whole any jurisdiction object v. STATES BODGEBS. UNITED Opinion: Gray, J. “ or seas,” words after and effect adding, the. river, or in basin or .haven, creek, arm of the any any of earlier statutes this cure the defects respect, were to bay,” of the within the ebb flow tide, and to include all waters or estuaries approaches ocean. of the the decision of this court case,
Upon That Bevans, is much States Wheat. point. United an indictment for a murder committed marine another'enlisted man on a war of the United States ship Boston, harbor of so the territorial within lying-in of the State of Massachusetts, and therefore, as jurisdiction held, the court in section 8 coming description of the act c. 30, 1790, April “upon in. haven, basin or river, out bay, State.” But the Circuit Court of the United to be under States was also maintained sought of section of the same for the provision, act, pun ishment arsenal, fort, murder committed other or district coun dockyard, magazine, place under the sole and exclusive of the United try, States.” 1 Stat. 113. It was that a war argued ship United States was a under the sole exclusive place juris diction of the United and therefore within the States,” act. *24 But this court, held Chief Justice other Marshall, speaking by wise; and, while a decision waiving whether question court of Massachusetts would have offence; as of Con recognizing unquestionable power an offence committed a gress punish marine on board a ship war, wherever she ;be nevertheless hold that Con had not gress exercised that last power by provision “ quoted, because tbe noth which the word objects place — associated “fort, arsenal, “dis dockyard, magazine,” trict of in all fixed and territorial their char country”—being “the construction n seems irresistible acter, that, the words ‘other was intended another of a similar charac place’ place ter with enumerated, those and with that previously “ and the follows,” context mind shows the of the legislature TERM, Opinion: Gray,
Dissenting. J. of a similar on territorial character.” been fixed have objects (cid:127)to 3 Wheat. rule construction, the same noscitur a soeiis,
Applying court, now before the the conclusion seems irre the enactment in words, as the or that, preceding “upon sistible well as as the sea,” words,' arm of the succeeding haven, tide waters basin creek, bay,” designate adjoining must be held to river” the words ocean, “any designate that is those rivers a similar character, say, waters of only and which are flows, tide ebbs where the immediately the sea or with one of the other waters enum connected a in cannot be extended to fresh-water river erated, because the context the mind continent, shows1 interior to have on tide been fixed waters. of the legislature there be doubt the soundness of this construc- Should in be doubt, statute, should tion, interpreting penal favor of defendant. solved cited’ of this In United States at Wiltberger, beginning Bevans, cited,, as United States v. which, just opinion, at bar, the case was of the question meaning words, the elements of the not crime itself, defining only of its Marshall commission, Chief Justice describing place the rule of construction statutes fol penal expounded be laws are to construed rule, : The strictly, lows penal much, It is hot less old than itself. construction is perhaps tenderness of law for the of individ founded oh rights that the and on the punishment plain principle power uals ; judicial' department. legislative, is vested define court, crime, not the which is to legislature, be are to con 1-aws penal ordain punishment.” Though not to as to be construed só strictly strictly, strued maxim, intention the obvious defeat legislature. of the statute the words narrow is not to so-applied in their words, ordinary of cases those the exclusion has obvi in which that sense the legislature acceptation, The intention would. them, comprehend. used ously from the be collected words is to they employ.” legislature “ intention of- that a case is within the a statute, determine To *25 UNITED STATES v. EODGEES. Opinion: Brown, J. must authorize us to so. would be dan- language say to a indeed, that” case which is
gerous, carry principle, is within reason or mischief of a statute its provi- so sions, far as to a crime not enumerated stat- punish because it ute, is of or of kindred character, equal atrocity, with those which are enumerated.” 5 nd Wheat. A in answer to the made in that case has (which suggestion been in of “the extreme that repeated this) improbability could have intended to differences make those with Congress which their words the Chief Justice respect place, import,” said: “We admit that it is But extremely improbable. prob- is not a which a ability a court, guide construing penal can statute, take. We can no conceive reason other safely why crimes, which are not in this should not be act, comprehended But has not them made punished. Congress punishable, this court cannot 5 Wheat. statute.” enlarge
For these with all' reasons, deference to opinion my I am brethren, constrained conclude that the certi- question fied should be answered the negative.
Mr. Justice Brown dissenting.
I am also constrained dissent from the opinion court in this to me to case, appears inaugurate wholly new the direction of departure extending the Federal It is a matter of to me that courts. regret should made in a case which defendant departure brief oral neither nor fact represented argument—; least, an unusual caution at deal suggests, degree with the involved. ing question
I had that, cases, criminal the accused was en- supposed titled to the not doubt, benefit reasonable only the evidence of but with regard regard juris- guilt, diction of the in other statutes should words, court; penal be construed and that the facts ; Supreme strictly Court case in a considered some very carefully Michigan, had decided thirty years Tyler, Michigan, ago, People courts did that the the Federal criminal *26 ' OCTOBER, TERM, 1893. Brown, Opinion: Dissenting J. the same that had been lakes; extend decided question to^tlie Wilkins
the same Miller's Brown’s case, way by Judge that the Federal courts had 156; Adm. the lakes uniform- upon decisions; these that no case is acouiesced ally reported itself make the would of case of á reasonable contrary, the the benefit of which be would entitled. doubt, prisoner concur in I that has been stated of fully opinion all commerce court with of the the regard magnitude if it here, were would lakes; pertinent question lived for within doubtless be years Having thirty controlling. ill it would me to of this become commerce, depreciate sight to me that if a but it occurs this were consid- its importance; to our eration at all would be applicable equally all 'of Hudson, over the the Ohio, Mississippi, I had assumed the commerce is of which magnitude. great construction of at involved issue simply question the commerce statute, the magnitude lakes. were set forth in own views this so fully
My question 404, 32 Fed. that I can add little the case Byers, Rep. was there Revised under Statutes, to what said. § framed, indictment limits the which this “to or Court cases the District arising upon b'asin river, or or sea, haven, creek, arm within United admiralty jurisdiction bay State." and out any particular jurisdiction of is as to arises, then, The first whether question as to that until lakes are I seas,*’ supposed, had. “high the court could be there case, opinion reading answer. but one The term seas has never been regarded held or court to terri writer by any public applicable word and, like the waters, torial “highways,” presupposes to make free use of and excludes them, public right Hale idea Of the Lord private says ownership. .rf : The sea is either that Maris, Jure (De chapter 4) arm That lies within without. body county terrte, the sea within where which lies branch fauces STATES UNITED RODGERS. Brown, Opinion:
. J. between shore and shore, is, discern a man reasonably may of a and therefore at least within be, county, body or coroner. The the sheriff is called the sea which lies not within the body county, the main sea or ocean.” of the last
Azuni, Italian century, writing an publicist section the maritime law of says (Part chapter Europe, of all The sea to no it is the one; 12): belongs property to the air all use as have the same men; equal right Seas are tlie and to the sun that warms them. bi-eathe, *27 the different traced nature between great highways by parts of be- to facilitate and communication world, expedite tween the various it. If a nation’ seizes nations who inhabit on these if it to itself the exclusive highways, arrogates privi- the, of and them without repels, by lege traversing opposition, fear to make the same all those wish who being plundered, use of it is no than a nation of robbers.” Section-' them, better “ from is derived 11: The and liberty fishing navigation from the civil natural and the as well as law, law nations, as law. For to remain these reasons, ought use of those common to the human r’aceas air and The light. one to nation, can never elements, unquestionably, belong “ these to the of others.” 15 : From exclusion Section princi- cannot it that the give follows, ples, right prior occupancy for the and- sea, a nation the absolute empire mentioned, that this element is reason susceptible, already of individual appropriation.” ob- Ordinance, in the Marine his Yalin, commentary and the one, to no in : For short the ocean
serves belongs (cid:127) is that all this' drawn from conclusion to be undoubtedly nations are it.” permitted navigate sec- 23, 1, So of the sea Yattel, chapter (Book speaking is not tion But this,” property, 281): private speaking and fish sail the case with the on which sea, open people and whatsoever, without the least to any person prejudice has therefore, without nation, No one danger. putting sole a or claim sea, take th.e open right possession . . . use Nay, nations. the exclusion of other it,.to TERM, 282' Opinion: Brown, J. nation, which, .would, without a more, claim, arro- legitimate to itself an exclusivo to the and sea, gate right support does an force, to all it nations; injury pretensions infringes and their .common right; justifiable forming combination in order it, such an against general repress .to attempt.” Kent,
So Chancellor over speaking Part Lecture “The sea is not says: open .capable of. The free use of possessed private property. being and is common to all ocean for fishing mankind, navigation jurists generally public explicitly deny ever be ocean can main all appropriated. Subjects there, meet times of on a nations entire peace, footing No nation has independence. any right juris- equality it be over diction at of its own sub- except persons in its own vessels.” 1 Kent Com. 26. public private jects time immemorial the term been From seas has used “high unenclosed ocean without open import fauces Bevans, States v. Wheat. In United homicide 'terree. an American been committed upon had man-of-war lying main channel of Boston harbor, anchor at. .in times a free unobstructed is at all there passage statute was ocean. lauguage practically but was held case; this court, same speaking *28 Marshall, Justice Chief .the defendants bring through -of the of courts the Union within the murder jurisdiction in a etc., have been committed out river, must the jurisdic of and that as the State, tion State any jurisdiction was of of its and with coextensive territory legislative power, had of Massachusetts exclusive of the criipe'. courts jurisdiction further held urns that whatever It the constitutional might it of was clear that had not been Congress, power power to confer exercised so as its courts over jurisdiction committed offences within the jurisdiction any particular In State. United States 5 Wheat. it76, was held Wiltberger, that the courts the United States had no of a jurisdiction committed on a merchant manslaughter vessel of the United in the river lying States Tigris, China. Empire STATES v.
UNITED RODGERS. Opinion: Brown, J. was held in this case that the homicide was committed on seas.” high In United States v. it Jackalow, was Black, 484, said that to this court a Circuit Court of give the United States of an offence not committed jurisdiction within its it district, must that the offence was committed appear out juris diction Statej not within other disirict of the United States. This was to an offence committed in applied Island one-and a Sound, half miles from the Long Connecticut shore at low water mark.
So in Miller's ease, Brown’s Adm. it was held by Wilkins of that while it Judge Michigan con stitutional to define and competency Congress punish d offences when committe other waters than the high it seas, had not done and that so, Lake Erie was anot part seas. This was to a high case of an applied shocking to burn a steamer attempt Lake Erie. passenger n But it seems mé, without further into the authori- going that, ties, the term seas” is “high accurately defined statute under which this indictment is framed as “waters and maritime admiralty of the United States and out State." <myparticular error of the court in underlying this case opinion to me to consist a total appears of the last ignoring qualifi- cation. That the term to what are extends known as the oceans of the world there can be no doubt. great I it also extends presume Mediterranean for the. Sea, reason that, so it nations as a division of does, bordering many the Av'atersbetween these nations would be impracticable. Whether, as stated in the the term also court, opinion extends to the doubt; Black there to be Sea, seems grave if it it does, Black Sea are not because the Avatersof Russia proprietary ivaters, Turkey not claimed by of their idea being giving territory. very the courts seas arises oyer of all nations from sover- the fact to no primarily that they belong If it be true eignty. that the lakes are logically follows that a crime com- any European poiver may punish *29 TERM, 1893.
284' ' Brown, Opinion: J. their lakes in own courts, whenever it is
mitted able upon also hands offender. would follow that to.kiy and America than would other nations have England right without local these and restrictions, even navigate there and their fleets send hostilities perhaps- engage ’ In the case The Genessee How. Chief, waters. the lakes hold that were did not court high seas, this civil admiralty jurisdiction that the limitation cases to this to tide did-not or to the interior country, apply in which I and .concur, a doctrine one that has lakes, fully unanimous met approval practically profes sion. term seas” to the lakes
Tl)e difficulty applying “high not from the fact that are not arises they large enough, vexes their waters is not of sufficient commerce fact that but from the. are within the local importance, of the'States them. bordering upon By treaty -of this between Great Britain, peace country line between the United States and Canada boundary in the middle of Lake fixed Ontario, River, Lake Niagara Huron, Detroit Lake St. Erie, River, and Lake River, Mary’s of 1814 this line was Superior, treaty recognized commissioners designated subsequently appointed . acts So Illinois, Wisconsin, purpose. admitting into the Union the lines of these Michigan boundary States were fixed at the middle of Lake and as Michigan, the State of at the line between United Michigan boundary States and Canada. State of theory, Acting upon has assumed of all crimes committed- Michigan her side of the for their line, boundary provided . punishment counties certain irrespective question whether the crimes were committed within the limits of a particular county.
But even if the lakes to be were considered that term miles to a river cannot be twenty-two surely applied the- a mile in two width, less than length connecting lakes. arises further whether then locality question *30 STATES
UNITED v. KODGEBS. 285 Opinion: Brown, Dissenting J. is covered the words in arm of by the any or
question sea, creek, in or river, haven, basin, buy admiralty any of the United States and out the jurisdiction As the western half of the Detroit State.”. and St. Clair rivers is within the territorial'jurisdiction remains to consider Michigan, whether the fact that only the eastern half of these rivers is within the territorial juris diction of Canada meets the of the statute. I requirements that this was may sajr considered question elaborately the by iii Court the cáse of Supreme Michigan People Tyler, which was also the 161, case of an assault commit Michigan, ted on the Canadian side of the in line, which the boundary Federal without an court, had investigation question, convicted Court of Tyler. Supreme were Michigan in unanimous the that the did not'exist. opinion wrere delivered three of the in Separate opinions judges, 'which case wrns every possible bearing cited question and criticised. I have no doubt whatever power to extend its to crimes committed Congress waters. since the in Indeed, decision navigable Byers' case, 4, and on did an 1890, act September Congress pass providing for the of crimes committed punishment anywhere upon lakes, 26 Stat. c. 424, 874. Stat. Rev. Supp. at the
But, time the act of that, considering Congress viz., was the lakes were far question passed, beyond bounds of civilization and no commerce, possessed except such it seems canoes, as was carried impossible say that the words intended arm of the or sea, Congress ” could river, basin, have been haven, creek, bay intended w7henthe wTord lakes lakes apply might just well have had the interior used, been waters of the country m¿ been, It seems to included. clear that entirely tliewords to, alluded words seas,” following immediately “high as are to such waters connected only apply immediate^ have‘no to the Great Lakes. application view taken This was the enact by Congress evidently ment of 1890. add in the act
I connection under ' TEEM, OCTOBEE Opinion: Brown,’ J. was before at the framed, this indictment Avhich Congress Act of at the time of Crimes also passage no effort of the Revised and’ Statutes, time the adoption of the act Avas made language by inserting change until AAmrd and no such Avasever made after “.lakes,” change had been committed. offence this case to me irresistible that, conclusion seenis considering Aved- “in arm' of Avords seas are folio Avords basin, Avithin river, haven, creek, bay out of the of the United States and admiralty jurisdiction *31 limited to State,” they jurisdiction of’any particular should.be such Ávatersas are connected with the seas. directly if intended is incredible that had to include the lakes Congress in either it have drawn a of these Avould line through .acts centre, and to the Federal courts one given jurisdiction upon it line, other, (cid:127)side and not Avhen Avas upon equally full within its to confer over all crimes competency committed American vessels the entire lakes. Es- is this true in fact that is often pecially impossi- vícav ble locate the at the time the crime is committed ship one side or the other of the line. boundary
It is in this case that the beyond crime question charged was committed Avithinthe Avatersof the Province Ontario; that the courts of such Province had cáuse, such Avasexclusive. my opinión