Page 80 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

munist China; North Korea, or the Communistcontrolled area of the sovereignty whose flag it flies to punish crimes committed upon it, is
Viet Narn. deemed to be a part of the territory of that sovereignty, and not to lose
No person shall transport, in any ship documented under the laws of that character when in navigable waters within the territorial limits of
the United States or in any aircraft registered under the laws of the another sovereignty. .. . Subject to the right of the territorial sov-
United States, to Chinese Communist ports, North Korea, any other ereignty to assert jurisdiction over offenses disturbing the peace of
place under the control of the Chinese Communists, or to the Com- the port, it has been supported by writers on international law, and has
munist-controlled area of Viet Nam, any material, commodity, or cargo been recognized by France, Belgium, and other continental countries,
of any kind. . . . as well as by England and the United States. . ..
A related but different question, not presented here, may arise when
b. Acts committed aboard national vessels.
jurisdiction over an offense committed on a foreign vessel is asserted by
m D STATES v. mm
the sovereignty in whose waters it was lying at the time of its commis-
Supreme Court of the United States, 1933
sion, since for some purposes, the jurisdiction may be regarded as con-
289 U.S. 137, 53 S.Ct. 580, 77 L.Ed.1086
current, in that the courts of either sovereignty may try the offense.
JUSTICE STONE:By indictment found in the District Court for There is not entire agreement among nations or the writers on inter-
Eastern Pennsylvania it was charged that appellee, a citizen of the national law as to which sovereignty should yield to the other when the
United States, murdered another citizen of the United States upon the
Steamship Padnsay, an American vessel, while at anchor in the Port of jurisdiction is asserted by both. See Jessup, The Law of Territorial
Matadi, in the Belgian Congo, a place subject to the sovereignty of the Waters, 144-193.The position of the United States exemplified in
Kingdom of Belgium, and that appellee, after the commission of the Widenhus's Case,120U.S. 1,7S.Ct. 385,30L.Ed.565,has been that
crime, was fmt brought into the Port of Philadelphia, a place within the at least in the case of major crimes, affecting the peace and tranquility of
territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. . . . mhe Padnsay, at the the port, the jurisdiction asserted by the sovereignty of the port must
time of the offense charged, was unloading, beii attached to the shore prevail over that of the vessel. . . .
by cables, at a point 250 miles inland from the mouth of the Congo This doctrine does not impinge on that laid down in United States v.
River. Rodgers [I50U.S. 249, 14 S.Ct. 109, 37 L.Ed. 1071 (1893)], that the
The District Court . .. sustained a demurrer to the indictment and
discharged the prisoner on the ground that the court was without juris- United States may defme and punish offenses committed by its own
diction to try the offense charged. 3 F. Supp. 134.The case comes here citizens on its own vessels while within foreign waters where the local
by direct appeal. . . . sovereign has not asserted its jurisdiction. In the absence of any controll-
Sections 273 and 275 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 55 452, 454 ing treaty provision, and any assertion of jurisdiction by the territorial
(18USCA $8 452,454),define murder and fix its punishment. Section sovereign, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to apply to
272,upon the construction of which the court below rested its decision, offenses committed by its citizens on vessels flying its flag, its own
makes punishable offenses defmed by other sections of the Criminal statutes, interpreted in the light of recognized principles of international
Code, among other cases, "when.committed within the admiralty and law. So applied the indictment here sufficiently charges an offense with-
maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of
any particular State on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and the
the United States" or any of its nationals. And by section 41 of the judgment below must be
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 5 102 (28 USCA 5 102), venue to try offenses Reversed.
"committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of c. In Regina v. James Anderson, 166 an American
any particular State or district," is "in the district where the offender is
found, or into which he is fmt brought." As the offense charged here crewman serving on a British vessel had been convicted of
was committed on board a vessel lying outside the territorial jurisdiction murder committed on board the vessel while the latter
of a state . . ., and within that of a foreign sovereignty, the court below
was without jurisdiction to try and punish the offense unless it was with- was in the Garome River in France, about 45 miles from
in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. the sea and about 300 yards from the nearest bank. The
Two questions are presented on this appeal, fmt, whether the exten- court upheld the conviction despite defendant's argument
sion of the judicial power of the federal government "to all Cases of ad-
miralty and maritime Jurisdiction," by article 3,§ 3,of the Constitution that the court had no jurisdiction, pointing out that
confers on Congress power to define and punish offenses perpetrated by although "the prisoner was subject to the American
a citizen of the United States on board one of its merchant vessels lying
in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another sovereignty; jurisprudence as an American citizen, and to the law of
and, second, whether Congress has exercised that power by the enact- France as having committed an offense within the territo-
ment of section 272 of the Criminal Code under which the indictment
was found. ry of France, yet he must also be considered as subject to
me Court held that Congress had the constitutional power to define the jurisdiction of British law, which extends to the protec-
and punish crimes on American vessels in foreign waters, and that the tion of British vessels, though in ports belonging to
language of the statute making it applicable to offenses committed on an
American vessel outside the jurisdiction of a state "within the admiralty another country." 167
and maritime jurisdiction of the United States" was broad enough to in- d. Pertinent provisions applicable to jurisdiction over
clude crimes in the "territorial waters" of a foreign country. Mr. Justice
Stone continued:] national vessels follow.
It is true that the criminal jurisdiction of the United States is in
general based on the territorial principle, and criminalstatutes of the 166. 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 198.
United States are not by implication given an extraterritorial effect. 167. Id. at 204.Bi on an American vessel on the high seas is not,
United States v. Bowman,260 U.S. 94,98,43S.Ct. 39,67 L.Ed. 149; under the law of the United States, equivalent to bii "in the United
compare Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 States," and a child born on such a vessel of alien parents does not ac-
L.Ed. 375. But that principle has never been thought to be applicable to quire United States nationality. 3 G. Hackworth, Digest of International
a merchant vessel which, for purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of Law, 11-12 (1942).