Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Places and waters applicable

On board American ship on

high seas, etc.

On board
American
vessel on
Great
Lakes,

etc.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

OFFENSES WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
AND THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE

[blocks in formation]

SECTION 272. The crimes and offenses defined in this chapter shall be punished as herein prescribed:

First. When committed upon the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, or when committed within the admiralty and 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 the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, or District thereof.

Second. When committed upon any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, namely: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, or any of the waters connecting any of said lakes, or upon the River Saint Lawrence where the same constitutes the International boundary

Third. When committed within or on any lands reserved or On land acquired for the exclusive use of the United States, and under under exthe exclusive jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or clusive otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the control of legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the States erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or other needful building.

United

Fourth. On any island, rock, or key, containing deposits Guano of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be Islands considered as appertaining to the United States.

This section is partly founded on U. S. Rev. Sts. §§ 5339 and 5570, and the Act of Sept. 4, 1890, c. 874, § 1 (26 St. 424). A part of the section is new.

Clause 1. United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black, 484, 17 L. ed. 225; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 30 L. ed. 425; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 Id. 240, 35 L. ed. 159, 152 Mass. 230, 246; Andersen v. United States, 170 U. S. 481, 42 L. ed. 1116; United States v. Plumer, 3 Cliff. 28; United States v. Mackenzie, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 227, 371, 26 Fed. Cas. 1118, 30 Id. 1160; United States v. Burlington Ferry Co., 21 F. R. 331, 336; The Hungaria, 41 Id. 109; United States v. The Kodiak, 53 Id. 126; United States v. Newth, 149 Id. 302. This is founded on the commerce clause of the Constitution. United States v. Beacham, 29 F. R. 284; The Tolchester, 42 Id. 180. The words "high scas" mean any waters on the seacoast which are without the boundaries of low-water mark, although such waters may be in a roadstead or bay within the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government. United States v. Ross, 1 Gall. 624. They do not include an inclosed dock in a foreign port: United States v. Hamilton, 1 Mason, 152, 26 Fed. Cas. 93; nor a foreign harbor: United States v. Morel, 13 Am. Jur. 279, 1 Brun. Coll. Cas. 373, 26 Fed. Cas. 1310; United States v. Jackson, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 3, 26 Fed. Cas. 558; nor a domestic harbor. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 4 L. ed. 404; United States v. Davis, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 35, 25

Guano Islands

Fed. Cas. 784. They obviously include the uninclosed waters of the ocean on the seacoast outside the fauces terræ. United States v. Grush, 5 Mason, 290. They have been held to include the open uninclosed waters of the Great Lakes. United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 37 L. ed. 1071; Ex parte O'Hare, 171 F. R. 290; see, however, In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 631; United States v. Peterson, 64 F. R. 145; United States v. Rogers, 46 Id. 1; Ex parte Byers, 32 F. R. 404; United States v. Beyer, 31 Id. 35; United States v. Beacham, 29 Id. 284; People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161. Navigable waters of the United States include rivers and lakes which of themselves, or by uniting with other waters, form a continued highway on which international or interstate commerce may be carried on, but not lakes or rivers wholly within a State and having no navigable outlet into another State or nation. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 19 L. ed. 999; Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 385, 27 L. ed. 971; United States v. Burlington Ferry Co., 21 F. R. 331; 20 A. G. Op. 101. This section applies to a crime on board a vessel not belonging to citizens of the United States, if she had at the time no national character, but was possessed and held by pirates or persons not lawfully sailing under the flag of any foreign nation; but not if the vessel in which the offender is or to which he belongs is at the time, both in fact and in right, the property of a subject of a foreign State and subject at the time to his control. The flag of the ship determines the jurisdiction of the offense. United States v. Holmes, 5 Wheat. 412, 5 L. ed. 122; see United States v. Demarchi, 5 Blatch. 84; United States v. Kessler, Baldw. 15; 3 A. G. Op. 484, 489. It has been held to apply to an offense upon a ship of the United States in the Bay of Cadiz. United States v. Gourlay, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. 102, 25 Fed. Cas. 1382. The certificate of registry and proof that the vessel carried the United States flag is prima facie evidence of proper registration and of the nationality of the

vessel and its owner. St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. Guano Islands 134. 38 L. ed. 936.

"Out of the jurisdiction of any particular State" means State of the United States. United States v. The Pirates, 5 Wheat. 184, 200, 5 L. ed. 64. Whether a place is within the boundaries of a State is a question for the jury. Ex parte Ballinger v. Nowland, 5 Hughes, 387.

Clause 2. A river which is tributary to one of the Great Lakes but which does not connect any of them is not here included. United States v. Rogers, 46 F. R. 1.

Clause 3. Cook v. United States, 138 U. S. 157, 34 L. ed. 906; Benson v. United States, 146 Id. 325, 36 L. ed. 991; United States v. Peterson, 64 F. R. 145; Good Shot v. United States, 104 Id. 257; United States v. Lewis, 111 Id. 630; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60, 25 Fed. Cas. 646; Brown v. United States, 2 Ind. Ter. 582; Territory v. Yarberry, 2 New Mex. 391, 450. This is constitutional. United States v. Battle, 209 U. S. 36, 52 L. ed. 670, 154 F. R. 540. This applies to the District of Columbia: United States v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498; to a navy yard: United States v. Donlan, 5 Blatch. 284; to a warship moored at a dock on land ceded by a State to the United States: United States v. Carter, 84 F. R. 622; to Indian reservations within the territories as to offenses committed by persons other than tribal Indians: see Rev. Sts. § 2145; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. ed. 1030; Brown v. United States, 146 F. R. 975; United States v. Bridleman, 7 Id. 894; United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567, Hempst. 450; United States v. Monte, 3 New Mex. 173; but see United States v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234; but not to an unsettled part of Oklahoma. Matter of Moran, 203 U. S. 96, 51 L. ed. 105. As to offenses committed by Indians see § 328. It applies to a fort, although in the cession of the property the State reserved the right to execute its civil and criminal processes there. United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason,

Guano
Islands

Murder defined

91. It does not apply to a fort which was established as a military post on land of which the government has always held the fee, such fort having been erected subsequently to the admission into the Union of the State within whose boundaries the land is located. United States v. Stahl, Woolw. 192; McCahon (Kans.) 206. The same is true of land set apart as an Indian reservation. Ex parte Sloan, 4 Sawyer, 330. To give the United States local jurisdiction of lands owned by it, it is essential that the jurisdiction be acquired from or withheld from the State within which the lands are. 14 A. G. Op. 557; United States v. Bateman, 34 F. R. 86. There must also be some action on the part of the United States. United States v. Tully, 140 F. R. 899. Land temporarily rented to the United States for a camp is not within its exclusive jurisdiction. United States v. Tierney, 1 Bond, 571. This does not affect the enforcement of civil rights in a State court. Madden v. Arnold, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 240. But a State court has no right to enforce a statutory penalty for failure to deliver a telegram in a navy yard. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274, 53 L. ed. 994. As to Alaska, see Kie v. United States, 11 Sawyer, 579, 27 F. R. 351; United States v. Clark, 46 F. R. 633.

Clause 4. United States v. Meagher, 37 F. R. 875. This is constitutional. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 34 L. ed. 691.

See generally 7 A. G. Op. 721; 13 Id. 131. As to the district in which the case must be tried, see United States v. Arwo, 19 Wall. 486, 22 L. ed. 67.

SECTION 273. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the petration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design

per

« AnteriorContinuar »