Opinion of the Court. "Q. I don't want you to answer this, Andersen, until the court passes upon it. I want it to go down in the record. I want to ask you whether on the day before you had had a difficulty with the mate, and, without provocation on your part, the mate had not attempted to throw you overboard? "Mr. McIntosh. I understand that your honor rules that I cannot ask that? "The Court. The question is improper and cannot be answered." And to this, exception was taken. The preliminary rulings of the court which required the incidents of August 6 to be given at the outset are not open to criticism. The point to be considered is whether evidence of transactions previous to that day was admissible in the light of the testimony of the accused in respect of what passed on that day. It will be perceived that no specific offer of proof was made. But, assuming that counsel had offered to show by the accused that he had had trouble with the mate previously to August 6, and that the day before he had had a difficulty with him, and the mate, without provocation, had attempted to throw the accused overboard, would such testimony by the accused have been admissible in view of his own detailed account of the homicide and its surrounding circumstances? On what legal principle could it have been held to have a tendency in justification, excuse or mitigation? Andersen's story was that on the morning of August 6 he had a difficulty with the captain about the dog; that the captain cursed him, struck him and sent him on top the redhot stove and the pots and pans; that he subsequently appealed to the mate for protection, and he treated the application with scorn and profanity; that some time afterwards he went to the cabin to sweep it, and that the captain glared at him and cursed him. He commenced sweeping the cabin, and started into the mate's room first; saw the mate's gun lying on the shelf and took it down, thinking that if the worst came to the worst he would have to defend himself. He finished the cabin and started into the captain's room; the captain arose and was about to assault him with a bottle and he shot him. Opinion of the Court. "Then I thought about the mate. I ran into the captain's room then and got his two guns." He ran up on deck; asked Lind where the mate was; was told he was aloft; looked up and saw him there, and called him down or waited for him. As the mate came down he asked Andersen where he got the guns and where the captain was, but Andersen made no answer to this, and stayed on top of the forecastle house. Then as he stood on the house with the pistols, and the mate was three feet below on the forecastle head, but coming towards witness as if "to take the marlin spike off his neck and shove the marlin spike into me," witness pulled his gun and shot him. He shot him several times- the mate begging him not to shoot. Immediately after that he called up the sailors and the body was thrown overboard. It is true that a homicide committed in actual defence of life or limb is excusable if it appear that the slayer was acting under a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from the deceased, and that his act in causing death was necessary in order to avoid the death or great bodily harm which was apparently imminent. But where there is manifestly no adequate or reasonable ground for such belief, or the slayer brings on the difficulty for the purpose of killing the deceased, or violation of law on his part is the reason of his expectation of an attack, the plea of self defence cannot avail. Wallace v. United States, 162 U. S. 466; Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492; Addington v. United States, 165 U. S. 184. According to his own statement, Andersen, after he had shot the captain, thought about the mate, armed himself with the captain's pistols, went in search of his victim, and finding him aloft on the mainmast at work, called him down, or, seeing him coming down, awaited him, and shot him. He was not only the aggressor but the premeditated aggressor. The captain being dead, he knew the mate would assume command, and that it would be his duty to arrest him and take him ashore for trial. The imminent danger which threatened him was the danger of the gallows. The inference is irresistible that to avert that danger he killed the mate, cast the bodies into the Opinion of the Court. sea, burned the ship and took to the open boat. There can be no pretence that he was acting under a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of the mate. He testified, to be sure, that when he had armed himself, gone in search of the mate, and stood on the forecastle house ready to receive him, he thought the mate was going to use against him the marlin spike, which he had been using at his work in the rigging, and to protect himself against that marlin spike, swung around the neck of a man standing three feet below him, the accused shot him down while he was asking for his life. It was, indeed, the duty of the mate to attack Andersen as he stood there with three pistols, fresh from the slaughter of the captain, and in open mutiny. But as the accused told his story he was not repelling violence, and if the mate attempted to make use of the marlin spike, it was simply in self defence. The case as Andersen's testimony, made it afforded no basis for the introduction of evidence of prior provocation, or even of injuries previously inflicted, for no overt act on the mate's part provoked the evil intent with which Andersen sought him out on this occasion. Such evidence would not have been relevant, in view of the circumstances, as tending either to make out self defence or to reduce the grade of the crime. We are not insensible to the suggestion that persons confined to the narrow limits of a small vessel, alone upon the sea, are placed in a situation where brutal conduct on the part of their superiors, from which there is then no possible escape, may possess special circumstances of aggravation. But that does not furnish ground for the particular sufferer from such conduct to take the law into his own hands, nor for the suspension of those general rules intended for the protection of all alike on land or sea. 7. Complaint is made because the court refused to allow a witness to testify as to the general reputation of the captain. If there had been any adequate basis for the contention that Andersen killed the mate in self defence, by reason of a reasonable belief in imminent danger from him, evidence of his character for ferocity, brutality and vindictiveness might have been Opinion of the Court. admissible. Smith v. United States, 161 U. S. 85. But, as the record stood, the character of the captain could have no legal bearing on the issue of the guilt of the accused of the murder of the mate. 8. Various instructions were asked on behalf of the defendant, as well as on behalf of the Government, which were, respectively, refused by the court, except so far as included in the instructions given. But the only ruling in this regard pressed on our attention is the alleged error of the court in instructing the jury as follows: "The other felonious homicide to which I called your attention, manslaughter, is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, either express or implied. I find it to be my duty, gentlemen of the jury, to say to you that if the defendant has committed a felonious homicide, of which you are the only judges, there is nothing before you that reduces it below the grade of murder." This instruction was similar to that given by Mr. Justice McKenna, then Circuit Judge, which was reviewed and approved in Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 63. That case is decisive of this, for the evidence disclosed no ground whatever upon which the jury could properly have reached the conclusion that the defendant was only guilty of an offence included in the one charged, or of a mere attempt to commit the offence charged. The testimony of the accused did not develop the existence of any facts which operated in law to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. The law, in recognition of the frailty of human nature, regards a homicide committed under the influence of sudden passion, or in hot blood produced by adequate cause, and before a reasonable time has elapsed for the blood to cool, as an offence of a less heinous character than murder. But if there be sufficient time for the passions to subside, and shaken reason to resume its sway, no such distinction can be entertained. And if the circumstances show a killing "with deliberate mind and formed design," with comprehension of the act and determination to perform it, the elements of self defence being wanting, the act is murder. Nor is the - Counsel for Parties. presumption of malice negatived by previous provocation, having no causal connection with the murderous act, or separated from it by such an interval of time as gives reasonable opportunity for the access of fury to moderate. Kerr on Homicide, § 68, et seq.; 2 Bishop New Cr. L. § 673, et seq.; Whar. Cr. L. § 455, et seq.; and cases cited. There is nothing in Stevenson's case, 162 U. S. 313, to the contrary. The doctrine of Sparf's case is there reaffirmed, that "the jury would not be justified in finding a verdict of manslaughter if there were no evidence upon which to base such a finding, and in that event the court would have the right to instruct the jury to that effect." No other error assigned requires notice. Judgment affirmed. MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA dissented. PLAQUEMINES TROPICAL FRUIT COMPANY v. HENDERSON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRQUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 204. Argued April 15, 1898. - Decided May 2, 1898. The courts of a State may take cognizance of a suit brought by the State, in its own courts, against citizens of other States, subject to the right of the defendant to have such suit removed to the proper Circuit Court of the United States, whenever the removal thereof is authorized by act of Congress, and subject also to the authority of this court to review the final judgment of the state court, if the case be one within its appellate jurisdiction. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Duane E. Fox for appellant. Mr. J. Ward Gurley was on his brief. Mr. Victor Leovy for appellees. Mr. Henry J. Leovy, Mr. |