Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the United States the right to be tried in the state and district where the crime was committed.21

Statutes relative to jurisdiction where offenses are committed partly in one county 22 or federal district 23 and partly in another, or on or near the boundary line between counties,24 or on trains or other conveyances in transit,25 will be considered in subsequent sections.

§ 279. Countries, states or counties bounded by the sea-In general. It has repeatedly been said by writers on international law that the jurisdiction of a nation bordering on the sea extends not merely to low-water mark on the shore, but into the sea to the distance of a cannon shot, estimated at one marine league, or three miles, from low-water mark; and it has been very generally assumed from this that a nation has jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws if committed at any place within such limits.26 It is doubtful, however, whether jurisdiction exists in such cases in the absence of a statute expressly conferring it,27 but statutes conferring it have been enacted both in England,28 and in the United States,29 and have been upheld.

21 Const. art. III, § 2; Amend. VI; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. 428, aff'g 153 Fed. 1, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400; Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 49 L. Ed. 482, 25 Sup. Ct. 243; Davis v. United States, 104 Fed. 136; West v. Gammon, 98 Fed. 426.

This provision applies only to prosecutions in the federal courts. Mischer v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 212, 53 S. W. 627, 96 Am. St. Rep. 780. 22 See § 288, infra.

23 See § 289, infra.

24 See § 290, infra.

25 See § 291, infra.

26 See 1 Hale P. C. 154; 1 Kent Com. 29; United States v. Newark Meadows Improvement Co., 173 Fed. 426; Com. v. Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 9 L. R. A. 236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 820, aff'd 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559. And see 11 Am. Law Rev. 625 et seq.

27 In England it has been held that the territorial limits of a nation do not extend beyond low-water mark on the shore; that, though a nation has a quasi jurisdiction over the sea for a distance of three miles from the shore for the purpose of military and police regulations, this part of the sea is no part of its territory; and that, in the absence of legislation on the subject, its courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and punish an act committed there by a foreigner on a foreign ship. Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63, 13 Cox C. C. 403, 46 L. J. Mag. Cas. And see United States v. Kessler, Baldw. 15, Fed. Cas. No. 15,528. 28 41 and 42 Vict. c. 73.

17.

29 A state may extend its territorial limits for one marine league beyond its coast. United States v. Newark Meadows Improvement Co., 173 Fed. 426.

In Massachusetts it was held that the territorial jurisdiction of the state

The federal statutes provide that the trial of all offenses committed on the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district, shall be in the district where the offender is found, or into which he is first brought.80

§ 280. Bays and other arms of the sea. When a river, haven, bay, or other arm of the sea, extends into a country or state, it is not only within the territorial limits of the country or state to an imaginary line drawn between the furthermost points of land, or fauces terrae, but it is also within the body of a county of the state, and subject to the common-law jurisdiction, if it is so narrow that a person standing on one shore can reasonably discern by the naked eye what is being done on the other shore.31

over the adjacent seas, subject to the common right of navigation, extends to the distance of at least a marine league from the shore, and over bays running into the state which do not exceed in width two marine leagues at the mouth, and a statute regulating fisheries in such waters, and punishing violations of its provisions, was upheld. Com. v. Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 9 L. R. A. 236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 820, aff'd 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559. In this case, Buzzard's Bay was held to be within the territorial jurisdiction of Massachusetts.

New Jersey has by statute embraced within its territorial limits that portion of New York harbor within a marine league of its coast, and offenses against the United States committed in the harbor within that distance are committed within the state and federal district of New Jersey, and must be prosecuted there. United States v. Newark Meadows Improvement Co., 173 Fed. 426.

The waters of Long Island sound are "high seas," within the meaning of the Federal Constitution and acts of congress, except such parts as are within the fauces terrae. United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black (U. S.)

484; United States v. Peterson, 64 Fed. 145.

30 Miller v. United States, 242 Fed. 907, L. R. A. 1918 A 545, certiorari denied, 245 U. S. 660, 62 L. Ed. 535, 38 Sup. Ct. 61.

As to the venue of prosecutions for offenses committed on the high seas, see United States v. Townsend, 219 Fed. 761.

311 Kent Com. 30; United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 336, 4 L. Ed. 404; United States v. Grush, 5 Mason 290, Fed. Cas. No. 15,268; Com. v. Peters, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 387; Manley v. People, N. Y. 295.

V.

Buzzard's Bay. Manchester Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559, aff'g 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 9 L. R. A. 236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 820.

It has been held that the county of Suffolk, in Massachusetts, extends to all the waters of Boston harbor between the circumjacent islands down to Great Brewster Island and Point Allerton, and that the courts of such county have jurisdiction of offenses against the laws of the state committed on a vessel lying in such waters. United States v. Grush, 5 Mason 290, Fed. Cas. No. 15,268, per Mr. Justice Story. See Direct United

Statutes giving counties bordering on the shore of bays of the great lakes concurrent jurisdiction of offenses committed on that portion of the bay within the territorial limits of the state, have been held to be valid.32

§ 281. Rivers and lakes-As between states. The jurisdiction of a state extends over all rivers and lakes lying within its territorial limits, unless there is some compact to the contrary.33 In the absence of any such compact, its jurisdiction over a river separating it from another state extends only to the boundary line between them,84 which may be either the middle of the stream or one or the

States Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Tel. Co., 2 App. Cas. 394.

The waters of Long Island sound within the fauces terrae, as in the Huntington and Northport bays, and in New Haven harbor, but not outside, are within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the states of New York and Connecticut, and within the body of the counties thereof. Manley v. People, 7 N. Y. 295.

32 State v. McDonald, 109 Wis. 506, 85 N. W. 502.

Certain counties in Michigan and Wisconsin, bordering on the great lakes, have common jurisdiction of an offense committed anywhere on the lake within the territorial limits of the state. People v. Bouchard, 82 Mich. 156, 46 N. W. 232; State v. McDonald, 109 Wis. 506, 85 N. W. 502.

As to the jurisdiction of particular Michigan courts, see Andrews v. Ellsworth, 190 Mich. 157, 156 N. W. 115; People v. Coffey, 155 Mich. 103, 118 N. W. 732.

33 Biscoe v. State, 68 Md. 294; Tyler v. People, 8 Mich. 320; People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161, 74 Am. Dec. 703.

34 Brown v. State, 109 Ark. 373, 159 S. W. 1132; Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. 429.

The Potomac river belongs to Maryland, and that state has jurisdiction

over it except in so far as it has been restricted by the compact between Maryland and Virginia on the subject. Hendricks v. Com., 75 Va. 934.

In the absence of any compact, Arkansas has no jurisdiction over offenses committed on an island on the Tennessee side of the Mississippi river, where it forms the boundary between those states. Means v. State, 118 Ark. 362, 176 S. W. 309. The boundary line as recognized by both of these states is the middle of the main channel of the river as it existed on June 16, 1836, and the courts of Arkansas have jurisdiction of offenses committed on its side of that line. Hearne v. State, 121 Ark. 460, 181 S. W. 291; Kinnanne v. State, 106 Ark. 286, 153 S. W. 262. See also State v. Muncie Pulp Co., 119 Tenn. 47, 104 S. W. 437.

A statute providing that when an offense is committed within five miles of the state line on a vessel navigating the waters of the state, the jurisdiction is in any county through which the vessel is navigated in the course of the voyage, or in the county where the voyage terminates, violates a constitutional provision for trial of the accused in the county where the offense was committed. Craig V. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 227.

other of the banks. If the original property in the bed of the stream was in neither state, and there is no convention respecting it, each holds to the middle of the stream. But when one state was the original proprietor, and has granted the territory on one side only, it retains the river within its own domain, and the newly-created state extends only to the low-water mark on the river.35 There is a distinction, however, between ownership and jurisdiction, and there may be jurisdiction without ownership.36 So in many cases, by compacts between states, or by the provisions of the enabling acts admitting states to the Union and of state constitutions, jurisdiction of the surface of a river forming the boundary between the states has been made concurrent between the states throughout its whole width, though the actual state boundary may be at low-water mark on one side of the river or may be at the thread of the stream.37 This concurrent

35 United States. Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 5 Wheat. 374, 5 L. Ed.

113.

Illinois. Phillips v. People, 55 Ill.

429.

Kentucky. McFall v. Com., 2 Metc.

394.

Ohio. Booth v. Shepherd, 8 Ohio St. 243.

Virginia. Com. v. Garner, 3 Gratt.

655.

West Virginia. State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R. A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927, 1 Ann. Cas. 104.

As to the effect of changes in the channel, see State v. Bowen, 149 Wis. 203, 135 N. W. 494, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 200, and cases there cited.

36 Vattel, Law of Nations, Bk. I, § 295; Com. v. Garner, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 655; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R. A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927, 1 Ann. Cas. 104; Roberts v. Fullerton, 117 Wis. 222, 93 N. W. 1111, 65 L. R. A. 953.

37 Columbia river. Under the Constitutions of Oregon and Washington and the acts of congress admitting them into the Union, those states have concurrent jurisdiction over the Columbia river, although the boundary

line is the middle of the channel. Nielson v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, 53 L. Ed. 528, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, rev'g 51 Ore. 588, 95 Pac. 720, 131 Am. St. Rep. 765, 16 Ann. Cas. 1113; Ex parte Desjeiro, 152 Fed. 1004; In re Mattson, 69 Fed. 535.

Delaware river. By a compact entered into between New Jersey and Delaware, the jurisdiction of each of those states extends to the middle line of the Delaware river, where it forms the boundary line between them. State v. Cooper, 93 N. J. L. 13, 107 Atl. 149.

Hudson river. Although, for some purposes, New Jersey is bounded by the middle of the Hudson river, and the state owns the land under the water to that extent, exclusive jurisdiction, not only over the water, but also over the land, to low-water mark on the New Jersey shore, is granted to, or rather acknowledged to belong to, the state of New York by the compact between those states, and it has been held, therefore, that the courts of New Jersey have no jurisdiction to punish as a nuisance the obstruction of the river by placing vessels and wrecks on the shore below the low-water line. State v. Babcock, 30

jurisdiction, however, extends only to the body or stream of water

N. J. L. 29. See also In re Devoe Mfg. Co., 108 U. S. 401, 27 L. Ed. 764, 2 Sup. Ct. 894; People v. Central R. Co., 42 N. Y. 283.

Mississippi river. It has been the practice in admitting states bordering on the Mississippi river to define their boundaries as extending to the middle thereof, but to give states on opposite sides of the river concurrent jurisdiction over its whole breadth. Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 395, 20 L. Ed. 116; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Reddig, 24 Ill. App. 260; State v. Moyers, 155 Iowa 678, 136 N. W. 896, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 366; State v. Mullen, 35 Iowa 199; State v. George, 60 Minn. 503, 63 N. W. 100; State v. Seagraves, 111 Mo. App. 353, 85 S. W. 925; State v. Metcalf, 65 Mo. App. 681; State v. Bowen, 149 Wis. 203, 135 N. W. 494, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 200; Roberts v. Fullerton, 117 Wis. 222, 93 W. W. 1111, 65 L. R. A. 953; State v. Cameron, 2 Chand. (Wis.) 172, 2 Pin. 490. While by act of congress the middle of the main channel is the boundary between Kentucky and Missouri, both states are given concurrent jurisdiction over the river. Lemore v. Com., 127 Ky. 480, 105 S. W. 930. By agreement between Arkansas and Mississippi, approved by congress, these states have concurrent jurisdiction of offenses committed on that portion of the Mississippi river forming the boundary between them. State V. Cunningham, 102 Miss. 237, 59 So. 76, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 182. There is no compact between Arkansas and Tennessee giving concurrent jurisdiction over islands in the river where it forms the boundary line between those states. Means v. State, 118 Ark. 362, 176 S. W. 309.

Missouri river. The Missouri en

abling act provided that the state of Missouri should extend to the middle of the main channel of the Missouri river, and should have concurrent jurisdiction over its whole width. State v. Metcalf, 65 Mo. App. 681. The provision for concurrent jurisdiction seems to have been overlooked in State v. Keane, 84 Mo. App. 127. See State v. Seagraves, 111 Mo. App. 353, 85 S. W. 925.

Ohio river. By the Virginia act of 1783 dominion of the territory lying northwest of the Ohio river was ceded to the federal government, and by the Virginia compact of 1789 concurrent jurisdiction over the river itself was established in the states bounded by it. The ultimate title to the river itself is in West Vir ginia and Kentucky, which as successors of Virginia, own to low-water mark on the northwest shore. Concurrent jurisdiction however rests in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, each of which has power to serve process and punish crimes committed anywhere on the surface of the river between their lateral boundaries. Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 48 L. Ed. 570, 24 Sup. Ct. 322, 66 L. R. A. 833; Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 883, 9 L. R. A. 664; Dugan v. State, 125 Ind. 130, 25 N. E. 171, 9 L. R. A. 321; Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 172 Ky. 473, 189 S. W. 724; Com. v. Louisville & E. Packet Co., 117 Ky. 936, 80 S. W. 154; State v. Savors, 33 Ohio Cir. Ct. 224; State v. Stevens, 1 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 82, 2 West. Law J. 66; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122, 46 S. E. 269, 63 L. R. A. 877, 102 Am. St. Rep. 927, 1 Ann. Cas. 104.

Potomac river. The compact between Maryland and Virginia provides that all laws and regulations

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »