The Portland daily press., 1883-12-08
1nnar HARIAN,s OPINION.


The claimants in this case represent that
they were owners OF one-fourth part of the
American ship John III. Jarvis" and its car
go, captured May 16, 1861, on the high seas,
near the mouth of the Mississippi river, by the
Confederate cruiser emusic" !" and pray iudg-
ment for the value of their said interest in the
propety so lost to them.
Counsel for the government deny the right
of claimants to recover, because said property
when SO captured and lost to the owners was
within four miles of the shore, and say that
the 9th section of the act approved June 9th,
1882, describing the classes OF claims for
which recovery may be had in this court does
not include claims for losses which occurred
within four miles of the shore, unless the at
tack was made beyond said four mile limit
For the purposes of this act, it is insisted by
government counsel that Congress has defined
the exterior boundaries Of the thigh seas" as
being marine league, equal to three nautical
or four statute miles from the Shore
On the other hand, learned counsel for claim
ants in this case, and other eminent counsel
for claimants in other similar cases filed for
hearing in this court, insist that thigh seas"
as used IN this act, should be interpreted to
mean the waters of the sea from shore to shore
commencing and terminating at low water
mark; that Congress has so defined it In the
statutes of the United States regulating the
proceedings of admiralty courts.
The decision of the question thus raised must
depend on the meaning which Congress in
tended shonld be given by the court to the
phrase or compound word "high-seas," as used
in this statute This is not free from doubt.
The courts of the United States, with apparent
unanimity. have construed the term to be
found in the statutes relating to admiralty
proceedings, as meaning "the waters of the
ocean from shore to shore at low watermark."
And this construction is supported by numer-
ous decisions of the courts of Great Britain
cited by learned counsel for claimants. But
it does not necessarily follow that Congress so
used it in this act.
For the purpose of defining the territorial
jurisdiction of nation, the starting point is
one marine league, or about four statute En-
glish miles from the shore. Hence the words
"high-seas,' when used with such reference,
must mean the waters of the ocean exterior to
such boundary; and the most casual examina-
tion of standard works on international law
will furnish abundant proof that it is con-
stantly so used in defining the rights and
duties of nentrals and belligerents on the
"high seas' in coDtradistinction TO their rights,
duties and privileges within a marine league
oil a neutral shore. In defining the jursdic-
tion of admiralty courts "high-seas" means the
waters of the ocean from shore TO shore at low
water mark. In defining the rights and duties
and privileges of neutrals and belligerents
"high-seas' means the ocean exterior to the
league limit from the above.
In which sense did Congress use it in this
statute? That must be determined from
subject matter treated.
Congress has not in either of the two acts
passed for the government of this COURT cloth
ed it with the right to determine the relative
merits OF claimants. Who may recover and
who may not recover, is defined in the law by
totally different description. Those who
may recover are persons whose property was
destroyed on the high seas, and whose proper
ty was attacked on the high seas and destroyed
within four miles of the shore by Confederate
aRFTTon 1tnn lAur0I AtxaI koA
States during the late rebellion, and entitled
at the time 20 the protection of the United
States In the premises. That there may be
other meritorious claimants on this fund-is
probable. Congress appears to have so thought.
The last sentence in the act clearly indicates
such belief. But it has in express terms re-
served the right to provide for them hereafter,
If it shall so determine This statutory decla-
ration may, therefore, be properly regarded by
this court, as an admonition not to strain the
terms of the act so as to enlarge its scope.
The so-called Confederate States had been
recognized by the leading States of Europe as
belligerents, which enabled their armed cruis-
ers to make legal captures on the high seas,
but not within the jurisdictional waters of any
neutral State. AS to them the thigh seas"
meant the waters of the ocean outside the
marine league limit from the shore. Within
the marine league from a neutral shore the
property of citizens of the United States was
under the protection of the neutral govern
hAoA1i duu uOt lcBdlly buUJoCb " CaptuC0 Ny
the belligerent cruisers; and within the ma
rine league of the shore of the United States
and on its interior waters il was -under the
protection of the guns, shore batteries, harbor
defences, and land forces of the United States,
and consequently less liable to Capture by bel
ligerent ships of the public enemy; and the
entrance of merchant ships for the purpose of
trade into the harbors and on the interior
waters of the Confederate States had been
prohibited by the United States before the
sailing of any Confederate cruisers. Hence
the presence OF merchant ship OF the United
States within the marine league of the Con-
federate coast was presumably illegal, being in
defiance OF the laws of its sovereign.
From this condition of facts the conclusion
may safely be drawn by the court that Con-
gress probably intended to distinguish between
the class OF sufferers whose property was de-
stroyed within marine leagne and also on
the interior waters of the United States and
OF the Confederate States, to exclude them
from the beneficial provisions of this statute,
and to provide for them, if deemed advisable,
by future legislation.
In this view the language of the statute,
That the frst-class shall be for claims direct
ly resulting from damage done on the high
seas by Confederate cru isers during the late
rebellion, including vessels and cargoes at
tackled on tho high seas, although the loss or
damage occurred within four miles of the
shore" is clear and explicit-free from all am
biguity-nothing appearing as surplusage or as
redundancy, and nothing in conflict with any
other part of the statute.
The court therefore concludes that Congress
intended to adopt, for the purposes of this
act, as the exterior boundary OF the "high
seas" line four miles seaward from the
shore.
And as the case at bar was selected by
counsel on both sides as one in which this
question was distinctly raised, the court feels
warranted in assuming, without making 3
critical examination of the facts, that the
John III. Jarvis" and cargo wien captured
and lost to the owners is admitted by claim
ants in this case to have been within four
miles of the shore. Judgment will therefore
be entered in favor of the United States.
NEW YORK.