New-York tribune., 1922-10-28
Liquor Barred
On High Seas
On Decision
tceasnuss from sag. sa@

this matter to section three alone;
section three of tbs supplemental act
passed November 23, 1921, leaves no
doubt of the intent of Congress. BY
this II was enacted that the original
act should apply not only to the United
States but TO all territory subject to
'ta Jurisdiction, almost exactly the
words used In the amendment itself
Whatever doubt there might be-and
II seems to me there was none--of the
meaning Of the original act, 1t is cer-
tsinly laid by this section of the later.
Right TO Prosecute Fixed
1T Is. however, argued there is no
provision in the prohibition enforce
ment act under which sales at sea could
be prosecuted. The penalties for sales
OF the act and are general in their char
acter, They do not specify where the
prosecution shall take place or any
Of its procedure. This is quite natural,
since all such matters are provided
for in the statutes of the United States.
BY Revised Statutes it is enacted that
the trial Of all offenses committed
on the high seas :. shall be f.
the district where the offense is firs !
found or into which he is first brought
On its face this would cover a salt
were In fact crime. can see no
reason to limit Its scope to crimes such
as are created by Chapter 13 of the
Criminal Code and there described as
crimes on the high seas. II Congress,
having power TO make an act done at
ses criminal, does so it is none the less
a crime committed at ses because IL
is not described as such, and so there
seems to me nothing in this point, once
IL appears the purpose was to make
all sections of the act apply as gen
orally as the amendment allowed.
Ships Are Territory
"The amendment reads: THE juris-
dicticn thereof Therefore, the aues-
tion becomes straight Interpretation
of the amendment itself. Does ii cover
American ships on the high seasf
The plaintiffs argue that nothing 10
specified as TO ships, that it is only by
a fiction (and that, too, one which does
not universally apply that an Ameri-
can skip may be called part of the
tsrritory of the United States, that in
dealing with section of article a Of
the Constitution the word territory
has been defined rs lands and that
the limitations upon the power of Con-
gress have been held not to apply TO
territories until they have been ex-
tended by Congress.
1T is quite true that the amendment
does not mention ships, nor does 1t
mention waters or islands. But a con-
not exhausted by its details. but in.
corporated In its objects. The cues.
tion is not what it specifies, but what
It wills. 1t is also true that 1t is
fiction to call ship the territory of
the nag state, although for some pur-
poses 1t is so treated. But Oh Lord
Blackburn said. it has been called such
IN countless cases, and that is impor-
tant when one is interpreting legal
words. because though actions may be
only the disguises OF the law before
logic, they are parts Of it's wardrobe
for all that"
involving the territoriality OF ships in
which they are held as territory of
their flag, and continues:
However, the form of the amend
ment answers the argument. In 1920
the United States had all been organ
lied into states and territory which
meant someshing--coul only mean pos-
sessions acquired by conquest or our
chase. To these the amendment ex-
tended by its own terms, and the cues
Ron can only be what those terms
mean. II they include ships of Amer
ican registry these are within ii by the
very language; II they do not. Con.
gress cannot extend 1t to them. Shins
are not in third class. But perhans
the easiest answer is that, If Congress
must act, It has acted, az l haye al
ready said. Nor Is the exemption of
the Canal Zone material. Congress
mas indeed shown that it supposed IL
could exclude certain TRANSPORTATION
frcm the amendment, and perhaps Con-
gress ss right. Even SO, no inferenca
can pc made that III thought the
amendment did not apply before 1t Mad
acted, and IL 1t could, with all defer
enee. the supposition would be an
Tbs court here refers to a citation
OF the case OF Scharrenberg va. Dollar
Steamship Co., 2&5 u. S., i22, a case
that was made much OF by the plain
tins, and maintains that III consfderea
carefully even this case fails to estab
lish the contentious Of the shipping
companies. The court concludes;
1t would be curious thing IL aI
country processing under It's funda-
meTtss law 90 forbid the use OF jnfar;.
csnts were 10 allow them without stint
upon SHIPS that saile1 under its faav
Ihe only distinction pressed Ia the dis.
assrons consequences to an An,arirHn
merchant marine, IL Of all the shipx ~
Sea, ours alone are within this bar II
the first placs the discrimination an.
plies only TO passenger vessefs which
sr* small part of the marrhRnt ms.