Evening star., 1923-04-30

Canal Zone provision; secondly. that
1t is not intended to apply to domestic
vessels when outside the territorial
waters of the United States, and
thirdly, that it is intended to apply
to all merchant vessels. whether for
eign or domestic, when within those
waters, save as the Panama Canal
Zone exception provides otherwise.
I'm SO saying we do not mean to
imply that Congress is without power
to regulate the conduct of domestic
merchant ships when on the high
seas, or to exert such control over
them when in foreign waters as may
be affirmatively or tacitly permitted
by the territorial sovereign: for it
long has been settled that Congress
does have such power over them.
"s But we do not mean that
the national prohibition act discloses
that it is intended only to enforce the
eighteenth amendment. and limits its
field of operation, like that OF the
amendment, to the territorial limits
Of the United States
"It should be added that after the
adoption of the amendment and the
enactment of the national prohibit
ton act, Congress distinctly with
drew tho prior statutory recog-
nition Of liquors as legitimate sea
Liquor Remains Liquor.
at therefore is of no Importance
that the liquors in the plaintiffs
ships are carried only as sea stories.
Being sea stores does not make them
liquors any the less, nor does 1t
change the incidents of their use as
beverages. But it is of Importance
that they are carried through the
territorial waters of the United States
int to r.
bors. This is prohibited atnrSporta-
ton and importation in the sense of
the amendment and the act.
In the discussion of federal juris-
diction over foreign ships in Amer
ican territorial waters, the court de-
clared that jurisdiction was complete.
1t would be possible, however. should
Congress SO decide. TO waive the en-
forcement of this jurisdiction and
permit foreign ships to do things
doing. The court expressed the cpln-
ion that foreign nations could not
force any such exemption.
Argument of Court.
referring TO the Department of
Justice contention that prohibition
covers American ships outside the
waters of the United States, the court
said:
But it does not say so. and what it
the physical territory of the United
States. In support of their contention
the defendants refer to the statement
sometimes made that merchant ship
is a part of the territory of the coun-
try whose flag she flies.
But this, as has been aptly observed
is a figure of speech. a metaphor. The
jurisdiction which 1t is intended to
describe arises out of the nationality
of the, ship. as established by her
domicile. registry and use Of the flag.
and partakes of the characteristics of
personal than of territorial SOW
ereiguty. 1t is chiefly applicable to
ships on the high seas, where there
IS no territory sovereign; and as re-
spectS ships in foreign territorial
waters it has little application beyond
what is affirmatIvely or tacitly per-
mitted by the local sovereign"
Contention Is Upheld.
Referring 10 the further contention
of the government that the amend
ment covers foreign merchant ships
when within the territorial waters of
the United States, the court pointed
out that IF ii were true that a ship
IS part of the territory of the coun-
try whose flag she carries the con-
tention would fail, but as that is "A
hction we think the contention is
right.
"A merchant ship of one country
voluntarily entering the territorial
lImltS of another, subjects herself to
the jurisdiction Of the latter" the de-
cislon continued The jurisdiction
attaches in virtue of her presence.
just as with other objects within
those limits. During her stay she is
entitled to the protection of the laws
of that place and correlatively IS
bound to yield obedience to them. OF
course, the local sovereign may, out
OF consideration of public policy.
choose TO forego the eXertion of its
jurisdiction or TO exert the same in
only Il limited way, but this is
matter resting solely in its discretion
In principle. therefore, it is settled
that the amendment could be made TO
cover both domestic and foreign mer-
chant ships when within the terri
torial waters of the United States
And we think it has been made to
cover both when within those limits
1t contains no exception of ships of
either class. and the terms in which
ii is couched indicate that none is in
tended. Such an exception would tend
to embarrasS its enforcement and to
defeat the attainment of its obvious
purpose. and therefore cannot reason
ably be regarded as implied"
When Attorney General Daugherty
ruled that foreign ships entering
American waters must be dry, and
that American ships should not carry
at any time anywhere intoxicating
liquors for beverage use. he started
4 controversy which in intensity eX-
ceeded all others arising in enforce
ment of national prohibition since the
eighteenth amendment was sustained
by the Supreme Court.
Not only did the foreign steamship
companies enter a protest, but the
American lines also strenuously OBJ
jected. The foreign companies saw