Case Name: THE TOKAI MARU
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1911-09-05
Citations: 190 F. 450
Docket Number: No. 1,969
Parties: THE TOKAI MARU.
Judges: Before GIRBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and HAN-FORD, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 190
Pages: 450–459

Head Matter:
THE TOKAI MARU.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
September 5, 1911.)
No. 1,969.
1. Fish (§ . 16 ) — Statute Prohibiting Aliens from Fishing in Alaska Waters — Construction and Enforcement.
Act June 14, 1906, c. 3299, 34 Stat. 263 (U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1909, p. 1080), makes it unlawful for any nonresident alien or any “company corporation or association” not organized in the United States or authorized thereto to catch fish in the waters of Alaska, except with rod, spear, or gaff, and provides that every person, company, etc., violating such provision, shall be fined, which fine “shall be a lien against any vessel or other property of the offending party or which was used in the commission of such unlawful act”; also, that every vessel used or employed in the violation of the act shall be liable to a fine, “and may be seized and proceeded against by way of libel in any court having jurisdiction of the offense.” Held that, where the crew of a vessel violated the act, the prosecution and conviction of its members was not an essential prerequisite to the enforcement of the government’s right against the offending vessel, but that they could be tried, fines imposed against them and the vessel, and the lien therefor established in the same proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. § 16. ]
2. Fish (§ 13 ) — Statute Prohibiting Aliens from Fishing in Alaska Waters — Construction.
Act June 14, 1906, c. 3299, § 1, 34 Stat. 263 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909. p. 1080), which makes it unlawful for aliens “to catch or kill, or attempt to catch or kill, except with rod, spear or gaff, any fish of any kind or species whatsoever in any of the waters of Alaska under the jurisdiction of the United 'States,” cannot be construed as prohibiting only commercial fishing, and as permitting the alien crew of a foreign vessel to take fish in violation of its provisions for their own use.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Dec. Dig. § 13. ]
3. Fish (§ 14 ) — Statute Prohibiting Aliens from Fishing in Alaska Waters — Construction—“Compant.”
The officers and crew of a vessel composed entirely of aliens may be considered a “company” within the meaning of the statute, and a single fine imposed upon them for its violation and made a lien on the vessel.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Dee. Dig. § 14.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1347-1350.J
4. Treaties (§ 11 ) — Operation as to Subsequent Daws.
The power of Congress to enact laws for subsequent observance is not restricted by prior treaties with foreign nations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Treaties, Cent. Dig. § 11; Dec. Dig. § 11. ]
Morrow, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Third Division of the District of Alaska.
Suit by the United States by libel of information against the schooner Tokai Maru, Choemon Ki Kuchi, claimant. Decree for libelant, and claimant appeals.
Reversed.
The amended libel of Information, on which the decree appealed from is based, contains the following averments:
‘•rn That F. ,T. Tlaako, an officer in the revenue cutter service of the United Slates in command of tlie railed States revenue cutter Perry, heretofore, to wit, on the 28th day of June, 1910, at Kalekla Bay, an inlet of Bering Sea, and within the district of Alaska, and the waters thereof, seized on behalf of the United States the schooner Tokai Mam, a Japanese schooner of about DO toils burden, in command of Capt. Matsutaro Numazaki, her boats, tackle, anchors, ropes, lines, sails, stores, apparel, equipment, furniture, and cargo.
"(2) That said schooner Tokai IMaru, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, after being seized as aforesaid, was by the said S\ J. Ilaake immediately brought into the port of Unnlaska, in the district of Alaska, and there delivered into the custody of the United States marshal of the Third division of the district of Alaska, and that all of said property ever since said time has been, and now is, in the possession of and held by said United States marshal at Unalaska, within said district and division, and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and of this honorable court.
“(3) That the said F. J. Haake was then and there duly commissioned and authorized, by the Secretary of Commerce and Babor of the United States, acting through the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Navy of the United States, to make said seizure, and that said seizure was made by the said P. ,T. Ilaake under and by virtue of said authority.
“(4) That all of said property was then and there seized for tlie following causes, which are hereby alleged to be the true facts: That the captain, officers, and crew of the said vessel did on the 28th day of June. 1910, and for some time immediately prior thereto, within the district of Alaska, and the waters (hereof, and within the admiralty and mariiime jurisdiction of the above-entitled court, willfully and unlawfully catch and kill, and attempt to catch and kill, fish by means other than with rod, spear, and gaff, the said captain, officers, and crew then and there not being citizens of the United States, nor persons who have declared their intention to become such, nor bona fide residents therein, and then and there not being a company, corporation, nor association, organized and authorized to transact business under the laws of the United States, or of any state, territory, or district thereof, and then and there not being employed by tiny person, firm, corporation, nor association, lawfully entitled to fish in the waters of Alaska, and then and there not being natives of Alaska, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, to wit, in violation of the act entitled, ‘An act to prohibit aliens 1'ro-m Ashing in the waters of Alaska,’ approved June .14, 1906, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.
“(5) That the said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo were used and employed by her captain, officers, and crew in unlawfully catching and killing fish within the waters of Alaska, as aforesaid.
“(6) That part of the tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo of said vessel consisted of firearms, ammunition, and 117 fur sealskins. That said firearms, ammunition, and fur sealskins are the property of the captain, officers, and crew of said vessel.”
The seventh and eighth paragraphs recite criminal proceedings and the conviction of the captain and crew of the vessel and the nonpayment of fines imposed by a commissioner acting as a justice of the peace of Alaska. The ninth and last paragraph contains formal averments of jurisdictional facts. The District Court received proof of the criminal proceedings and other evidence upon which findings were made sustaining all the averments of the amended libel of information, and thereupon rendered a decree subjecting the vessel to a fine of $500 and to a lion for fines against the captain and each member of the crew amounting to the additional sum. of $19,000. The decree condemned, not only the vessel and her equipments, but also 117 fur sealskins found on board of her.
The law applicable to the case is the act of Congress approved June 14, 3906. entitled “An act to prohibit aliens from fishing in the waters of Alaska.” Act June 14, 1906, c. 3299, 34 Stat. 263 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 828; Supp. 1909, p. 1080). The first section of the statute declares that it shall be unlawful for any alien person, company, corporation, or association to catch, or kill or attempt to catch or kill, except with rod. spear, or gaff, fish of any kind or species whatsoever in the waters of Alaska under the jurisdiction of the United States. The second section provides that every person, company, corporation, or association found guilty of a violation of any provision of this act shall for each offense be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, which fine shall be a lien against any vessel or other property of the offending party, or which was used in the commission of such unlawful act, and that every vessel used or employed in violation of any provision of this act shall 'be liable to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500, and may be seized and proceeded against by way of libel in any court having jurisdiction of the offense. Section 4 of the act contains, among other provisions, the following: “If'any foreign vessel shall be found within the waters to which this act applies, having on board fresh or cured fish and apparatus or implements suitable for killing or taking fish, it shall be presumed that the vessel and apparatus were used in violation of this act until it is otherwise sufficiently proved.”
James Kiefer, for appellant.
Robt. T. Devlin, U. S. Atty., Earl H. Pier, Asst. U. S. Atty., George R. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Benjamin D. McKinley, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Before GIRBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and HAN-FORD, District Judge.
For other oases see same topio & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date» & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
. HANFORD, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). One of the chief contentions of the appellant is that the District Court could not rightfully subject the property seized to liability for the fines imposed upon the captain and crew, because the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the alleged offense. We hold, however, that the prosecution and conviction of the captain and members of the crew is not an essential prerequisite to the enforcement of the government's right against the offending- vessel (The C. G. White, 64 Fed. 579, 12 C. C. A. 314), and we consider the present suit to be an original cause brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, and that it is not ancillary nor supplementary to the criminal proceedings before the justice of the peace. If a vessel should be captured in flagrante dere-licto and her captain and crew should be successful in avoiding prosecution by evading arrest, the statutory lien would not be discharged by such evasion, and it would require an unreasonable construction of the statute to place the government in the embarrassing situation of a holder of a seized vessel without right to proceed to a realization of the benefit contemplated by the creation of the lien.
It is to be observed that the judgment of the justice of the peace is not pleaded as a separate and distinct cause of action, the liability of the vessel, as a guilty thing for a fine and her liability under the lien clause of the statute are run together in the amended libel of information and the judgment is just thrown in as a makeweight; and as the answer contains no affirmative plea of payment, or satisfaction of the judgment, there is no issue raised by the pleadings respecting the criminal proceedings which is necessarily material to be considered. The case is here for a trial de novo. This court may direct the entry of a proper decree notwithstanding errors of the trial court in receiving incompetent evidence, or in its findings based thereon. Deeming it unnecessary to decide the question involved in the col lateral attack here made upon the judgment of the justice of the peace, all of the pleadings and evidence referring to that judgment will be treated in this opinion as surplusage and eliminated from the case.
The libel of information, after eliminating therefrom all of paragraphs 7 and 8, contains averments of all the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain an original independent suit by the government to enforce the statute by collecting a fine and foreclosing a lien against the vessel and her equipments, and specifically charges violations of the statute for which the prescribed fine and lien attach to the vessel. These averments and charges are sustained by admissions and by un-contradicted evidence proving that the captain and crew are aliens, and not inhabitants of Alaska; that the vessel was seized by a revenue cutter of the United States while at anchor within Kalekta Bay, Alaska, less than three miles from the shore; that there was then found on board of her shoal water fish recently caught, some of them had been recently salted and others were alive, and fishing lines with sinkers and baited hooks recently used, and there was no fishing rod, spear, or gaff on board. These facts in connection with failure to prove that the fish found on the vessel were obtained elsewhere, independently of the statutory presumption, afford convincing evidence that the fish were taken from the waters of Alaska within the jurisdiction of the United States.
It is contended, however, that only a few fish were found in the vessel, that the vessel was on a sealing cruise, and not engaged in commercial fishing, and that the statute should not be construed as prohibiting fishing by aliens to supply their personal need for food. This ground of defense cannot prevail. The statute is clear and unambiguous. It prohibits aliens from taking any fish in the waters of Alaska "except with rod, spear, or gaff," and the court is not authorized to add other exceptions.
It is not probable that all of the persons composing the crew personally participated in the unlawful fishing, and there is some evidence to the contrary, and no evidence to single out one or more of the crew as individual offenders. Therefore this court holds that there is a failure of proof necessary to justify thd imposition of a fine against either as an individual person. The captain and his crew, however, were an aggregation of persons constituting the ship's company, engaged in an adventure for their common benefit. The law prescribes :
"That every person, company, corporation, or association found guilty of a violation of any provision of this act shall, for each offense, be fined not less than $100, nor more than $500. "
This court holds that, whilst the evidence is insufficient to justify separate punishment of individual members of the crew, the law authorizes the imposition of a single fine against the ship's company in addition to the line imposed against the vessel as a distinct entity, and, in view of all the circumstances alleged and proved, it is our opinion that fines for the aggregate amount of .$1,000, in addition to the large amount of taxable costs, will be reasonable and amply sufficient to vindicate the law in this instance.
The 117 sealskins found on board the vessel were not'used in any way in violation of law, and there is no distinct admission in the pleadings, nor satisfactory evidence proving, that they were owned by either or all of the persons engaged in taking fish unlawfully. Therefore there appears to be no legal ground for holding them subject to a lien for the fines.
The appellant objects to the taxation of costs including the expenses of keeping the property in custody, but without showing any legal ground for exemption from the general rule subjecting defeated litigants to liability for costs and necessary expenses incidental to the litigation; and the court has no authority to relieve him therefrom.
The remaining defensive argument is that:
"By the first and second articles of the treaty between Japan and the United States, concluded November 24, 1S94, proclaimed March, 1895 (29 Stat. 848), the officers and crew of this schooner are given the same rights in Alaskan waters, with reference to fishing, as are given to our own citizens. [And] that statutes which discriminate against aliens, in violation of their treaty rights, az'e void. In re Ah Chong [C. C.] 2 Fed. 783; In re Tiburcio Parrott [C. C.] 1 Fed. 481; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 [6 Sup. Ct. 1064] (30 L. Ed. 220)."
The authorities here cited do no more than-affirm the fundamental principle that state .laws and municipal ordinances may not override national treaties; and they give no sanction to an argument questioning the validity of a national law. The power of Congress to enact laws for subsequent observance is not restricted by prior treaties with foreign nations. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 9 Sup. Ct. 623, 32 L,. Ed. 1068. Moreover, the articles pf the treaty referred to contain no allusion to fishing privileges, and do not purport to grant any right to sea rovers to resort to American fishing grounds for the purpose of taking fish for their own consumption or for any purpose whatever.
The decision of the District Court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded, with directions to vacate the decree appealed from, to release the fur sealskins, arid to enter a new decree for a fine of $500 against the vessel, a fine of $500 against her captain and crew as a company and for costs, and to enforce such decree by appropriate proceedings.