Court Opinion

ID: 8639524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:52.106936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.172889
License: Public Domain

FIELD, Circuit Justice.
We are not prepared to decide that the statute does not apply to a case where the vessel has gone to *1134pieces, to which the goods belonged, of which larceny is alleged. It would fall of one of its objects if it did not extend to goods which the officers and men of a stranded or wrecked vessel had succeeded in getting ashore, so long as a claim is made by them to the property, though before its removal the vessel may have been broken up. We are inclined to the conclusion that, until the goods are removed from the place where landed, or thrown ashore, from the stranded or wrecked vessel, or cease to be under the charge of the officers or other parties interested, the act would apply if a larceny of them were committed, even though the vessel may in the meantime have gone entirely to pieces and disappeared from the sea. But in this case the treasure taken had ceased to be under the charge of the officers of the Golden Gate, or of its underwriters, when the expedition of Smiley was fitted out, and all efforts to recover the property had been given up by them. The treasure was then in the situation of derelict or abandoned property, which could be acquired by any one who might have the energy and enterprise to seek its recovery. In our judgment the act was no more intended to reach cases where property thus abandoned is recovered, than to reach property voluntarily thrown into the sea, and afterwards fished from its depths.
But if the act covered a case where the property was recovered after its abandonment by the officers of the vessel and others interested in it, we are clear that the circuit court has not jurisdiction of the offense here charged. The treasure recovered was buried in the sand, several feet under the water, and was within one hundred and fifty feet from the shore of Mexico. The jurisdiction of that country over all offences committed within a marine league of its shore, not on a vessel of another nation, was complete and exclusive.
Wheaton, in his treatise on International Law, after observing that “the maritime territory of every state extends to the ports, harbprs, bays, and mouths of rivers and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by headlands, belonging to the same state,” says: “The general usage of nations superadds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon-shot will reach from the shore, along all the coasts of the state. Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and exclude those of every other nation.” Part 2, c. 4, § 6.
The criminal jurisdiction of the government of the United States—that is, its jurisdiction to try parties for offenses committed against its laws—may in some instances extend to its citizens everywhere. Thus, it may punish for violation of treaty stipulations by its citizens abroad, for offenses committed in foreign countries where, by treaty, jurisdiction is conceded for that purpose, as in some cases in China and in the Barbary States; it may provide for offences committed on deserted islands, and on an uninhabited coast, by the officers and seamen of vessels sailing under its flag. It may also punish derelictions of duty by its ministers or consuls, and other representatives abroad. But in all such cases it will be found that the law of congress indicates (dearly the extraterritorial character of the act at which punishment is aimed. Except in cases like these, the criminal jurisdiction of the United States is necessarily limited to their' own territory, actual or constructive. Their actual territory is co-extensive with their possessions, including a marine league from their shores into the sea.
This limitation of a marine league was adopted because it was formerly supposed that a cannon-shot would only reach to that extent It is essential that the absolute domain of a country should extend into the sea so far as necessary for the protection of its inhabitants against injury from combating belligerents while the country itself is neutral. Since the great improvement of modem times in ordnance, the distance of a marine league, which is a little short of three English miles, may, perhaps, have to be extended so as to equal the reach of the projecting power of modem artillery. The constructive territory of the United States embraces vessels sailing under their flag; wherever they go they carry the laws of their country, and for a violation of them their officers and men may be subjected to punishment But when a vessel is destroyed, and goes to the bottom, the jurisdiction of the country over it necessarily ends, as much so as it would over an island which should sink into the sea.
In this case it appears that the Golden Gate was broken up.; not a vestige of the vessel remained. Whatever was afterwards done with reference to property once on board of her, which had disappeared under the sea, was done out of the jurisdiction of the United States, as completely as though the steamer had never existed.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the circuit court has no jurisdiction to try the offense charged, even if, under the facts admitted by the parties, any offense was committed. According to the stipulation, judgment sustaining the demurrer will be, therefore, entered, and the defendants discharged.