United States v. Bowman, 69

Decision Date13 November 1922
Docket NumberNo. 69,69
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BOWMAN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Solicitor General James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error under the Criminal Appeals Act (34 Stat. c. 2564, p. 1246 [Comp. St. § 1704]) to review the ruling of the District Court sustaining a demurrer of one of the defendants to an indictment for a conspiracy to defraud a corporation in which the United States was and is a stockholder, under section 35 of the Criminal Code, as amended October 23, 1918 (40 Stat. 1015 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 10199]).

During the period covered by the indictment, i. e., between October, 1919, and January, 1920, the steamship Dio belonged to the United States. The United States owned all the stock in the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. The National Shipping Corporation agreed to operate and manage the Dio for the Fleet Corporation, which under the contract was to pay for fuel, oil, labor, and material used in the operation. The Dio was on a voyage to Rio Janeiro under this management. Wry was her master, Bowman was her engineer, Hawkinson was the agent of the Standard Oil Company at Rio Janeiro, and Millar was a merchant and ship repairer and engineer in Rio. Of these four, who were the defendants in the indictment, the first three were American citizens, and Millar was a British subject. Johnston & Co. were the agents of the National Shipping Corporation at Rio. The indictment charged that the plot was hatched by Wry and Bowman on board the Dio before she reached Rio. Their plan was to order, through Johnston & Co., and receipt for, 1,000 tons of fuel oil from the Standard Oil Company, but to take only 600 tons aboard, and to collect cash for a delivery of 1,000 tons through Johnston & Co., from the Fleet Corporation, and then divide the money paid for the undelivered 400 tons among the four defendants. This plan was to be, and was, made possible through the guilty connivance of the Standard Oil agent, Hawkinson, and Millar, the Rio merchant, who was to, and did, collect the money. Overt acts charged included a wireless telegram to the agents, Johnston & Co., from the Dio while on the high seas ordering the 1,000 tons of oil. The Southern District of New York was the district into which the American defendants were first brought and were found, but Millar, the British defendant, has not been found.

The first count charged a conspiracy by the defendants to defraud the Fleet Corporation, in which the United States was a stockholder, by obtaining and aiding to obtain the payment and allowance of a false and fraudulent claim against the Fleet Corporation. It laid the offense on the high seas, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, and out of the jurisdiction of any district of the United States, but within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The second count laid the conspiracy on the Dio on the high seas and at the port of Rio Janeiro, as well as in the city. The third count laid it in the city of Rio Janeiro. The fourth count was for making and causing to be made in the name of the Standard Oil Company, for payment and approval, a false and fraudulent claim against the Fleet Corporation in the form of an invoice for 1,000 tons of fuel oil, of which 400 tons were not delivered. This count laid the same crime on board the Dio in the harbor of Rio Janeiro. The fifth count laid it in the city, and the sixth at the port and in the city.

No objection was made to the indictment or any count of it for lack of precision of fulness in describing all the elements of the crimes denounced in section 35 of the Criminal Code as amended. The sole objection was that the crime was committed without the jurisdiction of the United States or of any state thereof and on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of Brazil. The District Court considered only the first count, which charged the conspiracy to have been committed on the Dio on the high seas, and, having held that bad for lack of jurisdiction, a fortiori it sustained the demurrer as the others.

The court in its opinion conceded that under many authorities the United States as a sovereign may regulate the ships under its flag and the conduct of its citizens while on those ships, and cited to this point Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610, 623-632, 21 L. Ed. 430; United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 260, 261, 264, 265, 14 Sup. Ct. 109, 37 L. Ed. 1071; The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 403, 405, 28 Sup. Ct. 133, 52 L. Ed. 264; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 53 L. Ed. 826, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 574, 26 L. Ed. 234; United States v. Smiley, 6 Sawyer, 640, 645, Fed Cas. No. 16,317. The court said, however, that while private and public ships of the United States on the high seas were constructively a part of the territory of the United States—indeed, peculiarly so, as distinguished from that of the States—Congress had always expressly indicated it when it intended that its laws should be operative on the high seas. The court concluded that, because jurisdiction of criminal offenses must be conferred upon United States courts and could not be inferred, and because section 35, like all the other sections of chapter 4 (Comp. St. §§ 10191-10252), contains no reference to the high seas as a part of the locus of the offense defined by it, as the sections in chapters 11 and 12 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. §§ 10445-10483a) do, section 35 must be construed not to extend to acts committed on the high seas. It confirmed its conclusion by the statement that section 35 had never been invoked to punish offenses denounced, if committed on the high seas or in a foreign country.

We have in this case a question of statutory construction. The necessary locus, when not specially defined, depends upon the purpose of Congress as evinced by the description and nature of the crime and upon the territorial limitations upon the power and jurisdiction of a government to punish crime under the law of nations. Crimes against private individuals or their property, like assaults, murder, burglary, larceny, robbery, arson, embezzlement, and frauds of all kinds, which affect the peace and good order of the community must, of course, be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the government where it may properly exercise it. If punishment of them is to be extended to include those committed out side of the strict territorial jurisdiction, it is natural for Congress to say so in the statute, and failure to do so will negative the purpose of Congress in this regard. We have an example of this in the attempted application of the prohibitions of the antitrust law to acts done by citizens of the United States against other such citizens in a foreign country. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 53 L. Ed. 826, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047. That was a civil case, but as the statute is criminal as well as civil, it appears an analogy.

But the same rule of interpretation should not be applied to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for the government's jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the government to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud wherever perpetrated, especially if committed by its own citizens, officers, or agents. Some such offenses can only be committed within the territorial jurisdiction diction of the government because of the local acts required to constitute them. Others are such that to limit their locus to the strictly territorial jurisdiction would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
222 cases
  • United States v. Hayes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 14 Junio 1979
    ...the high seas and foreign countries, but allow it to be inferred from the nature of the offense. See United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922). ". . . A criminal statute dealing with acts that are directly injurious to the government, and are capable of perp......
  • U.S. v. Black, No. 05 CR 727.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 21 Diciembre 2006
    ...the United States." EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922) (criminal statutes can apply to act outside the United States where Congress so intended). The issue of whether ......
  • United States v. Ahmed
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 24 Marzo 2015
    ...'the right of the government to defend itself.'" United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 72 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98-100 (1922)). Although Defendants are correct that one line in Siddiqui, if taken out of context, is no longer good law, there is no reaso......
  • United States v. Skinner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 10 Marzo 2021
    ...from the nature of the offense.’ " United States v. Ayesh , 702 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Bowman , 260 U.S. 94, 97–98, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922) ). If limiting the prohibition to only domestic conduct would "greatly ... curtail the scope and usefulness o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Update: 'Tourre' Extends SEC’s Reach For Foreign Transactions Involving Domestic Offerings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 Julio 2013
    ...No. 10-521 (2d Cir.). 26 United States v. Vilar, No. 10-521, Dk. No. 178, Brief of Appellant Alberto Vilar (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2011). 27 260 U.S. 94 28 United States v. Vilar, No. 10-521, Dk. No. 215, Brief for the United States of America at 97 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2012). 29 United States v. M......
  • Update: Tourre Extends SEC's Reach For Foreign Transactions Involving Domestic Offerings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 16 Septiembre 2013
    ...No. 10-521 (2d Cir.). 26 United States v. Vilar, No. 10-521, Dk. No. 178, Brief of Appellant Alberto Vilar (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2011). 27 260 U.S. 94 28 United States v. Vilar, No. 10-521, Dk. No. 215, Brief for the United States of America at 97 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2012). 29 United States v. M......
  • Southern District of New York Limits Application of Morrison in Criminal Case
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 29 Julio 2011
    ...deliberations are scheduled to take place in late July. Learn more about our Securities Litigation & Enforcement practice. Footnote 260 U.S. 94, 98 Visit us at mayerbrown.com Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the M......
11 books & journal articles
  • Extraterritoriality and political heterogeneity in American federalism.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 150 No. 3, January 2002
    • 1 Enero 2002
    ...law are rightfully involved in "norm management," "expressing social values," and "shifting social norms"). (96) United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (97) Id. (emphasis added). (98) Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 281-85 (1911). (99) Commonwealth v. Welch, 187 N.E.2d 813, 816 (Mass. ......
  • Johan D. Van Der Vyver, Prosecuting Offenses Against the Law of Nations in the United States
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory International Law Reviews No. 20-2, December 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...note 33, at 275-76. 105 Yunis, 924 F.2d at 1091. See also Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922). 106 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES Sec. 403 (1987). 107 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350. 108 Torture Vict......
  • Admiralty & maritime law - Ninth Circuit relocates "high seas" under Death on the High Seas Act.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2013
    • 22 Marzo 2013
    ...with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates)."); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 96 (1922) ("[Defendant] laid the offense [in the present case] on the high seas, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, and out of......
  • Territorial Jurisdiction in Ohio Post-Wogenstahl.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 3, March 2021
    • 22 Marzo 2021
    ...note 19, at [section] 16.4(c); infra text accompanying notes 76-77; discussion of statutes expanding jurisdiction infra Part II. (57.) 260 U.S. 94 (58.) See id. at 98. (59.) Id. (60.) Id. at 99. (61.) Id. at 99-100. (62.) 313 U.S. 69 (1941). (63.) Id. at 69-70. Florida actually claimed that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT