Cunard Co v. Mellon Oceanic Steam Nav Co v. Same International Nav Co v. Same Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. Same Steam Nav Co v. Same Liverpool, Brazil River Plate Steam Nav Co v. Same Royal Mail Steam Packet Co v. Same United Co of Copenhagen v. Same Pacific Steam Nav Co v. Same Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Same International Mercantile Marine Co v. Stuart United American Lines v. Same
| Decision Date | 30 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 668,No. 662,No. 694,No. 669,No. 659,No. 693,NETHERLANDS-AMERICAN,No. 666,No. 670,No. 660,No. 678,No. 667,No. 661,659,660,661,662,666,667,668,669,670,678,693,694 |
| Citation | 43 S.Ct. 504,262 U.S. 100,27 A. L. R. 1306,67 L.Ed. 894 |
| Parties | CUNARD S. S. CO., Limited, et al. v. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. OCEANIC STEAM NAV. CO., Limited, v. SAME. INTERNATIONAL NAV. CO., Limited, v. SAME. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE v. SAME. STEAM NAV. CO. v. SAME. LIVERPOOL, BRAZIL & RIVER PLATE STEAM NAV. CO., Limited, v. SAME. ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET CO. v. SAME. UNITED S. S. CO. OF COPENHAGEN v. SAME. PACIFIC STEAM NAV. CO. v. SAME. NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA v. SAME. -Continued. INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE CO. v. STUART, Acting Collector of Customs for Port of New York, et al. UNITED AMERICAN LINES, Inc., et al. v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Argued Jan. 4, 5, 1923. Decided, April 30, 1923.
[Syllabus from pages 101-103 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham, Lucius H. Beers, and F. B. Lord, all of New York City, for appellants Cunard S. S. Co., Limited, and others.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham, Van Vechten Veeder, and R. H. Hupper, all of New York City, for appellant Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., Limited.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham, J. M. Woolsey, and Cletus Keating, all of New York City, for appellant International Nav. Co., Limited.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham and J. P. Nolan, both of New York City, and R. J. Garrity, for appellant Compagnie Generale Transatlantique.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham and Van Vechten Veeder, both of New York City, for appellants Netherlands-American Steam Nav. Co. (Holland America Line) and Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. Co., Limited.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham, Van Vechten Veeder, and Roscoe H. Hupper, all of New York City, for appellants Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., United S. S. Co. of Copenhagen (Scandinavian-American Line) and Pacific Steam Nav. Co.
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham and A. S. Gilbert, both of New York City, for appellant Navigazione Generale Italiana.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 103-116 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Cletus Keating and John M. Woolsey, both of New York City, for appellant International Mercantile Marine Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 116-118 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Reid L. Carr, of New York City, for appellant United American Lines, Inc., and others.
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., and Mrs.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
These are suits by steamship companies operating passenger ships between United States ports and foreign ports to enjoin threatened application to them and their ships of certain provisions of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). The defendants are officers of the United States charged with the act's enforcement. In the first ten cases the plaintiffs are foreign corporations and their ships are of foreign registry, while in the remaining two the plaintiff's are domestic corporations, and their ships are of United States registry. All the ships have long carried and now carry, as part of their sea stores, intoxicating liquors intended to be sold or dispensed to their passengers and crews at meals and otherwise for beverage purposes. Many of the passengers and crews are accustomed to using such beverages and insist that the ships carry and supply liquors for such purposes. By the laws of all the foreign ports at which the ships touch this is permitted and by the laws of some it is required. The liquors are purchased for the ships and taken on board in the foreign ports and are sold or dispensed in the course of all voyages, whether from or to those ports.
The administrative inst uctions dealing with the subject have varied since the National Prohibition Act went into effect. December 11, 1919, the following instructions were issued (T. D. 38218):
'All liquors which are prohibited importation, but which are properly listed as sea stores on vessels arriving in ports of the United States, should be placed under seal by the boarding officer and kept sealed during the entire time of the vessel's stay in port, no part thereof to be removed from under seal for use by the crew at meals or for any other purpose.
'Excessive or surplus liquor stores are no longer dutiable, being prohibited importation, but are subject to seizure and forfeiture.
'Liquors properly carried as sea stores may be returned to a foreign port on the vessel's changing from the foreign to the coasting trade, or may be transferred under supervision of the customs officers from a vessel in foreign trade, delayed in port for any cause, to another vessel belonging to the same line or owner.'
January 27, 1920, the first paragraph of those instructions was changed (T. D. 38248) so as to read:
October 6, 1922, the Attorney General, in answer to an inquiry by the Secretary of the Treasury, gave an opinion to the effect that the National Prohibition Act, construed in connection with the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, makes it unlawful (a) for any ship, whether domestic or foreign, to bring into territorial waters of the United States, or to carry while within such waters, intoxicating liquors intended for beverage purposes, whether as sea stores or cargo, and (b) for any domestic ship even when without those waters to carry such liquors for such purposes either as cargo or sea stores. The President thereupon directed the preparation, promulgation and application of new instructions conforming to that construction of the act. Being advised of this and that under the new instructions the defendants would seize all liquors carried in contravention of the act as so construed and would proceed to subject
the plaintiffs and their ships to penalties provided in the act, the plaintiffs brought these suits.
The hearings in the District Court were on the bills or amended bills, motions to dismiss and answers, and there was a decree of dismissal on the merits in each suit. 284 Fed. 890; International Mercantile Marine v. Stuart, 285 Fed. 79. Direct appeals under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), bring the cases here.
While the construction and application of the National Prohibition Act is the ultimate matter in controversy, the act is so closely related to the Eighteenth Amendment, to enforce which it was enacted, that a right understanding of it involves an examination and interpretation of the amendment. The first section of the latter declares (40 Stat. 1050, 1941):
These words, if taken in their ordinary sense, are very plain. The articles proscribed are intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The acts prohibited in respect of them are manufacture, sale and transportation within a designated field, importation into the same, and exportation therefrom; and the designated field is the United Stat § and all territory subject to its jurisdiction. There is no controversy here as to what constitutes intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes; but opposing contentions are made respecting what is comprehended in the terms 'transportation,' 'importation' and 'territory.'
Some of the contentions ascribe a technical meaning to the words 'transportation' and 'importation.' We think they are to be taken in their ordinary sense, for it better comports with the object to be attained. In that-
sense transportation comprehends any real carrying about or from one place to another. It is not essential that the carrying be for hire, or by one for another; nor that it be incidental to a transfer of the possession or title. If one carries in his own conveyance for his own purposes it is transportation no less than when a public arrier at the instance of a consignor carriers and delivers to a consignee for a stipulated charge. See United States v. Simpson, 252 U. S. 465, 40 Sup. Ct. 364, 64 L. Ed. 665, 10 A. L. R. 510. Importation, in a like sense, consists in bringing an article into a country from the outside. If there be an actual bringing in it is importation regardless of the mode in which it is effected. Entry through a custom house is not of the essence of the act.
Various meanings are sought to be attributed to the term 'territory' in the phrase 'the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' We are of opinion that it means the regional areas—of land and adjacent waters—over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power. The immediate context and the purport of the entire section show that the term is used in a physical and not a metaphorical sense—that it refers to areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries. See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 390, 4 L. Ed. 404.
It now is settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays and other enclosed arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...are foreign territory is a fiction upon which constitutional issues should not rest, even in part. (See Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon (1923) 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504, 67 L.Ed. 894; cf. Foppiano v. Speed (1905) 199 U.S. 501, 519--520, 26 S.Ct. 138, 50 L.Ed. 288.) Though 'the statement (is) som......
-
Schermerhorn v. State
...sense," it is referring to "areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries." Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 100, 122–23, 43 S.Ct. 504, 67 L.Ed. 894 (1923) (holding that a U.S.-flagged vessel was not in the "territory" of the United States for purposes of the Ei......
-
United States v. Whitmore
...12 The territorial waters of the United States extend 3 nautical miles from the coastline. See Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 122-23, 43 S.Ct. 504, 506-07, 67 L.Ed. 894 (1923). See also 43 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(2) (1976). 13 There are no fixed arteries along which ocean border checkpo......
-
Lauritzen v. Larsen
...laws as well, except as we may in pursuance of our own policy forego or limit exertion of our power. Cunard Steamship Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 124, 43 S.Ct. 504, 507, 67 L.Ed. 894. This doctrine would seem to indicate Cuban law for this case. But the territorial standard is so unfitted ......
-
The Illegal Discharge of Oil on the High Seas: The U.S. Coast Guard's Ongoing Battle Against Vessel Polluters and a New Approach Toward Establishing Environmental Compliance
...platforms, or other man-made structures at sea. Id. art. 1(5)(a)(i). 146 Id. arts. 217(1), 218(2); accord Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 123 (1923) (rejecting “law of the flag doctrine” where foreign merchant ships were illegally transporting alcohol into the United States). 147 S......
-
Specific Environmental Statutes
..., 120 U.S. 1, 12 (1887). 117. Constantine J. Colombos, The International Law of the Sea (6th ed. 1967). 118. Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 124 (1923). Page 138 Environmental Crimes Deskbook 2nd Edition disturbs the peace and tranquility of the port, then international law has lon......
-
Endangered Species at Sea: Applying the ESA to Maritime Jurisdictions
...Relations Law §512 (1987). 21. See generally Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812); Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 124 (1923). 22. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, art. 17, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397, 405 [hereinafter UNCLOS]. 51 ELR ......
-
Statutory Civil Rights - Elizabeth J. Norman and Jacob E. Daly
...1241 n.5. 578. Id. at 1241. 579. Id. at 1241-42. 580. Id. at 1242. 581. Id. 582. Id. 583. Id. 584. Id. (quoting Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 128 (1923)). 585. Id. at 1242-43. 586. Id. at 1243. The court declined to decide whether international treaties or conventions governing s......