Christ Nielsen v. State of Oregon
| Decision Date | 23 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 593,593 |
| Citation | 212 U.S. 315,53 L.Ed. 528,29 S.Ct. 383 |
| Parties | CHRIST NIELSEN, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Plaintiff in error was convicted in a justice's court of the precinct of Astoria, Clatsop county, Oregon, of maintaining and operating a purse net on the Columbia river, contrary to the statutes of Oregon. This conviction was, by proper proceedings, taken to the supreme court of the state and the judgment affirmed. 95 Pac. 720. From that decision the case has been brought here on error.
According to the agreed statement of facts, plaintiff in error was an actual and bona fide resident and inhabitant of the state of Washington and a citizen of the United States. He had a license from the Fish Commissioner of Washington to operate a purse net on the Columbia river, and was on said river, within the limits of the state of Washington, operating such a purse net at the time he was arrested and prosecuted in the courts of Oregon.
By § 1 of the act of Congress of March 2, 1853 (chap. 90, 10 Stat. at L. 172), all that part of the territory of Oregon lying north of the 'main channel of the Columbia river' was organized into the territory of Washington, and by § 21 of the same act it is provided 'that the territory of Oregon and the territory of Washington shall have concurrent jurisdiction over all offense committed on the Columbia river, where said river forms a common boundary between said territories.' Section 1 of the act of Congress admitting Oregon into the Union (act of Feb. 14, 1859, chap. 33, 11 Stat. at L. 383), after describing in detail the boundaries of the state, provides, 'including jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases upon the Columbia river and Snake river, concurrently with states and territories of which those rivers form a boundary in common with this state.' And in § 2 it is said, 'the said state of Oregon shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Columbia and all other rivers and water bordering on the said state of Oregon so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said state and any other state or states now or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same.'
The legislative assembly of Oregon passed an act, the 1st section of which is as follows:
The 2d section makes one violating any of the provisions of the act guilty of a misdemeanor, and prescribes the penalty. Or. Sess. Laws 1907, p. 154. On the other hand, Washington passed an act (Wash. Sess. Laws 1899, p. 194) the 2d section of which reads as follows:
The prohibition in § 1 referred to does not include the Columbia river. Section 6 of the same act fixes the license fees for all first-class purse seines at $50 and all second-class purse seines at $25.
Messrs. E. C. Macdonald, C. C. Fulton, John D. Atkinson, S. H. Piles, W. P. Bell, H. M. Brooks, and J. B. Alexander for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. A. M. Crawford, I. H. Van Winkle, and Henry H. Gilfrey for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
By the legislation of Congress the Columbia river is made the common boundary between Oregon and Washington, and to each of those states is given concurrent jurisdiction on the waters of that river. How that jurisdiction is to be exercised, what limitations there are, if any, upon the power of either state, is not in terms prescribed. It is true, in the 1st section of the act admitting Oregon, the jurisdiction was apparently limited to 'civil and criminal cases;' but, in the 2d section of that act, there was given in general terms 'concurrent jurisdiction.' In Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 584, 48 L. ed. 570, 575, 66 L.R.A. 833, 840, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322, 324, construing the term 'concurrent jurisdiction,' as given to Kentucky and Indiana over the Ohio river, this court, riversing the court of appeals of Kentucky, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vasquez, In re
...is that a State may not prosecute an individual for a crime committed outside its boundaries. See, e.g., Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 321, 29 S.Ct. 383, 53 L.Ed. 528 (1909); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 673, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892); Commonwealth v. Booth, 266 Mass. 80......
-
Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
...v. Brown, 2 N.C. *100. Dicta can, of course, be found which runs against the Court's holding. See, e.g., Nielsen v. State of Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 320, 29 S.Ct. 383, 384, 53 L.Ed. 528, where this Court said: 'Where an act is * * * prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states, the on......
-
Commonwealth v. Nickerson
...numerous decisions in which the word has been defined or used in a specific sense. It was said in Nielson v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, at page 319, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, at page 384 (53 L. Ed. 528): ‘In Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 584, construing the term ‘concurrent jurisdiction,’ as given t......
-
Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Wash.
...Act of February 14, 1859, § 1, 11 Stat. 383; The Annie M. Smull, 1 Fed.Cas. 983 (No. 423) (D.Or.1872). Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 29 S.Ct. 383, 53 L.Ed. 528 (1909), simply holds that Oregon may not enforce its regulatory laws on the Washington side. It does not question the power of t......
-
Lines in the sand: the importance of borders in American federalism.
...of nations, which the other state concerned justly might resent. Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 355-56 (1909). (43) 212 U.S. 315 (44) Id. at 316. (45) Id. at 321. (46) 474 U.S. 82 (1985). (47) Rosen, Extraterritoriality, supra note 1, at 953 (quoting Heath, 474 U.S. at 91......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...Criminal Law, 22 HASTINGS L.J. 1155 (1971) (Roman criminal law). (47.) See, e.g., KADISH ET AL., supra note 29. (48.) Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 321 (49.) Ferzan, supra note 14, at 336 (comparing extraterritorial bases for international criminal jurisdiction to "the territorial bounda......