Skiriotes v. State

Decision Date06 September 1940
Citation144 Fla. 220,197 So. 736
PartiesSKIRIOTES v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

En Banc.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; John U. Bird, Judge.

Lambiris Skiriotes was convicted of using diving apparatus in the taking of sponge from the Gulf of Mexico, and he brings certiorari.

Writ denied.

COUNSEL

W. B. Dickenson and Dickenson & Dickenson, all of Tampa, for petitioner.

George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., and William Fisher, Jr., Asst Atty. Gen., for respondent.

OPINION

TERRELL Chief Justice.

Lambiris Skiriotes was tried and convicted in the County Court of Pinellas County for using diving apparatus in the taking of sponge from the Gulf of Mexico contrary to Section 8087 Compiled General Laws of 1927. His conviction was on appeal affirmed by the Circuit Court so he petitions this court to review it by certiorari.

Three questions are urged for determination but all turn on that of whether the provisions of the Constitution of 1885, article 1, fixing the western boundary of Florida at three marine leagues (nine nautical miles) from the shore is violative of the Constitution of the United States, including treaties and executive orders made pursuant to the Federal Constitution.

There is no dispute about the facts. It is admitted that the alleged offense was committed within the State if the boundary as fixed by the Constitution of 1885 is controlling. The case was tried by the court on waiver of jury and stipulation as to material facts. Petitioner contends that the marine boundary of the State is fixed by international law at one marine league from shore and that the offense was committed beyond this limit.

By the tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution the States reserved all rights and powers which they did not in terms surrender to the United States. In Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240, 11 S.Ct. 559, 35 L.Ed. 159, the Supreme Court approved the doctrine that a State may determine its own marine boundaries provided it does not exceed the limits recognized by the law of nations. For the purpose of fixing marine boundaries in this country, the states may be considered as nations. As a practical matter, the marine boundary of a State may be fixed by the latter with the approval of Congress and may not be limited to one marine league.

At the time of the Revolution, each state was an independent nation and determined its marine boundary. Such was the practice of each state subsequently admitted to the Union. In the absnece of affirmative action on this point the Supreme Court of the United States has generally assumed the sovereignty of the state to extend one marine league from shore. This distance was fixed because it was at the time considered to be the range of a cannon shot and that the state should be permitted to protect that distance from its shore. This distance has in many instances been increased within reason and we find nothing in the law of nations to forbid it.

The western boundary of Florida was fixed at three marine leagues from the mainland by the Constitution of 1868, article 1. In June of the same year, but after the adoption of the Constitution, Congress passed an act admitting Florida and other southern states to the Union, 15 Stat. 73, the said act making reference to the Constitution of 1868. The Constitution of 1885 repeated the boundary defined in the Constitution of 1868 and the latter has continued to be the boundary to the present.

The petitioner contends that the act of Congress readmitting Florida to the Union did not constitute an approval of the boundary but that if it did, such approval was subsequently withdrawn by treaties entered into between the United States and certain foreign countries, including executive orders made by the President and the Cabinet, all of which referred to the boundary of the United States as three marine leagues from the mainland.

It is true that by international law, one marien league is generally considered the distance over which a nation has exclusive jurisdiction, and such waters are considered as under the jurisdiction of the sovereign, but it has never been determined that such limits were final. Treaties and legislative acts passed pursuant to the Constitution are clothed with equal dignity and by the Constitution are made the supreme law of the land. This of course presupposes that they relate to the same subject. The State of Florida was not a party to any of the treaties or executive orders relied on by petitioner and none of them has any reference to the boundary of Florida. Such as they did connote it was one marine league from shore.

Petitioner also contends that if Florida can extend its boundaries to three marine leagues from shore, then there is no limit to the extent they may be extended. The answer to this question is that such extensions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Skiriotes v. State of Florida
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1941
    ...of a state statute. Compiled General Laws of Florida (1927), Section 8087. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida (197 So. 736) and the case comes here on The case was tried without a jury and the facts were stipulated. The statute, the text of which is set forth in the......
  • State v. Farroba
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1942
    ... ... than three leagues distant from the southern shore line of ... the parish, and between the eastern and western boundaries of ... the parish ... Another ... interesting decision on this subject was rendered by the ... Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Skiriotes v. State of ... Florida, 144 Fla. 220, 197 So. 736, and was affirmed by the ... Supreme Court of the United States in Skiriotes v. State of ... Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 61 S.Ct. 924, 930, 85 L.Ed. 1193. The ... defendant in that case also was prosecuted for violating the ... statute forbidding ... ...
  • Mounier v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1965
    ...4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.3 P. C. Lissenden v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 632.4 Cf. Skiriotes v. State, 144 Fla. 220, 197 So. 736, affirmed Skiriotes v. State of Florida, 313 U.S. 69. 61 Sup.Ct. 924, 85 L.Ed. 1193, rehearing denied 313 U.S. 599, 61 Sup.Ct. 10......
  • York v. State Ex Rel. Jones
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1940

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