| Content Description
|
... (title continues) Charged with murder & robbery (piracy) on board the Spanish Schooner 'Amistad'- The offense committed by foreigners, on the high seas, & on board a vessel belonging exclusively to subjects of foreign states... Have the Courts of the U.S. jurisdiction of the offense?" Contains a summary of the results of several cases, and how their verdicts affect the Amistad case. Cases include: U.S. v. Palmer et al. 3 Wheat 610, U.S. v. Pirates 5. Wheat 195, U.S. v. Keesler 91 Baldwin's Rep, U.S. v. Davis 2 Sumner's Rep 482, and 5 Halls Am Law Journal 459 case of the Almeda. A closing summery states: "Every nation has an exclusive in the jurisdiction at sea, over its own subjects, in its own vessels, and to this extent territorial jurisdiction may be said to be presumed. Vessels being considered as portions of territory--"
|
| Transcript
|
Show/hide [Draft] [United] States Cinque & others charged with murder & robbery (piracy) on board the Spanish schooner "Amistad." The offense committed by foreigners, on the high seas, & on board a vessel belonging exclusively to subjects of a foreign state. [illegible]- Have the Courts of the U.S. jurisdiction of the offense? U.S. v Palmer et al. 3. Wheat [or] 610. The dep[onen]ts were citizens of the U.S. (viz) Boston, were indicted for piracy, for robbing a foreign vessel, on the high seas. The Courts say, that the crime of robbery committed on the high seas, on board of any ship or vessel belonging to subjects of a foreign State is not an offence against the laws of the U.S. & is not punishable in their Courts. In US v Pirates 5. Wheat or 195 Indictment for murder & piracy committed on board a foreign vessel. The Courts say "That the Courts of the U.S. have not jurisdiction of a murder committed by one foreigner on another foreigner, both being on board a foreign vessel. Also- "Of offenses committed on the high seas on board of foreign vessels, belonging to persons under the acknowledged government of a foreign country, the Courts of the U.S. have no jurisdiction. In LS. v Kessler. I Baldwin's Rep[orts]. Dep[onen]t a citizen of the U.S. [strikeout] murdered the captain [illegible] vessel, ran away with the vessel, robbed it of $20.000 in specie, scuttled & sunk it. Indictment for piracy. Held- that the Court had no jurisdiction of the offense. LS. V Davis 2 Sumner's Rep[urts]. 482. Indictment for manslaughter. Dep[onen]t was master of ship Rase. an American whale ship, while lying at one of Society Islands a schooner belonging to persons, residents of one of the said Islands, lay along side said ship & was tied to her. A musket in the hands of dep[onen]t was discharged, (whether purposely or accidentally, did not appear) & killed a person on board the schooner. Story held that the offense was committed on board the schooner- and upon the principle of the foregoing cases that the Courts of the US States had no jurisdiction of the offence. Whether an offence is committed within or without a marine league of the coast of the United States, is of no importance to the question of jurisdiction. 1 Baldwin R[eports], Nothing is added to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the U.S. by reason of an offence having been committed within a marine league of their coast. & nothing is taken from it by reason of its having been committed within the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government within a marine league of the shore. if done on the high seas, which are held to be any waters on the sea coast, without the boundaries of the [low] water mark. Every nation has an exclusive in the jurisdiction at sea, over its own subjects, in its own vessels. And to this extent territorial jurisdiction may be said to be presumed, vessels being considered as portions of territory. 5 Halls Am[erican] Law Journal 459 Case of the Almeida
|
