¹ See comment in this Journal , Vol. 21 (1927), p. 505.

² Decision rendered January 23, 1933. For discussion of the liquor treaties, see this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), pp. III , 340, 444, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 505; Revue de Droit International et de législation Comparée, 3d series, Vol. 7, p. 371; Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters, chs. 6-7.

³ “ Sec. 581. Boarding Vessels. Officers of the customs or of the Coast Guard, and agents or other persons authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury, or appointed for that purpose in writing by a collector may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within four leagues of the coast of the United States, without as well as within their respective districts, to examine the manifest and to inspect, search, and examine the vessel or vehicle, and every part thereof, and any person, trunk, or package on board, and to this end to hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, if under way, and use all necessary force to compel compliance, and if it shall appear that any breach or violation of the laws of the United States has been committed, whereby or in consequence of which such vessel or vehicle, or the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of or imported by such vessel or vehicle is liable to forfeiture, it shall be the duty of such officer to make seizure of the same, and to arrest, or, in case of escape or attempted escape, to pursue and arrest any person engaged in such breach or violation. ” 46 U. 8. Stat. L. 590, 747.

⁴ “ See. 584. Falsity or Lack of Manifest. Penalties. Any master of any vessel and any person in charge of any vehicle bound to the United States who does not produce the manifest to the officer demanding the same shall be liable to a penalty of $500, and if any merchandise, including sea stores, is found on board of or after having been unladen from such vessel or vehicle which is not included or described in said manifest or does not agree therewith, the master of such vessel or the person in charge of such vehicle or the owner of such vessel or vehicle shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of the merchandise so found or unladen, and any such merchandise belonging or consigned to the master or other officer or to any of the crew of such vessel, or to the owner or person in charge of such vehicle, shall be subject to forfeiture, and if any merchandise described in such manifest is not found on board the vessel or vehicle the master or other person in charge or the owner of such vessel or vehicle shall be subject to a penalty of $500. . . . ” 46 U. S. Stat. L. 590, 748. “ Sec. 594. Libel of Vessels and Vehicles. Whenever a vessel or vehicle, or the owner or master, conductor, driver, or other person in charge thereof, has become subject to a penalty for violation of the customs-revenue laws of the United States, such vessel or vehicle shall be held for the payment of such penalty and may be seized and proceeded against summarily by libel to recover the same. . . . ” 46 U. S. Stat. L. 590, 751. The District Court dismissed the libel. (51 F. (2d), 292. ) The Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the decree of the District Court and remanded the case. (56 F. (2d), 921. ) The case was taken to the Supreme Court on certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals. (53 S. Ct. 10. )

⁵ 41 U. S. Stat. L. 305.

⁶ 43 U. S. Stat. L. 1761; this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), Supp. , p. 127

⁷ “ The main question for decision is whether Section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930, c. 497, 46 Stat. 590, 747 (19 USCA §1581), is modified, as applied to British vessels suspected of being engaged in smuggling liquors into the United States, by the treaty between this country and Great Britain proclaimed May 22, 1924 (43 Stat. 1761). ” The Mazel Tov (Cook ʋ. United States), 53 S. Ct. 305, 306.

⁸ See Act of 1790, §§9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31 (1 U. S. Stat. L. 145, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164); Act of 1799, §§23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 54 (1 U. S. Stat. L. 627, 644, 646, 647, 648, 668); Act of 1866, §25 (14 U. S. Stat. L. 178, 184); U. S. Rev. Stat. , §§2760, 2806, 2809, 2811, 2814, 2867, 2868, 3067; Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters, 80.

⁹ See U. S. For. Rel. (1875), Pt. I, 649; ibid. (1912), 1287.

¹⁰ See Jessup, , The Law of Territorial Waters, 75-112; Research in International Law (1929), 241, 333; 40 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 12. Google Scholar

¹¹ Reënacted in identical terms as Sec. 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (see note 3, supra). See also Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters, 212; The Mazel Toʋ (Cook ʋ. United States), 63 S. Ct. 305, 309.

¹² The earlier statutes have been called “ hovering acts” ; but it is believed that a distinction should be made between protective legislation applicable to inbound vessels only and legislation which seeks to penalize foreign vessels for facilitating violations of the territorial law by hovering off the coast.

¹³ The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed and vessel and cargo were released. It is to be assumed, of course, that similar treaties with other countries will be construed in the same way. Similar treaties have been concluded with Norway, July 2, 1924 (43 U. S. Stat. L. 1772); Denmark, July 25, 1924 (43 ibid. 1809); Germany, Aug. 11, 1924 (43 ibid. 1815); Sweden, Aug. 18, 1924 (43 ibid. 1830); Italy, Oct. 22, 1924 (43 ibid. 1844); Panama, Jan. 19, 1925 (43 ibid. 1875); Netherlands, April 8, 1925 (44 ibid. 2013); Cuba, June 19, 1926 (44 ibid. 2395); Spain, Nov. 17, 1926 (44 ibid. 2465); France, March 12, 1927 (45 ibid. 2403); Belgium, Jan. 11, 1928 (45 ibid. 2456); Greece, Feb. 18, 1929 (45 ibid. 2736); Japan, Jan. 16, 1930 (46 ibid. 2446); Poland, Aug. 8, 1930 (46 ibid. 2773); and Chile, Nov. 26, 1930 (46 ibid. 2852).

¹⁴ “The treaty, being later in date than the Act of 1922, superseded, so far as inconsistent with the terms of the act, the authority which had been conferred by Section 581 upon officers of the Coast Guard to board, search, and seize beyond our territorial waters. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386. For in a strict sense the treaty was self-executing, in that no legislation was necessary to authorize executive action pursuant to its provisions. ” (53 S. Ct. 305, 311. )

¹⁵ “Shortly after the treaty took effect, the Treasury Department issued amended instructions for the Coast Guard which pointed out, after reciting the provisions of Section 581, that ‘ in cases of special treaties, the provisions of those treaties shall be complied with’ and called attention particularly to the recent treaties dealing with the smuggling of intoxicating liquors. The Commandant of the Coast Guard, moreover, was informed in 1927, as the Solicitor General states, that all seizures of British vessels captured in the rumsmuggling trade should be within the terms of the treaty, and that seizing officers should be instructed to produce evidence, not that the vessel was found within the four-league limit, but that she was apprehended within one hour's sailing distance from the coast. ” (53 S. Ct. 305, 311. )

¹⁶ “ The treaty was not abrogated by re-enacting Section 581 in the Tariff Act of 1930 in the identical terms of the Act of 1922. A treaty will not be deemed to have been abrogated or modified by a later statute, unless such purpose on the part of Congress has been clearly expressed. Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536, 5 S. Ct. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770; United States v. Payne, 264 U. S. 446, 448, 44 S. Ct. 352, 68 L. Ed. 782. Here, the contrary appears. The committee reports and the debates upon the Act of 1930, like the re-enacted section itself, make no reference to the treaty of 1924. Any doubt as to the construction of the section should be deemed resolved by the consistent departmental practice existing before its re-enactment. ” (53 S. Ct. 305, 311. )

¹⁷ 1153 S. Ct. 305, 311-312.

¹⁸ See The Richmond, 9 Cr. 102; The Merino, 9 Wh. 391; The Tenyu Maru, 4 Alaska, 129; The Grace and Ruby, 283 Fed. 475; The Homestead, 7 F. (2d), 413; 40 Harv. L. Kev. 1, 10.

¹⁹ 53 S. Ct. 305, 312.

²⁰ 53 S. Ct. 305, 312.