We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
The sinking on the high seas of the Canadian registered schooner I’m Alone as a suspected rum runner resisting boarding for enquiry (visit and search) by the United States Coast Guard patrol boat Dexter after a two days chase from a point a short distance off the coast of Louisiana, has given rise to considerable discussion in the press of the United States and Great Britain, and suggests several interesting questions of international law and treaty construction.
1 See the Convention between the United States and Great Britain for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, signed January 23, 1924, Treaty Series 685; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 18, p. 127; infra, p. 353. Since! the foregoing was written a press despatch carries an apparently informed statement fixing the distance of the I’m Alone from the coast as between ten and eleven miles.
2 U. S. Daily, March 26, 1929.
3 U. S. Daily, March 29, 1929.
4 Associated Press despatch, Washington Evening Star, March 27, 1929. (Later) The Canadian Minister has filed a formal communication with the Department of State. U. S. Daily, April 10, 1928.
5 New York Times despatch, March 26, 1929.
6 Associated Press despatch, March 27, 1929.
7 U. S. Code, Sec. 481, Customs Law of Sept. 21, 1922, Chap. 356, Title 4, Sec. 581, 42 Statutes 979; see also U. S. Code, Sec. 488, Customs Law of Sept. 21, 1922, Chap. 356, Title 4, Sec. 586, 42 Statutes 980; Criminal Code, Sec. 37, U. S. Code Title 18, Sec. 88. (The criminal proceedings against the captain and the crew of the I’m Alone have been dismissed. U. S. Daily, April 10, 1928.)
7a The convention, which was agreed to after a favorable report by the British Imperial Conference (Jessup, p. 289, note 16), is regarded as applicable to Canadian registered vessels. See Ford v. United States (1927), 273 U. S. 593, at 603.
8 Convention between the United States and Great Britain for the Prevention of the Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, signed Jan. 23, 1924, proclaimed May 22, 1924, Treaty Series No. 685; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 18, p. 127.
9 International law and convention with Great Britain, Art. 1.
10 U. S. Code, Sec. 481.
11 Convention with Great Britain, Art. 2, paragraph 3.
12 Oppenheim, International Law, 2nd ed., p. 336.
13 The authorities in regard to the doctrine of hot pursuit are collected in Jessup, Law of Territorial Waters (1927), pp. 106-110; Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. 1, pp. 420–421; Dickinson, “Jurisdiction at the Maritime Frontier,” Harvard Law Review, November, 1926, p. 1 at p. 21, notes 80 and 81. See particularly Hall, International Law, 8th ed. (1924), p. 309, 4th ed. (1895), p. 266; Westlake, International Law, 2d ed. (1904), Part 1, p. 177; Woolsey, International Law, 6th ed. (1891), p. 71; Oppenheim, International Law, 2d ed. (1912), p. 336; address of Secretary Hughes before the Council of Foreign Relations, New York, Jan. 23, 1924, this Journal, Vol. 18, p. 229 at p. 232; “Rules on the Definition and Regime of the Territorial Sea” adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1894, Resolutions of the Institute of International Law, edited by Dr. James Brown Scott, Oxford University Press (1916), p. 113 at p. 115; Amended Draft Convention communicated to various governments by the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, with questionnaire No. 2, Jan. 22, 1926, League of Nations Document C 196 M 70, 1927, V, p. 72, Art. 10; The North (1905), 11 British Columbia Law Reports, p. 473, affirmed (1906), 37 Canada Supreme Court Reports, p. 385; the Marianna Flora (1926), 11 Wheaton 1, star p. 42; the Rosalie M. (1925), D. C., S. D. Texas, 2 Fed. (2d), p. 815 at p. 816; the Homestead (1925), 7 Fed. (2d), p. 413 at p. 415; the Vinces (1927), 20 Fed. (2d), p. 164 at p. 167; United States v. The Resolution, decided Jan. 23, 1929, D. C., E. D., La.; the case of the Itata, Moore’s Digest of International Law, Sec. 316, Vol. 2, p. 986, Moore’s Digest of International Arbitrations, Vol. 3, pp. 3067–3071.
14 British note of September 27, 1923, press release Feb. 20, 1927, quoted by Jessup, p. 288.
15 Ford v. the United States (1927), 273 U. S. 593 at 609. See summary of correspondence leading up to the treaty, Jessup, Chap. 6, pp. 279–289.
16 The Vinces (1927), 20 Fed. (2d), 164, at 174–175.
17 The case of the Vinces on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals appears as Gillam v. United States (1928), 27 Fed. (2d), 296 at 299.
18 Canada Supreme Court Reports, 385 at 394; see discussion of this case in Jessup, Territorial Waters, pp. 107–108.
19 Hall, , International Law, 4th ed., p. 267, 8th ed., p. 309.Google Scholar
20 Argument of Sir Charles Russell, Attorney General of Great Britain, in the Fur Seal Arbitration. 13 Proceedings, p. 300, p. 1079 of the original report.
21 United States Coast Guard statement, March 28th, U. S. Daily, March 29, 1929.
23 See Moore’s Digest of International Law, Sec. 316, Vol. 2, p. 985; Moore’s Digest of International Arbitrations, Vol. 3, pp. 3067–3071.
23 Resolutions of the Institute of International Law edited by Dr. James Brown Scott, Oxford University Press, 1916, p. 113 at 115; see Hyde, p. 421.
24 Oppenheim, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1912, Sec. 268, p. 337; see also Hall, Secs. 273–275, 4th ed., pp. 754–757.
27 See Jessup, p. 349, citing the Federal cases. The case of the Vinces, both in the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, should now be added to those holding that the treaty is not exclusive. Mr. Jessup invokes a passage in Secretary Hughes’ note to the British Embassy of July 19, 1923, as a “conclusive answer” to this view. See Professor Dickinson’s earlier views to the effect that the treaty is not exclusive, this Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 111–117; see also Masterson, Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas, p. 360.
26 Jessup, Law of Territorial Waters, pp. 56, 60, 80–86, etc.
27 Hyde, , International Law, 1922, Sec. 235, p. 417 Google Scholar.
28 Dickinson, , “Jurisdiction at the Maritime Frontier,” Harvard Law Review, November, 1926, p. 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Jessup, , p. 352 Google Scholar.
30 United States v. Ford (1927), 273 U. S. 593 at 610. For an analysis of the cases in the lower Federal Courts on this point preceding the observation of the United States Supreme Court in Ford v. the United States and a discussion of the principles involved, see Jessup, Law of Territorial Waters, Chap. VII; Dickinson, this Journal, Vol. 20, p. 114, p. 444; Masterson, Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas, pp. 368–370; U. S. Treasury Decisions, Vol. 49, p. 937, No. 41613.
31 See Annual Report of Attorney General of the United States, 1926; Jessup, pp. 300–316.
32 See the Convention between the United States and Great Britain for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, signed January 23, 1924, Treaty Series No. 685; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 18, p. 127.
33 Twiss, , Law of Nations, Vol. 1, Sec. 181, p. 263; Lawrence’s Wheaton, 2d ed., p. 323 Google Scholar.
