The King v. the "North"

1908 American Journal of International Law  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW U. S., 453, 465. It is not necessary to consider what limits there may be to the doctrine, for we think it plain that where, as here, the jurisdiction of the case depends upon the establishment of a " tort only in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States," it is impossible for the courts to declare an act a tort of that kind when the Executive, Congress and the treaty-making power all have adopted the act. We see no reason to doubt that the ratification extended to the conduct of General Brooke. But we do not dwell longer upon the ratification of what was done during the military occupation of Cuba, or consider the question whether the ratification was needed, because we agree with the opinion of the Secretary of War that the plaintiff had no property that survived the extinction of the sovereignty of Spain. The emoluments to which she claims a right were merely the incident of an office, and were left in her hands only until the proceedings for condemnation of the office should be completed and she should be paid. The right to the office was the foundation of the right to the emoluments. Whether the office was or was not extinguished in the sense that it no longer could be exercised, the right remained so far that it was to be paid for, and if it had been paid for the right to the emoluments would have ceased. If the right to the office or to compensation for the loss of it was extinguished, all the plaintiff's rights were at an end. No ground is disclosed in the bill for treating the right to slaughter cattle as having become a hereditament independent of its source. But of course the right to the office or to be paid for it did not exist as against the United States Government, and unless it did the plaintiff's case is at an end. Judgment affirmed. THE KING V. THE " NORTH " In the Exchequer Court of Canada (British Columbia Admiralty District) [Decided August 25, 1905.] MARTIN, J.: This case raises important questions relating to the fisheries of this Province in general, and to the extensive and valuable halibut banks of Vaancouver Island in particular. There is, and can be, from the evidence, very little dispute about the facts, which are clear, and I find as follows: That on the morning of DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 689 the 8th July last, the foreign schooner North, alleged in its statement of defense to be "navigated according to the laws of the United States of America," was hove to and unlawfully engaged in halibut fishing in Quatsino Sound, Vancouver Island, within the three-mile limit, having all its four fishing boats, dories, out for the purpose; that on observing the approach in obvious pursuit, within the three-mile limit and approximately four or five miles off, of the Canadian fisheries protection cruiser Kestrel, she picked up two of her dories and stood out to sea; that the Kestrel continued in pursuit at her highest speed in the attempt to intercept the North; that in the course of that pursuit the Kestrel observed another dory, close to, andpulling hard from the land towards the schooner, which dory the Kestrel, after slightly deviating from her course, picked up and seized within the three-mile limit, and after fixing her position by cross-bearings, continued her pursuit of the North, which she overhauled in about ten to twelve minutes and seized with the two first-mentioned dories, about one and three-quarter miles outside the three-mile limit. There were freshly caught halibut lying on the North's deck at the time of the seizure, which in all the circumstances must be held to have been caught within the linlit. There were also several tons of halibut in her hold, but it can not be said where they were taken. The schooner and the three dories were towed to Winter Harbor, Quatsino Sound, where the fourth dory was afterwards taken when it came in. I may say that quite apart from the admission of the master of the North of his knowledge of wrong-doing, no difficulty is experienced here in regard to fixing the various positions in issue, as was the case in The King v. The Kitty (1904), 34 S. C., 673, because they were exactly established by cross-bearings. So far as the two dories, taken within the limit, and their tackle, gear, and equipment are concerned, it was not argued that they were improperly seized, but as to the schooner and the other dories, it is contended on several grounds that the seizure thereof can not be justified. The first is, that no seizure can be made on the high seas for an offense committed within the three-mile limit which is merely an infringement of municipal or local laws or regulations, and not a crime in the proper sense of that word, in which case it is admitted a seizure may be made where the pursuit is continuous. Here the pursuit was begun within the three-mile limit, and was clearly continuous, which, 6 94 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW And further:
doi:10.2307/2186350 fatcat:vrzinxxq2bhclfcte3bj3hus3q