Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

246 ABRIDGMENT OF THE H. OF R.] Penal Laws of the United States. [JANUARY, 1825. State courts have no jurisdiction; but that, the bill modified in the manner-he had stated. where the State courts have jurisdiction, there And he now suggested, with that view, that none should be given to the United States. He the bill should be made to read as applying to was fully aware that the subject was one at- offences committed " on the high seas, and tended with much and great difficulty. If beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any of the we look at the legislative department of the States;" or any other phraseology which Government, we find that the constitution gives would attain the same object. IHe believed the it power to define and punish piracies and language in the former law was "' out of the felonies, committed on the high seas, and of- jurisdiction of any particular State." He trusted fences against the laws of nations: if we look that the honorable member from Massachusetts to the judicial department, we find the consti- would not object to such a modification. tution giving it jurisdiction over all cases of Mr. WEBSTER rose in reply: he said that the admiralty andmaritimejurisdiction. Confining member from Virginia had stated with great our attention only to the legislative power of fairness the difficulty which attended this subthe Government, it would seem to be at once ject; and if he apprehended, with that honorlimited to " the high seas;" but, if we go on able member, that any disagreeable collision to the judicial, we find it under the words "ad- could take place between the Federal and State miralty and maritime jurisdiction;" terms, the authorities from the passage of the bill as it precise import of which there is much difficulty stands, he might be, perhaps, induced to modify in settling. The question arises, how far does this it as proposed. He was well aware that the leadadmiralty jurisdiction extend? The difficulty ing law heretofore existing on this subject, proof marking this line with precision, none knew vided for the punishment of crimes committed better than the gentleman from Massachusetts " on the high seas, or in any bay, harbor, basin, himself, who took a very distinguished part in creek, or river, out of the jurisdiction of any a celebrated case lately argued before the Su- particuar State; " but he had expressly stated, preme Court of the United States, and which when he introduced the present bill, that its turned mainly on that question. In another object was to carry that act further, and he case, where the same question came up, Judge would now assign some of the reasons which Story devoted seventy-five pages to the discus- led him to desire it. The power to punish sion of it. It is the opinion of some, and this was' one for which no Government nowadays distinguished jurist is one of the number, that was much disposed to contend; and the offences maritime jurisdiction extends over " the high committed within the federal jurisdiction were, seas," and over the sea as it extends into bays, in most cases, directed against the United States, harbors, rivers, and creeks, and as far as it or against those interests which the Governebbs and flows. Others say that the common ment was especially bound to protect. The law jurisdiction extends only to the enclosed jurisdiction of the United States was found parts of the sea. If the first of these opinions chiefly where commerce existed, and commerce is the correct one, then, according to the pro- was an interest which the United States were visions of the present bill, the jurisdiction of peculiarly bound to protect-it is an interest the federal courts will spread over all the bays, regulated by the United States-its revenue is harbors, and rivers of the Union, as far as the given to the United States; and the bill protide flows. Mr. B. observed that he should poses to give the federal courts jurisdiction not himself undertake to define the precise ex- over crimes only where they now have juristent of this so often discussed jurisdiction; diction over commerce. The crimes most misbut, as the point had been a matter of contro- chievous were crimes against the property of versy long before the date of our constitution, the Government. Now the question was, it might be argued, with some plausibility, that whether the General Government shall devolve the clause in the constitution which speaks of the whole burden (for it was a burden and not piracies and felonies "on the high seas," had a privilege) of punishing crimes against itself; been intended to settle the question. It was on the State governments, because committed a controversy which had called forth a vast within their bounds. In taking this task into amount of talent and intelligence; but without their own hands, the Government will only be pretending to settle it, he conceived that every acting on the principle which has governed it necessary purpose would be subserved, if the from its origin-offences against those rights bill shall make provision for the punishment of which are peculiarly committed to its protection crimes committed without and beyond the it has always punished in its own courts, such jurisdiction of the several States. Now, it was as counterfeiting the national coin, forging the the received doctrine, that every State has national securities, &c. There was nothing to jurisdiction as far as its own territorial limits prevent the State governments from punishing extend; and these limits clearly include all the these offences as well as others within their bays, waters, creeks, &c., which are within the limits; yet the Federal Government has never State. The gentleman must well recollect the left it to them. The great objection against case where this was settled before the Supreme leaving the task of punishing to the State govCourt in relation to the State of Massachusetts. ernments is the burden of expense: no State His wish was to avoid all colliding jurisdic- government, so far as his knowledge extended, tions; and, therefore, it was, that he wished was ever very anxious to take this burden

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 246
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0008.001/248

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0008.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 24, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item