CHAPTER XIV. OFFENSES WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY, MARITIME, AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Note. The first numbers indicate the old Sections; then follows a dash, and after the dash the numbers indicate the Sections in the new Code. 304. Punishment for Murder and Manslaughter: 5339 and 5343— 275. 305. Assault with Intent to Commit Murder, Rape, Robbery, Etc.: 5346-276. 306. Attempt to Commit Murder or Manslaughter: 5342-277. 307. Rape: 5343-278. 308. Having Carnal Knowledge of Female Under Sixteen: New Code, 279. 309. Seduction of Female Passenger on Vessel: 5349-280. 310. Payment of Fine to Female Seduced; Evidence Required; Limitations on Indictment: 5350 and 5351-281. 311. Punishment for Loss of Life by Misconduct of Officers, Owners, Charterers, Etc., of Vessels: 5344-282. 312. Maiming: 5348-283. 313. Robbery: 5370-284. 314. Arson of Dwelling House: 5385-285. 315. Arson of Arsenal, Etc.; Other Buildings, Etc.: 5386-286. 316. Larceny: 5356-287. 317. Receiving, Etc., Stolen Goods: 5357-288. 318. Laws of State Adopted for Punishing Wrongful Acts, Etc.: 5391-289. 318a. Libel not Federal Offense. § 299. The new Code, in Section 272, sets forth certain specific national territory, within and upon which the commission of the acts mentioned in this chapter become exclusive Federal offenses. The offenses upon which Congress has legislated under the head of admiralty, maritime, and territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Government are murder, manslaughter, intent to murder, rape, robbery, certain carnal knowledge of the female, loss of life by misconduct of the officers of a vessel, maiming, arson, larceny, receiving stolen goods, and a general statute, which creates a Federal offense of every State offense not herein mentioned, when the same is committed within the limits spoken of. § 300. The Places Defined.-Section 272 of the new Code, which makes unnecessary a repetition of the place in defining each separate offense, reads as follows: "Sec. 272. The crimes and offenses defined in this chapter shall be punished as herein prescribed: "First. When committed upon the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, or when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, or District thereof. "Second. When committed upon any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, namely: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, or any of the waters connecting any of said lakes, or upon the River Saint Lawrence where the same constitutes the International boundary line. "Third. When committed within or on any lands reserved or acquired for the exclusive use of the United States, and under the exclusive jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or other needful building. "Fourth. On any island, rock, or key, containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States." While this section is new, some of its parts are to be found in old Statute 5339, old Statute 5570, and Article I., Section 8, of the Constitution. The first division of the section, it will be noted, gives the jurisdiction to offenses upon certain waters. The second division gives jurisdiction to of fenses upon vessels when on certain waters. The third division gives jurisdiction over offenses that are committed upon lands over which the Government has acquired exclusive jurisdiction, by purchase or otherwise; but it must be understood that this division does not mean that there is any jurisIdiction in the Federal Government, unless there be cession thereof under the Federal and State laws. Thus, the renting of a building in which the Federal Post-office is conducted would give no jurisdiction to the Federal Government for an assault committed within that building by one private citizen upon another private citizen. The jurisdiction of the Government to punish one who assaulted the postmaster in the performance of his official duties, rests upon an entirely different statute, and is not grounded upon the section now being noticed. District Judge Whitson, in United States vs. Tully, 140 Federal, 899, held in substance, that the jurisdiction of a Federal Court to try a person for a criminal offense on the ground that it was committed within a fort or military reservation, such fort or reservation must have been established by law, as contemplated by Article I., Section 8, of the Constitution, either by purchase, with the consent of the Legislature of the State, or by reservation of public lands therefor by compact with the State at the time of its admission, and exclusive jurisdiction over the same must have been reserved to the United States, either by express words or necessary implication. Judge Maxey, in 111 Federal, 630, United States vs. Lewis, held in substance, that whether a homicide committed within the boundaries of a State constitutes an offense against the laws of the United States, of which a Federal Court has jurisdiction, depends on two questions: first, whether there has been such a cession by the State to the United States of the territory upon which the act alleged to constitute the crime was committed, as to render such territory a place or district or country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, which is a question of law for the Court; and, second, if such cession was made, whether the act was committed within the territory so ceded, which is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. In United States vs. Carter, 84 Federal, 622, the Court held that a defendant was properly indicted in the Federal jurisdiction for a murder committed on board the United States battle-ship "Indiana," then moored at Cob Dock, being within territory which had not been purchased by the United States, but over which exclusive jurisdiction had been ceded to the United States by the New York Legislature. In United States vs. Hewecker, 79 Federal, page 59, the Court held that where a seaman on an American schooner was indicted for having shot, in the harbor of Havana, one Miller, who died therefrom in the hospital three days afterwards, at Havana, on January 21, 1892, and the indictment was not found until March 10, 1896; the defendant, in the meantime, having been imprisoned in Havana, upon conviction for an assault, and on the expiration of his sentence delivered to the United States authorities, that the defendant was not a fugitive from justice, under Section 1045, so as to be excepted from the exemption of indictment after three years, and that the death, having taken place on land within a foreign jurisdiction, the case was not one of wilful murder at Common Law, under the Federal authorities; and that the United States statute, Section 5339, though making the offense punishable with death, neither declares it to be murder, nor does it limit that offense to all cases within a year and a day, which at Common Law was an essential element of the offense of murder; and, therefore, that the case was not one of wilful murder, and the indictment was barred by the threeyear limitation. A cession by a State to the United States of "exclusive jurisdiction" over certain land, providing that the State shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States, so far that the process, civil or criminal, issued under the authority of the State may be executed by the State officers upon any person amenable to the same, within the limits of the land so ceded, confers on the United States exclusive jurisdiction within the meaning of Revised Statutes 5339, United States vs. Meagher, 37 Federal, 875. Of course, the burden is on the Government to show that the crime was committed on land which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. In Cook vs. United States, 138 U. S., page 185, 34 Law Edition, 906, it was held that a public land strip lying between Texas and New Mexico and Colorado and Kansas, over which jurisdiction had been vested in the United States after the commission of the offense of murder thereon, was properly within the control of the Federal Courts, and the offense punishable therein. The fourth division relates to offenses upon certain islands, rocks, or keys, which contain deposits of guano, the beginning of which recognition was old Statute 5570, and is the extending of sovereignty by the political power of the Government. In other words, by the law of nations, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest. In the case of United States vs. Rogers, 150 U. S., 249, 37 Law Ed., page 1071, the Supreme Court held that the term "high seas," as used in old Section 5346, is applicable to the open unenclosed waters of the Great Lakes, between which the Detroit River is a connecting stream; and that Court, in the same case, also held that a vessel is deemed part of the territory of the country to which she belongs, and that the Courts of the United States have jurisdiction, under United States Revised Statutes 5346, to try a person for assault with a dangerous weapon, committed on a vessel belonging to a citizen of the United States, when such vessel is in the Detroit River, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and within the territorial limits of the Dominion of Canada. This decision seems to overrule the case of United States vs. Rogers, in the 46 Federal, page 1, and the case of ex parte Byers, 32 Federal, 404, where the Court denied a like jurisdiction. It is determined, in United States vs. Peterson, 64 Federal, 145, that the District Court of the Eastern District of Wisconsin has no jurisdiction of an indictment for an assault committed on a vessel on Lake Huron, within the boundary of the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Michigan. In other words, the indictment should have been prosecuted in Michigan, instead of Wisconsin, and Judge Seaman reviews the Byers case and the Rogers case, cited supra. In Jones vs. United States, 137 U. S., 202, 34 Law Ed., 691, the Supreme Court maintains the constitutionality of jurisdiction by discovery, and incidentally Section 5570 of the old Code, and, therefore, the fourth division of the present section. The Court held in that case, that, "All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the Government whose laws they administer, or of its recognition or |