Wynne v. United States, 217 U.S. 234 (1910)

The words “out of the jurisdiction of any particular State,” were intended to provide a means of punishment where no such means were afforded. It was thereby intended to give jurisdiction to the Federal court in cases where the judicial bodies of the particular State (i. e., political community, including Territory), were not invested with jurisdiction in the premises. See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 387, as to construction of effect of Art. Ill of the Constitution, and intent of Congress, in originally enacting the statute here involved [p. 237] 217 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

Inasmuch, therefore, as the United States had so ceded to the Territory of Hawaii the control of these places and property, or, more strictly, having reinvested the Territory with such control, there was no jurisdiction left in the United States [p. 238] courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction and whose jurisdiction is never presumed but must always be found in the strict letter of the law.

Courts will notice without proof the signatures and official seals of public officers. 17 Am. Eng. Enc. of Law, 918, and [p. 240] numerous cases cited; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 California, 214.

To support the contention urged counsel have cited United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 337, 388, and Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 444. The indictment in the Bevans case was for a murder done on board a war vessel of the United States while she lay at anchor a mile or more from the shores of the bay constituting the harbor of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts. The bay was wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Massachusetts, and the court said that it was not material whether the courts of that State had cognizance of the offense or not. “To bring the offense,” said the court, “within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union, it must have been committed in a river, etc., and out of the jurisdiction of any State. It is not the offense committed, but the vol. ccxvn—16 [p. 242] bay in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the State. If then it should be true that Massachusetts can take no cognizance of the offense; yet unless the place itself be out of her jurisdiction, congress has not given cognizance of that offense to its courts. If there be common jurisdiction, the crime cannot be punished in the courts of the Union.” The case has no bearing upon the question here involved, except so far as that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States was there held to be excluded, because the place where the offense was committed was within the territorial jurisdiction of one of the States of the Union. The question in the Talbott case was whether a Territory was within the meaning of § 5219, Rev. Stat., which permitted a “State within which” a national bank is located to tax its shares. The court held that the permission extended to States in that regard included Territories. The decision was based upon the obvious intent of Congress looking to the scope and purpose of the act; the court saying, among other things, “While the word State is often used in contradistinction to Territory, yet in its general public sense, and as sometimes used in the statutes and the proceedings of the Government, it has the larger meaning of any separate political community, including therein the District of Columbia, and the Territories as well as those political communities known as States of the Union.” But the word “ State,” as used in the eighth section of the act of 1790, and the subsequent act of 1825, as well as used in § 5339, Rev. Stat./ must be determined from its own context. The word State as there used has been uniformly held as referring only to the territorial jurisdiction of one of the United States, and not to any other government or political community. Thus, in United States v. Ross, 1 Gall. 626, Mr. Justice Story said, in reference to the words in § 4 of the act of 1825, above referred to, that “The additional words of the act, ‘in any river, haven, basin, or bay out of the jurisdiction of any particular State,’ refer to such places without any of the United States, and not without foreign States, as will be very clear on examining the [p. 243] provision as to the place of trial, in the close of the same section.” In United States v. Brailsford, 5 Wheat. 184, 189, 200, one of the questions certified was “whether the words, ‘out of the jurisdiction of any particular State/ in the eighth section of the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, ch. 9, vol. 1, Statutes at Large, must be construed to mean out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States?” To this the court said: “We think it obvious that out of any particular State must be construed to mean ‘ out of any one of the United States.’ By examining the context it will be seen that particular State is uniformly used in contradistinction to United States.” In United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 265, the same meaning was attached to the words in- question, and an offense committed on the Detroit River, on a vessel belonging to a citizen of the United States, was held cognizable by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, although it appeared that the offense had been committed within the territorial limits of the Dominion of Canada, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States. See also St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 144, and Andersen v. United States, 170 U. S. 489.

Unless, therefore, there was something in the legislation of Congress found in the act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat-141, providing a government for the Territory of Hawaii, which excluded the operation of the statute, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over the bay here in question [p. 244] in respect of the murder there charged to have been committed, was beyond question.

We cannot see that any of the things referred to have the effect claimed for them. The plain purpose of the fifth section was to extend the Constitution and laws of the United States, [p. 245] not locally inapplicable, to the Territory, and of the sixth section, to leave in force the laws of Hawaii, except as repealed by the act or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States.

There are assignments touching the competency of certain evidence relied upon to establish the national character of the Rosecrans, and others which challenge the sufficiency of the [p. 246] evidence to carry the case to the jury against a motion to di-recta verdict for insufficiency of evidence upon that point. A certificate of enrollment, purporting to have been issued at San Francisco by one Coey, “acting deputy collector of customs,” initialed “W,” and signed by E. W. Marlin, deputy naval officer, as required by § 4332, Rev. Stat., which recited that the vessel was solely owned by the National Oil and Transportation Company, a corporation organized under the laws of California, was introduced for the purpose of establishing that the vessel was of American nationality. There was also evidence that she carried the flag of the United States, evidence admissible upon a mere question of nationality. St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 151. The principal objection is that this certificate was not the original, but a copy not sufficiently authenticated. The authentication was in these words:

The appointment of deputy collectors is provided for by §§ 2630, 2633, Rev. Stat. By § 882, Rev. Stat., copies of any [p. 247] papers or documents, in any of the executive departments, under the seal of the proper department, are made admissible in evidence equally with the original.

Jurisdiction in case of an intervention is determined by that of the mam case, and where the original foreclosure case was based solely upon diverse citizenship an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals on a petition to enforce rights granted by a decree m an intervention in such foreclosure suit does not lie to this court. Where the Circuit Court of Appeals remands a suit to the Circuit Court with instructions to enter a decree, the Circuit Court cannot, [p. 248] without permission from the Circuit Court of Appeals, introduce new questions into the litigation; and the unwarranted introduction of new questions cannot be made the basis of jurisdiction. The mere construction of a decr.ee involves no challenge of its validity.

On January 6, 1886, there was entered in the Circuit Court [p. 249] of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri a decree of foreclosure and sale of the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the Wabash Company. In that suit, before the execution of the deeds to the purchasing committee, a railway corporation known as the St. Louis, Kansas City and Colorado Railroad Company (hereinafter called the Colorado Company) and the city of St. Louis intervened to compel the Wabash Company to give to the Colorado Company the use of its tracks and a right of entrance over them to the Union Depot of that city. On that intervention a decree was entered finding the equities in favor of the intervenors, and granting the Colorado Company the use of the tracks and right of way. 29 Fed. Rep. 546. On appeal to this court the decree of the Circuit Court on the intervention was, on January 19, 1891, sustained. Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1.

643. The case went back to the Circuit Court, and after an amendment to the petition, which was allowed by the court, a decree was entered in obedience to the mandate, from which decree an appeal was again taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and also to this court. On the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals the record was filed in that court, and thereupon an application for a certiorari was made to this court, so that two cases are before us with records precisely alike, one the appeal from the Circuit Court directly to this court (being case No. 57) and the other the petition for a certiorari to the [p. 250] Court of Appeals (being case No. 301). [This petition was filed and presented to the court November 30, 1908, and on December 7, 1908, consideration of the petition was postponed to be heard with No. 57.]

Further, the power of the Circuit Court was limited to the entry of a decree as ordered by the Court of Appeals, and it could not introduce new questions into the litigation without the permission of that court. Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Company, 160 U. S. 247. Still further, the mere construction of a decree [p. 251] involves no challenge of its validity. Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U. S. 19, 29, and cases cited in the opinion.

This brings before us the original decree on the intervention. That decree, and the facts upon which the original controversy arose, as well as those upon which the present dispute rests, will be found fully stated in 29 Fed. Rep. 546; Joy v. St. Louis, [p. 252] 138 U. S. 1, and 81 C. C. A. 643, supra, and need not be repeated. It is sufficient to say that the decree was founded upon contracts to which the railroad companies, or their predecessors, were parties, by which the Wabash Company agreed to “permit, under such reasonable regulations and terms as may be agreed upon, other railroads to use its right of way through the park, and up to the terminus of its road in the city of St. Louis, upon such terms, and for such fair and equitable compensation, to be paid to it therefor, as may be agreed upon by such companies.” It provided that the Colorado Company should pay $2,500 a month “for the use of the right of way, and tracks, side tracks, switches, turnouts, turntables and other terminal facilities of the said Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway at and between the north line of Forest Park and Eighteenth street in the city of St. Louis,” and that of these properties it should “enjoy the equal use and benefit.” It apportioned the expense of maintaining on a wheelage basis this right of way and other property during such joint use.

“To one ignorant of the origin and history of the rights of the contending parties and unaware of the persuasive arguments of counsel the reading of this decree would suggest no doubt that it granted the joint use of the entire strip owned by the Wabash Company and of all the railroad facilities thereon between the east line of the park and Eighteenth street. Upon its face there is no ambiguity in its terms. They suggest no limitation or exception, and when the terms of a decree are plain and clear their ordinary meaning and effect may not be lawfully contracted or extended unless it appears with reasonable certainty that such was the purpose of the court; for the legal presumption is that the judge carefully and thoughtfully expressed therein his deliberate intention. The Wabash Company, therefore, assumed no light burden when it essayed to [p. 254] prove that the court intended by this decree to grant to the Colorado Company the joint use of a strip only thirty feet in width out of the wider strip the Wabash Company owned between the east line of the park and Eighteenth street.”

“The final matter is that of compensation. In this I think [p. 255] the master erred. He fixed the value of the right of way at a million of dollars; and reported that, in his judgment, the share of the interest on this value and in the expenses of keeping up the track, which the intervenor company should pay, should be fixed upon a wheelage basis. So far as respects the mere matter of keeping up the track, I see no reason to doubt the justice of the rule fixed by the master; but in regard to the interest on the value, I think the intervenor should pay one-half of that, and for these reasons: It is a familiar fact that in a large city like St. Louis, along the track of an important railroad, within the city limits, are built large manufacturing establishments, warehouses and other buildings for the convenient transaction of business between the carrier on the one hand and the manufacturer and the merchant on the other. Another road coming over the same track not only uses the property, of great value, which the company owner has in the first instance paid for, but also shares in the benefit of access to all these manufactories, warehouses, etc. It thus places itself in competition with the original company for this valuable business. Such competition may operate to diminish the business of the original company, or compel it to lower its rates to preserve the business. In either way it operates to the serious detriment of the original company. The new company comes in as an equal competitor. It shares in all the benefits of this business, and it may share equally. Under those circumstances it seems to me no more than fair that a new company, which crowds itself into an equal access to such benefits and such privileges, should pay an equal share of the interest on the value of the property. Hence I shall sustain the objections of the respondent to the report of the master, so far as concerns the amount of compensation, and I think that the intervenor company must pay one-half the interest on the value and its share of the cost of keeping up the track, determined upon a wheelage basis. In other respects the report of the master will be confirmed.”

“An act of the legislature might be passed giving to one company the right to use the tracks of another, and prescribing all the terms and conditions—the details for the use. I take it, an act of the legislature would also be valid which simply declared that one company should have the right to use the tracks of another upon such terms and conditions as the parties might agree upon, or should be prescribed by the courts, and if such a legislative act would have to be adjudged valid and complete, I see no satisfactory reason why courts may not also hold sufficient and valid a mere contract for the right, and, determining the right, also settle and prescribe the terms of the use. It is true that such a decree cannot be executed by the performance of a single act. It is continuous in its operation. It requires the constant exercise of judgment and skill by the officers of the corporation defendant; and therefore, in a qualified sense, it may be true that the case never is ended, but remains a permanent case in the court, performance of whose decree may be the subject of repeated inquiry by proceedings in the nature of contempt. It is also true that in the changing conditions of business the details of the use may require change. The time may come when the respondent’s business may demand the entire use of its tracks, and the intervenor’s right wholly cease. But other decrees are subject to modification and change, as in decrees for alimony. The courts are not infrequently called upon to modify them by reason of the changed condition of the parties thereto. So, when a decree passes in a case of this kind, it [p. 257] remains as a permanent determination of the respective rights of the parties, subject only to the further right of either party to apply for a modification upon any changed condition of affairs; and, so far as any matter of supervision of the personal skill and judgment of the officers of the respondent corporation, the contract, in terms, provides that the regulation of the running of trains shall be subject to the control of the officers of the respondent.”