POLITICAL PAN AMERICAN CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS 1 Costa Rica The American Minister to Costa Rica forwarded to the Secretary of State with a despatch dated January 9, 1933, a clipping from La Gaceta-Diario Oficial, No. 4, January 6, 1933, which publishes the decree of ratification as signed by the President of Costa Rica on December 20, 1932, of the Pan American convention on diplomatic officers, adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, February 20, 1928. The countries which have deposited ratifications of this convention are Brazil, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela. 1 See Bulletin No. 36, September, 1932, p. 4. 11 HUMANITARIAN ASYLUM CONVENTION FIXING THE Rules for the Granting oF ASYLUM1 Costa Rica The American Minister to Costa Rica forwarded to the Secretary of State with a despatch dated January 9, 1933, a clipping from La Gaceta-Diario Oficial, No. 4, of January 6, 1933, publishing the decree of ratification as signed by the President of Costa Rica on December 20, 1932, of the convention fixing the rules for the granting of asylum, adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, February 20, 1928. The countries which have deposited ratifications of the convention are Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico. Nicaragua, and Panama. LIQUOR CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN » PREVENT THE SMUGGLING OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS INTO THE UNITED STATES 2 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 23, 1933 Frank Cook v. United States The convention signed January 23, 1924, in force May 22, 1924, between the United States and Great Britain, provides (articles I and II): The High Contracting Parties declare that it is their firm intention to uphold the principle that 3 marine miles extending from the coastline outwards and measured from low-water mark constitute the proper limits of territorial waters. (1) His Britannic Majesty agrees that he will raise no objection to the boarding of private vessels under the British flag outside the limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the United States. its territories or possessions in order that enquiries may be addressed to those on board and an examination be made of the ship's papers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or those on board 1 See Bulletin No. 31, April, 1932, p. 7. Treaty Series, No. 685. are endeavoring to import or have imported alcoholic beverages into the United States, its territories or possessions in violation of the laws there in force. When such enquiries and examination show a reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the vessel may be instituted. (2) If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or attempting to commit an offense against the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions for adjudication in accordance with such laws. (3) The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at a greater distance from the coast of the United States, its territories or possessions than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavoring to commit the offense. In cases, however, in which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the United States its territories or possessions by a vessel other than the one boarded and searched, it shall be the speed of such other vessel and not the speed of the vessel boarded, which shall determine the distance from the coast at which the right under this article can be exercised. The Tariff Act of 1922, section 581, declares that officers of the Coast Guard are authorized to stop and board any vessel at any place within four leagues (12 miles) of the coast of the United States to examine the manifest and to inspect, search, and examine the vessel and any merchandise therein, and, if it appears that any violation of United States law has been committed rendering vessel or merchandise liable to forfeiture, to seize the same. The Tariff Act of 1930, section 581, reenacted this provision without change. On November 1, 1930, the British vessel Mazel Tov, having a speed not exceeding 10 miles an hour, was discovered by officers of the Coast Guard within four leagues of the Massachusetts coast and was boarded by them at a point 111⁄2 miles from the nearest land. Upon demand, the manifest was exhibited. A subsequent search revealed that the vessel, which had been cleared from St. Pierre, a French possession, and was bound ostensibly for Nassau, a British possession, carried unmanifested intoxicating liquor. Acting pursuant to section 584 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Collector of Customs assessed a penalty for failure to include the liquor in the manifest. Pursuant to section 594 of the 1930 Tariff Act the proceedings were instituted in the District Court of the United States for Rhode Island to collect the assessed penalty by means of libels against the vessel and cargo. The District Court dismissed the libels. Appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which, holding that the treaty did not "effect a change in the customs-revenue laws of the United 8 Italics not in original. 158178-33- -3 States wherein Congress had fixed a four-league protective zone,” reversed the decision of the District Court, and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, which, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandeis and stating that, "in construing the treaty, its history should be consulted," reviewed the events of the negotiations leading to its conclusion. Holding that the treaty was, in a strict sense, self-executing, the Supreme Court found that the territorial limitations established by the act of 1922 were modified by the treaty; that the treaty, being later in date than the act of 1922, superseded, so far as inconsistent with the terms of the act. the authority which had been conferred by section 581 upon officers of the Coast Guard. Continuing, the Court said: The Treaty was not abrogated by reenacting section 581 in the Tariff Act of 1930 in the identical terms of the Act of 1922. A treaty will not be deemed to have been abrogated or modified by a later statute unless such purpose on the part of Congress has been clearly expressed. Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536: United States v. Payne, 264 U.S. 446, 448. Here, the contrary ap pears. The committee reports and the debates upon the Act of 1930. like the reenacted section itself, makes no reference to the Treaty of 1924. Any doubt as to the construction of the section should be deemed resolved by the consistent departmental practice existing before its reenactment. Compare United States v. G. Falk & Brother, 204 U.S. 143; Nagle v. Loi Hoa, 275 U.S. 475, 481; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 337; McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co.. 283 U.S. 488, 492; United States v. Ryan, 284 U.S. 167, 175. No change, in this respect, was made either by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice after the Tariff Act of 1930. the Government itself lacked power to seize, since by the Treaty it had imposed a territorial limitation upon its own authority. The Treaty fixes the conditions under which a "vessel may be seized and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions for adjudication in accordance with" the applicable laws. Thereby, Great Britain agreed that adjudication may follow a rightful seizure. Our Government, lacking power to seize, lacked power. because of the Treaty, to subject the vessel to our laws. To hold that adjudication may follow a wrongful seizure would go far to nullify the purpose and effect of the Treaty. Compare United States v. Raucher [sic], 119 U.S. 407. The Court differentiated the present case from The Ship Richmond, 9 Cranch, 102, and The Merino, 9 Wheat., 391. Accordingly the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed. Mr. Justice Sutherland and Mr. Justice Butler dissented. Mr. Justice Van Devanter took no part in the decision. TREATMENT OF FOREIGNERS CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE STATUS OF ALIENS * Costa Rica The American Minister to Costa Rica forwarded to the Secretary of State with a despatch dated January 9, 1933, a clipping from La Gaceta-Diario Oficial, No. 4, of January 6, 1933, publishing the decree of ratification as signed by the President of Costa Rica on December 20, 1932, of the convention for the purpose of determining the status of aliens, adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, February 20, 1928. The countries which have deposited ratifications of this convention are the United States of America, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama. Dominican Republic The Director General of the Pan American Union transmitted to the Secretary of State with a communication dated January 17, 1933, a certified copy of the instrument of ratification by the Dominican Republic of the convention for the purpose of determining the status of aliens, adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, February 20, 1928. The deposit took place January 4, 1933. NATIONALITY CONVENTION RELATING TO THE EXEMPTION OF MILITARY OBLIGATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF DOUBLE NATIONALITY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SWEDEN By a telegram dated January 31, 1933, the American Minister to Sweden reported that he had signed on that day the convention relating to the exemption of military obligations in certain cases of double nationality between the United States and Sweden. SAFETY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA The international convention for the safety of life at sea, which was signed at London May 31, 1929, came into force on January 1, 1933. |