THE PEOPLE . TYLER.

held them for a century and a half, ever considered them otherwise than as an integral part of her dominions, over which she exercised all her sovereign powers, as fully as she did within her European possessions.

By the 2d article of the preliminary treaty of peace, dated the third of November, 1762, between Great Britain, France and Spain, the King of France "renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed, to Nova Scotia or Acadia, in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain; moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britanic Majesty, in full right Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the Island of Cape Breton, and all the islands in the Gulf and River St. Lawrence, without restriction, and without any liberty to depart from this cession and guaranty under any pretence, or to trouble Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned." And by the 4th article of the Definitive Treaty, (Paris, Feb. 10, 1763), "His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might form to Nova Scotia or Acadia, in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain; moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britanic Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencics, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the Gulf of the River St. Lawrence, and in general, everything that depends on said countries, islands, lands, places, coasts, and their inhabitants, so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King and to the Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form, without restriction, and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty, under any pretence, or to disturb Great Britain in the posses-, sions above mentioned."-Entick's late War, Vol. 5, pp. 439 453, London, 1764; See also 16 American St. Papers, p. 268

There is nothing in these treaties indicating that the con

THE PEOPLE V. TYLER.

tracting parties considered these lakes as a part of the high seas for any purpose whatever. By right of prior discovery and exploration they were doubtless the property of France until the cession of 1762; and that by the treaty they became the property of Great Britain, and so remained until the treaty of 1783, is indisputable. And this long possession by those parties, without claim by any other nation to treat them as the common highway of nations, must be held conclusive that they were never such.- Vattel B. 1. chap. 22, § 266.

By the Royal proclamation of October 7, 1763, the laws of England were extended over the whole of the newly conquered territory; (16 Am. State Papers, p. 36), and the conquered country governed by the King alone until Parliament had acted on the subject.-Campbell v. Hall, Cowp. 204; Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 748.

No provision is found in any subsequent treaty going to show any release or modification of the absolute sovereignty of the owners of those waters over them, except as to the right to navigate them.

By the second article of the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States, of September 3, 1783, (8 Stat. at Large, 81), the boundary between the two countries passed "through the middle of the said lake (Erie) until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and lake Huron, thence along the middle of said water communication into lake Hnron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and lake Superior, thence through lake Superior northward to the Isles Royal and Phellipeaux to Long Lake," &c. This treaty gave neither of the parties to it a right of way by water over the territory of the other, save that it made the Mississippi "free and open" to the subjects of both, from its source to the ocean.-Art. 8.

By the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of the 19th of Nov., 1794, art. 3, (Ib. p. 117), the two nations stipulate "that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects and

THE PEOPLE . TYLER.

to the citizens of the United States, and also for the Indians dwelling on either side of the boundary line, freely to pass and repass, by land or inland navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America (the country within the limits of the Hudson Bay Company excepted), and to navigate all the lakes, rivers, and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other.

These were the only provisions respecting the boundaries and the use of the waters until the treaty of Washington in 1842 (Ib. p. 575). The latter treaty made no changes in the boundary, which had been previously agreed upon, through the chain of lakes, except in the St. Mary's River, and in the part of it which lies in the northern portion of lake Superior; nor does it alter the rights of the parties to navigate all the rivers and waters, and to carry on trade and commerce; simply declaring (art. 7), that the various channels formed by the islands in the St. Lawrence, in the Detroit by Bois Blanc, and the several channels at the mouth of the St. Clair "shall be equally free and open to the ships and boats of both parties."

Thus the three countries have, by their treaties, concurred in regarding the lakes as proper territory for the exercise of their sovreignty, and Great Britain and the United States have bounded their territorial possessions and powers by a line drawn through their centre. It would be absurd to suppose that in thus establishing their boundaries, each party did not believe and intend that it was entirely at liberty to exercise, on its own portion of the watery domain, all and every of the powers of sovereignty which it possessed, in such manner, on such subjects, and at such times as it should see fit, subject only to the privilege stipulated to be conferred on the other party, of a right to navigate the same portion.Wheat. Intern. L. 252, 253; 1 Bish. Cr. L. §575.

It did not enter their thoughts that their sovereign and exclusive legislative power-the power to preserve the peace, and to punish crimes committed within their own dominions

THE PEOPLE V. TYLER,

was in any way affected by the nationality of the offender, or by the ownership of the craft on which he should commit the crime; circumstances which can be considered only in criminal cases arising upon the high seas, where no nation can claim any jurisdiction except on its own vessels. Indeed the treaty of 1783, defining the boundaries, is, in its nature, an absolute relinquishment of all claim of sovereignty by each of the parties beyond the line of demarkation, and a guaranty that she shall abstain from exercising her powers within the limits of the other. It made each nation sovereign and independent within its new limits, and excluded all powers of the other. Wheat. Intern. L. 115, 121; The Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch. 116.

The place, then, where the wound was inflicted, was not within the limits of the United States, nor, consequently, within their jurisdiction.

The Constitution contemplates no such absurdity as the granting of power to the Federal courts, to try criminal causes arising within the territorial limits of another sovereignty; and whether admiralty powers over the American part of those waters has been granted to Congress (as held in the Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 450), or not, the federal courts can take no cognizance of crimes perpetrated on the British portion. England has never, by treaty or legislation, impressed upon these lakes and rivers that character of high seas which enables the nation own ing the vessel to punish crime committed upon it while on the high seas. To say that the United States may punish; such a crime, is to assert that they may establish a court of justice on such a vessel, and authorize it to issue process, make the arrest, try the offender, and punish him on board the same vessel, while afloat in British waters; in short, to enforce the whole criminal code on British waters, and within the British limits. For, if the United States have cognizance of the crime committed in such a locality, they certainly can arrest and try the offender there.

THE PEOPLE v. TYLER.

One legal attribute of the high seas is that no nation can appropriate to itself any exclusive dominion over them. Vattel B.1 Ch. 23, $281; Wheat. Int. L., 6 ed. 247, 248, etseq.; 1 Kent. Com. 26, 27; The Twee Gebroeders, 3 Rob. Adm. 336, 339, etc.; 1 Bishop Cr. § 679: while lakes and rivers belong to the sovereign within whose territorial limits they fall.-Vattel, B. 1 Ch. 22; Wheat. Int. L. 252.

In accordance with this principle, the United States, in admitting Michigan into the Union, bounded her on the east by the same divisional line, and declared that she should have jurisdiction within it.

Under the territorial government the counties of Wayne, Monroe, Macomb, St. Clair, and Sanilac, were all bounded on the east by the national boundary line, Huron county, Cheboygan, Alpena, Iosco, Alcona and Presque Isle are all bounded by the same national boundary line. Chippeway county (Code of 1827, p. 692) embraced the whole of the Upper Peninsula, and was bounded on the north and east by the same line.

And it is worthy of note, that by the proclamation of Governor St. Clair, of August 15th, 1796, the original county of Wayne was bounded on the east and north by the national boundary line, commencing on that line in the middle of Lake Erie, and terminating at a point in said. line north of the "north-west part" of Lake Michigan Chase's Laws of Ohio vol. 3, p. 2096.

In October, 1818, the county of Michillimackinac was. also bounded on the east by the same line, so that every square inch of the American part of these waters was included in the several counties bordering on them.

By the R. S. of 1838, the counties of Monroe and Wayne had civil and criminal jurisdiction in common on that part of Lake Erie lying within the boundaries of the State; Wayne, Macomb and St. Clair on Lake St. Clair; Saginaw, Michilimackinac and St. Clair, (which three counties formed the western border of Lake IIuron), on Lake Huron; and