The Pilot v. United States

Ninth Circuit

The Pilot v. United States

53 F. 11, 3 C.C.A. 392, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1892

DocketNos. 30, 31

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. 11 (The Pilot v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Pilot v. United States, 53 F. 11, 3 C.C.A. 392, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1441 (9th Cir. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

! PER CURIAM.

It is perfectly clear that the validity of the treaty was not “drawn in question.” The case, upon the facts, simply called for a construction of section 4370, Rev. St. U. S., as to what was meant by the words “foreign waters.” No rights were directly claimed nnder the treaty. Uo question of the jurisdiction of either nation over the waters of the straits, on either side of the boundary line, was involved. The question of the construction of the treaty, if raised at all, was only incidental, as to a question of fact not denied by either party, to wit, the right of both nations to have free and open navigation over the waters of the straits. The statute of the United States was to be construed with reference to the existing state of facts under the treaty. Uo direct question as to the construction of the treaty was raised. The treaty established a boundary line be- • tween the United States and Great Britain, and gave each nation the right of free navigation. These were facts proper to be considered, and were not in any manner disputed or drawn in question. The ■question — and the only question — was whether, upon such admitted [13]*13facts, the waters north of the boundary liue established by the treaty were “foreign waters,” within the meaning of that term as used in the statute. Section 4370. Decision on the question whether a motion to dismiss an appeal can be made after judgment of this court is reserved. The motion will be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

! PER CURIAM.

It is perfectly clear that the validity of the treaty was not “drawn in question.” The case, upon the facts, simply called for a construction of section 4370, Rev. St. U. S., as to what was meant by the words “foreign waters.” No rights were directly claimed nnder the treaty. Uo question of the jurisdiction of either nation over the waters of the straits, on either side of the boundary line, was involved. The question of the construction of the treaty, if raised at all, was only incidental, as to a question of fact not denied by either party, to wit, the right of both nations to have free and open navigation over the waters of the straits. The statute of the United States was to be construed with reference to the existing state of facts under the treaty. Uo direct question as to the construction of the treaty was raised. The treaty established a boundary line be- • tween the United States and Great Britain, and gave each nation the right of free navigation. These were facts proper to be considered, and were not in any manner disputed or drawn in question. The ■question — and the only question — was whether, upon such admitted [13]*13facts, the waters north of the boundary liue established by the treaty were “foreign waters,” within the meaning of that term as used in the statute. Section 4370. Decision on the question whether a motion to dismiss an appeal can be made after judgment of this court is reserved. The motion will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. 11, 3 C.C.A. 392, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-pilot-v-united-states-ca9-1892.