Cook v. United States
288 U.S. 102, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 957, 53 S. Ct. 305 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A self-executing treaty, being later in date, supersedes an inconsistent prior federal statute; a treaty is not abrogated or modified by a subsequent federal statute unless Congress clearly expresses such an intent. Furthermore, the government cannot ratify an unlawful seizure when the illegality arises from a treaty-imposed territorial limitation on its inherent power to act.
Facts:
- On November 1, 1930, Coast Guard officers discovered the British motor screw Mazel Tov, a vessel with a speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour.
- The Mazel Tov was boarded at a point 11.5 miles from the nearest Massachusetts coast, which is within four leagues of the coast.
- A search revealed that the vessel's only cargo, other than ship stores, was unmanifested intoxicating liquor, which had been cleared from St. Pierre, a French possession.
- The vessel, ostensibly bound for Nassau, a British possession, had been cruising off the U.S. coast with the intent that the liquor would eventually be transported to the United States by other boats.
- The evidence indicated that the Mazel Tov did not intend to approach nearer than four leagues to the U.S. coast and had not been in communication with the shores or unladen any cargo.
- The Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain, proclaimed May 22, 1924, generally restricts the right to search and seize British vessels suspected of smuggling alcohol to a distance that can be traversed in one hour by the suspected vessel.
Procedural Posture:
- Coast Guard officers seized the Mazel Tov and its cargo at a point 11.5 miles from the coast and took them to the Port of Providence, delivering them to customs officials.
- The Collector of Customs assessed a penalty against Frank Cook, as master of the Mazel Tov, for failure to include the liquor in the manifest.
- The Government filed libels against the cargo and the vessel in the federal court for Rhode Island (District Court, the trial court) to collect the assessed penalty.
- Frank Cook, claiming as master and bailee of the vessel and consignee and claimant of the cargo, answered to the merits and excepted to the court's jurisdiction.
- Cook argued that the Mazel Tov was not seized within the territorial limits of any U.S. jurisdiction, being more than four leagues from the coast, and that it was not intended to enter U.S. territorial limits.
- The District Court, after finding the relevant facts, dismissed the libels.
- The Government appealed the dismissal to the Circuit Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, with the Government as appellant and Cook as appellee, held that the Treaty did not affect a change in the customs-revenue laws, reversed the judgments, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1924 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which limits the permissible distance for boarding and seizing British vessels suspected of liquor smuggling to a one-hour sailing distance from the coast, supersede the authority granted by § 581 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (re-enacted in 1930) to seize vessels within four leagues (12 miles) of the coast, rendering a seizure outside the treaty limits but within the 12-mile zone unlawful?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brandeis
Yes, the 1924 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain superseded the authority granted by § 581 of the Tariff Act of 1922, and the re-enactment of § 581 in 1930 did not abrogate the Treaty's modification, rendering the seizure of the Mazel Tov unlawful. The Court held that the Treaty's language and history demonstrate an intent to completely resolve the issue of search and seizure of British vessels beyond territorial limits for liquor smuggling. The Treaty, being later in date than the 1922 Tariff Act, superseded the Act's inconsistent provisions regarding seizure limits. The Court further clarified that a treaty is not abrogated or modified by a later statute unless Congress clearly expresses such a purpose, which was not evident in the re-enactment of § 581 in the 1930 Tariff Act. Moreover, the Court found that the government could not ratify an unlawful seizure where the illegality stemmed from a treaty-imposed territorial limitation on the government's power itself, rather than merely from a lack of authorized seizing officer. The Treaty fixed the conditions under which a vessel could be lawfully seized for adjudication, and when the government lacked the power to seize under the Treaty, it lacked the power to subject the vessel to U.S. laws.
Dissenting - Justice Sutherland and Justice Butler
No, the 1924 Treaty was not intended to curtail the rights claimed by the United States under existing hovering statutes concerning British vessels engaged in smuggling intoxicating liquor. Instead, the dissenting justices believed the purpose of both countries was to extend and enlarge such rights to enable the United States to more effectively enforce its liquor laws. Therefore, they were of the opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld the seizure, should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision affirming the principle of treaty supremacy over prior inconsistent domestic legislation and establishing a high bar for demonstrating congressional intent to abrogate a treaty. It underscores that domestic statutes must be read in light of subsequent treaties, and that re-enactment of a statute without specific reference to a treaty does not automatically nullify the treaty's modifications. The ruling also clarifies the limits of the government's ability to ratify an illegal seizure, differentiating between an unauthorized seizure by an agent and a seizure fundamentally lacking governmental power due to international agreement.
