The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, is a United States federal law that regulates maritime commerce in the United States. The Act requires all goods shipped between American ports to be carried on American vessels that are built and owned by United States citizens. The Jones Act has long been a subject of controversy, with some arguing that it protects American jobs and industries, while others argue that it raises the cost of goods and hurts American consumers.

Background of the Jones Act

The Jones Act was passed in 1920 in response to the need for American shipping companies to recover after World War I. The Act was named after Senator Wesley Jones, who was the Act’s sponsor. The Jones Act was part of a broader effort to protect the American shipping industry, which had been struggling following the war. The Jones Act sought to revive the American shipping industry by ensuring that all goods shipped between two American ports were carried on American vessels.

Provisions of the Jones Act

The Jones Act has several provisions that regulate the shipping industry. The primary provision of the Jones Act applies to cargo transported between two American ports. This provision requires all goods shipped between these ports to be transported on American-built and -owned vessels that are crewed by United States citizens or permanent residents. The Act also requires that these vessels be registered under the United States flag, meaning that they are registered as American vessels.

The Jones Act also has provisions that affect the employment of seafarers. The Act requires that all seafarers working on American vessels be United States citizens or permanent residents. The Act also requires that these seafarers be paid wages in accordance with United States labor laws.

Another provision of the Jones Act regulates liability for accidents that occur at sea. The Act requires that American shipping companies be liable for injuries or damages that occur while shipping goods between two American ports. This provision is intended to protect the rights of seafarers who work on American ships.

Pros of the Jones Act

Supporters of the Jones Act argue that it provides significant benefits to the American economy. These supporters argue that the Jones Act protects American jobs and industries by ensuring that goods shipped between American ports are carried on American vessels. They argue that this provision supports the American shipping industry and helps to create jobs for American seafarers.

The Jones Act has also been credited with improving national security. Proponents of the Act argue that it ensures that the American government has a reliable and secure shipping industry. They argue that this provision protects the United States from potential threats that could arise if the country depended solely on foreign vessels for its transportation needs.

Cons of the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act argue that it raises the cost of goods and hurts American consumers. They argue that the Act limits competition in the shipping industry, which leads to higher shipping costs. This higher cost of shipping is ultimately passed on to consumers, who end up paying more for goods that are transported between American ports.

Critics of the Jones Act also argue that it limits innovation in the American shipping industry. They argue that the Act makes it difficult for new companies to enter the market and compete with existing American shipping companies. This lack of competition, they argue, ultimately limits innovation and slows the development of new technologies in the shipping industry.

Conclusion

The Jones Act continues to be a contentious issue in the United States. Supporters of the Act argue that it plays a critical role in protecting American jobs and industries, while opponents argue that it raises the cost of goods and limits innovation in the shipping industry. The Jones Act will continue to be the subject of debate as the United States looks for ways to protect its economy while also remaining competitive in the global marketplace.

JONES ACT TEXT

What is the Jones Act?

Passed in 1920 as a United States Federal statute, the Merchant Marine Act regulates maritime commerce in American ports and U.S. waters. Section 27–arguably the most notable provision of the legislation–known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (coastal shipping) and imposes requirements for all goods transported by water between American ports.

The Jones Act specifically regulates merchant American ships; to fall under the act’s enforcement powers, the ship in question must be constructed in the United States, owned by American citizens, and operated by a crew of American citizens or permanent residents. The purpose of the Jones Act is to support the United States’ maritime industry.

In addition to creating the framework of the merchant industry and the regulations for which goods can be shipped between U.S. ports, the Jones Act gave way to the creation of Jones Law.

The Preamble to the Jones Act

The Preamble of the Jones Act states that is necessary–for the nation’s defense and growth of its foreign and domestic commerce–that the United States implements an effective merchant marine division. The industry should utilize efficient vessels that are well equipped to serve as a military auxiliary in the time of a national emergency or war. Furthermore, the ships should be best equipped to carry the greater portion of its commerce.

Maritime Injuries and Jones Law

The maritime industry is particularly dangerous; maritime workers face an assortment of risks that can lead to on-the-job injuries. These risks, given the nature of life at sea, are rarely met with adequate medical services.

Because of this catch-22, Jones Law was developed to establish special legal remedies to help ensure injured maritime workers obtain appropriate care and compensation following an injury. If you are a merchant marine worker and suffer a work-related injury, qualified lawyers can help elucidate Jones’s Law and protect your legal rights.

Jones Law permits injured maritime workers to seek compensation for injuries sustained while on the job. The act enables seaman to collect compensation for any work-related injury that was precipitated by negligence on part of their co-workers or employers.

The Jones Act reflects the dangers of maritime work, by holding the worker’s employer liable for breaches of duty which perpetuate or cause the injury. In addition to the delivery of compensation for negligence, an injured maritime worker may also file a claim against the vessel’s owner on the grounds that the ship was not safe to undertake the particular task. Additionally, the employer may also be liable for failing to provide maritime workers with adequate medical care aboard the ship. Regardless of the charges brought against the owner or commander of the ship, Jones Act litigation seeks to obtain damages for both past and future losses (both economic and non-economic).

What Constitutes an Unseaworthy Vessel?

Owners of sea vessels are required to provide an absolute duty to merchant marine employees. Because of this obligation, the vessel must be checked and re-checked to ensure that is safe for travel. The fact that a vessel does not display any signs of imminent danger does not mean it is necessarily worthy of sea travel. A vessel may only be classified as seaworthy if it is fit for it equipped with appropriate resources, safety gear, and equipment. Furthermore, the vessel must have a competent crew and be regarded as a safe place to live and work.

Although a sea vessel can be adequate for travel onshore, it can be downgraded during the voyage. That being said, the operator of the vessel must implement a sound protocol to properly upkeep the vessel. Claims that a vessel is not fit for the voyage are typically filed as a Jones Act claim.

Jones Law’s Maintenance and Cure Provision:

When a maritime worker (relates only to seamen) is injured on a ship, regardless of liability issues, the worker has a legal right to “maintenance and cure” provisions. The maintenance and cure policy of Jones Law awards benefits similar to those found in traditional workers’ compensation law.

The “maintenance” portion of Jones Law is a daily allowance, typically between $20 and $40 per day. This allowance is awarded to injured workers to offset the losses associated with missed work—the payments cover the food and shelter that the injured worker would have received had he or she been onboard the vessel.

The “cure” portion of Jones’s law represents the employer’s obligation to provide injured workers with appropriate medical services, including rehabilitation and hospitalization until the injured worker is fully recovered. It must be noted that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ceases to exist when the maritime worker reaches a full recovery.

All maritime workers who sustain injuries while on the job have absolute rights to obtain maintenance and cure—this right is detached from a Jones Act filing. If a maritime worker has a valid Jones Act claim, the individual may be able to recover substantial rewards for damages sustained in addition to receiving the full benefits of the maintenance and cure provision.

The Rights of Seaman:

The United States Congress adopted the Jones Act (as part of the Merchant Marine Act) in 1920 and formally codified the legislation in October of 2006. The Jones Act Maritime law allows injured sailors to file actions against their employers and ship owners based on claims of negligence or unseaworthiness. The Jones Law maritime act enables injured seamen to collect compensatory funds from their employers, including fellow members of the crew and their respective captain.

The Jones Act Maritime Law states that any sailor who suffers a personal injury during the course of his/her employment may maintain an action for damages, with the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, the Jones Act maritime states that all claims for compensation are regulated or enforced by statutes of the United States. These statutes can modify or extend the worker’s common-law right to remedy the personal injury case.

The Cabotage Provision of the Jones Act:

The cabotage provision of the Jones Act restricts the carriage of goods (or passengers) shipped or transferred via vessels between American ports to the U.S. constructed and flagged ships. The Cabotage provision of the jones act states that at least 75% of a crew’s workers must be citizens of the United States. Moreover, the cabotage provision restricts the amount of steel used during foreign repairs on the hull and structure of the ship—the provision limits the amount of foreign steel to 10 percent by weight. This aspect of the provision simply prevents American ship owners from repairing their ships at overseas yards.

Title 46, U.S. Code

Subtitle III

Chapter 301

§ 30101. Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land

(a) In General.— The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States extends to and includes cases of injury or damage, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable waters, even though the injury or damage is done or consummated on land.
(b) Procedure.— A civil action in a case under subsection (a) may be brought in rem or in personam according to the principles of law and the rules of practice applicable in cases where the injury or damage has been done and consummated on navigable waters.
(c) Actions Against United States.—
(1) Exclusive remedy.— In a civil action against the United States for injury or damage is done or consummated on land by a vessel on navigable waters, chapter 309 or 311 of this title, as appropriate, provides the exclusive remedy.
(2) Administrative claim.— A civil action described in paragraph (1) may not be brought until the expiration of the 6-month period after the claim has been presented in writing to the agency owning or operating the vessel causing the injury or damage.

§ 30102. Liability to passengers

(a) Liability.— The owner and master of a vessel, and the vessel, are liable for personal injury to a passenger or damage to a passenger’s baggage caused by—
(1) neglect or failure to comply with part B or F of subtitle II of this title; or
(2) a known defect in the steaming apparatus or hull of the vessel.
(b) Not Subject to Limitation.— A liability imposed under this section is not subject to limitation under chapter 305 of this title.

§ 30103. Liability of master, mate, engineer, and pilot

A person may bring a civil action against a master, mate, engineer, or pilot of a vessel, and recover damages, for personal injury or loss caused by the master’s, mate’s, engineer’s, or pilots—
(1) negligence or willful misconduct; or
(2) neglect or refusal to obey the laws governing the navigation of vessels.

§ 30104. Personal injury to or death of seamen

(a) Cause of Action.— A seaman injured in the course of employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer. Laws of the United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an action under this section.
(b) Venue.— An action under this section shall be brought in the judicial district in which the employer resides or the employer’s principal office is located.

§ 30105. Restriction on recovery by non-citizens and non-resident aliens for incidents in waters of other countries

(a) Definition.— In this section, the term “continental shelf” has the meaning given that term in the article I of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.
(b) Restriction.— Except as provided in subsection (c), a civil action for maintenance and cure or for damages for personal injury or death may not be brought under maritime law of the United States if—
(1) the individual suffering the injury or death was not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the action;
(2) the incident occurred in the territorial waters or waters overlying the continental shelf of a country other than the United States; and
(3) the individual suffering the injury or death was employed at the time of the incident by a person engaged in the exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, including drilling, mapping, surveying, diving, pipelaying, maintaining, repairing, constructing, or transporting supplies, equipment, or personnel, but not including transporting those resources by a vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in the cargo spaces.
(c) Nonapplication.— Subsection (b) does not apply if the individual bringing the action establishes that a remedy is not available under the laws of—
(1) the country asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred; or
(2) the country in which the individual suffering the injury or death maintained citizenship or residency at the time of the incident.

§ 30106. Time limit on bringing maritime action for personal injury or death

Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose.

Introduction:

Background:

Overview of the Acts:

Impact of the Townshend Acts:

Conclusion:

TOWNSHEND ACT TEXT

Townshend Acts

Originated by Charles Townshend and passed by parliament in 1767, the Townshend Acts were a series of laws that related to the British-American colonies in North America. The acts, named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, enabled Parliament to raise revenues in the colonies through the implementation of new taxes and trade regulations.

The Townshend Acts are an agglomeration of five laws: the Indemnity Act, the Revenue Act of 1767, the Vice-Admiralty Court Act, the New York Restraining Act, and the Commissioners of Customs Act. These acts all sought to raise revenue in the colonies in order to provide the salaries of judges and governors so they could be independent of colonial authority. Furthermore, the Townshend Acts of 1767 sought to create a more effective way to enforce compliance with trade regulations and implement punishments for the province of New York for failing to comply with previous legislation, most notably the Quartering Act. The Townshend Acts, in essence, established the precedent that Parliament had the right to implement new taxes on the colonies.

Because the Townshend Acts of 1767 maintained Britain’s belief that they could continue to tax the colonies, the legislation was met with widespread resistance. The rejection of the Townshend Acts prompted the occupation of Boston by the British army in 1768—this security measure ultimately resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

Background of the Townshend Acts:

After the Seven Years’ War ended, the British Empire was facing mounting debts. To help relieve the costs associated with war and their newfound expansion effort, the British Parliament decided to implement new taxes on the American colonies. Prior to the passing of the Townshend Acts, Parliament used taxation in the Trade and Navigation Acts to regulate Colonial commerce and the trade of the British Empire. However, through the passing of the Sugar Act in 1764, Parliament pursued, for the first time, a tax levy on the American colonies solely to raise revenue.

According to the British Constitution, subjects of the empire could not be taxed without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonies elected no members of the Parliament, the majority of colonists viewed the empire’s levies as a violation of the constitutional doctrine regarding the consent to taxation. In turn, British officials countered the colonial viewpoint by expressing the theory of “virtual representation” which maintained the colonist’s susceptibility to taxation even though no members of Parliament were elected. This issue ultimately became a major point of contention following the passing of the 1765 Stamp Act—a piece of legislation that was wildly hated by the Colonies.

Implicit in the taxation dispute raised fundamental questions regarding Britain’s authoritative power in the colonies. The British Empire seemingly answered this question by passing the Declaratory Act, which stated that the British Parliament was free to tax and police the colonies in all matters.

How did the Townshend Acts Raise Revenue for Parliament?

The first tax the Townshend Act implemented was codified by the Revenue Act of 1767. This tax was a new approach to the levy system and was implemented following the distasteful Stamp Act. Because of the vehement objection to the Stamp Act (a direct tax on a product), Parliament believed the colonists would not oppose an indirect or external model, such as a tax on imports. As a response to this belief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Charles Townshend, devised a model that placed new tax duties on imported paint, lead, glass, tea, and paper. These items, which were not produced in North America, were only to be bought from the British Empire.

The Townshend Acts were a misstep on the part of the Parliament. Parliament imposed a non-direct tax thinking it would satisfy colonists who despised the direct taxation model of the Stamp Act. The empire failed to realize that it wasn’t the model of taxation that had the colonists up in arms, but instead, the premise that Parliament was instituting taxes merely to raise revenues—a procedure that was deemed unconstitutional. This mistaken belief that colonists regarded internal taxation as unfair, and external models as “constitutional” was a spark plug that ultimately led to the revolution.

The Revenue provision of the Townshend Acts was passed in conjunction with the Indemnity provision of 1767, which in essence, made the tea of the British East India Company more competitive with smuggled teas. The Indemnity Act repealed the levy on teas imported to England and allowed the goods to be re-exported at a cheaper price to the colonies.

The original goal of the Townshend Act was to raise revenues to help pay the costs of maintaining arms throughout the world. This goal ultimately shifted, as the tax increases and models were used to pay the salaries of officers, judges, and colonial governors. In previous years, the colonies paid these salaries, but in hopes of restoring authoritative power, the empire decided to compensate these officials themselves.

To collect the new taxes, the empire established the American Board of Customs Commissioners. This board, which was led by five commissioners, was essentially a state entity that threatened imprisonment and the institution of heavy fines if taxes went unpaid.

Reaction to the Townshend Acts of 1767:

The Townshend Acts of 1767 were, to no surprise, hated by the colonists; merchants in the colonies organized economic boycotts of British goods and put pressure on their counterparts to repeal the acts. In response to the provisions of the act, particularly to the indirect taxation on imports, a number of prominent colonists as well as merchants organized a non-importation agreement, which effectively called for suppliers to suspend importation of various British goods. The non-importation agreement, which started in Boston, spread to industrial hubs throughout the colonies.

Headquartered in Boston, the newly formed American Customs Board concentrated on enforcing the Townshend Acts. As a result, Boston became a hotbed for protest. The acts were so popular in the Massachusetts city that the Customs board demanded naval and military assistance.

In June of 1768, customs officials seized the vessel Liberty, owned by a leading Boston merchant, by the name of John Hancock. The influential Bostonian’s ship was seized on allegations that Hancock had been involved in smuggling. In response to this faulty allegation and the subsequent tyrannical action, Bostonians began to riot.

After a series of lawsuits, the British Empire employed troops to intervene in September of 1768. Samuel Adams, in response to the deployment, organized the community to stake their claim and obstruct the empire from enforcing their disingenuous taxes. The ensuing years were filled with resentment and refusal; five civilians were murdered two years later on March 5th of 1770, in an event that will forever be known as the Boston Massacre.

Repeal of the Townshend Acts:

Hours after the Boston Massacre, Lord North, the newly appointed Prime Minister, presented a claim in the House of Commons that demanded a partial repeal of the Townshend Acts. Although many in Parliament, asked for a complete repeal of the Townshend Acts to quell the disputes, North disagreed by arguing that the tea tax must be retained to assert the right to tax the colonies. Ultimately, the Townshend Acts were repealed, while the Tea Tax was retained through the passing of the 1773 Tea Act. This tax, allowed the East India Company to import tea directly to the colonies. Of course, this leads to the Boston Tea Party and set the stage for the American Revolution.

Text of the Townshend Acts:

AN ACT for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoanuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthenware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations.

WHEREAS it is expedient that revenue should be raised, in your Majesty’s dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government, in such provinces as it shall be found necessary; and towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the said dominions; … be it enacted… That from and after the twentieth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, for upon and the respective Goods hereinafter mentioned, which shall be imported from Great Britain into any colony or plantation in America which now is or hereafter maybe, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, the several Rates and Duties following; that is to say,

For every hundredweight avoirdupois of the crown, plate, flint, and white glass, four shillings, and eightpence.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of red lead, two shillings.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of green glass, one shilling and two pence.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of white lead, two shillings.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of painters colors, two shillings.

For every pound weight avoirdupois of tea, threepence.

For every ream of paper, usually called or known by the name of Atlas fine, twelve shillings. …

IV
…and that all the monies that shall arise by the said duties (except the necessary charges of raising, collecting, levying, recovering, answering, paying, and accounting for the same) shall be applied, in the first place, in such manner as is hereinafter mentioned, in making a more certain and adequate provision for the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of civil government in such of the said colonies and plantations where it shall be found necessary; and that the residue of such duties shall be paid into the receipt of his Majesty’s exchequer, and shall be entered separately and apart from all other monies paid or payable to his Majesty …; and shall be there reserved, be from time to time disposed of by parliament towards defraying the necessary expense of defending, protecting, and securing, the British colonies and plantations in America.

V
And be it further enacted …, That his Majesty and his successors shall be, and are hereby, empowered, from time to time, by any warrant or warrants under his or their royal sign manual or sign manuals, countersigned by the high treasurer, or any three or more of the commissioners of the treasury, for the time being, to cause such monies to be applied, out of the produce of the duties granted by this act, as his Majesty, or his successors, shall think proper or necessary, for defraying the charges of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government, within all or any of the said colonies or plantations…

X
And whereas by an act of parliament made in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses, in his Majesty’s customs, and several other acts now in force, it is lawful for any officer of his Majesty’s customs, authorized by writ of assistance under the seal of his Majesty’s court of exchequer, to take a constable, headborough, or other public officer inhabiting near unto the place, and in the daytime to enter and go into any house, shop cellar, warehouse, or room or other place and, in case of resistance, to break open doors, chests, trunks, and other pakage there, to seize, and from thence to bring, any kind of goods or merchandise whatsoever prohibited or uncustomed, and to put and secure the same in his Majesty’s storehouse next to the place where such seizure shall be made;

And whereas by an act made in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, intituledAn act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses, in the plantation trade, it is, amongst otherthings, enacted, that the officers for collecting and managing his Majesty’s revenue, and inspecting the plantation trade, in America, shall have the same powers and authorities to enter houses or warehouses, to search or seize goods prohibited to be imported or exported into or out of any of the said plantations, or for which any duties are payable, or ought to have been paid; and that the like assistance shall be given to the said officers in the execution of their office, as, by the said recited act of the fourteenth year of King Charles the Second, is provided for the officers of England:

But, no authority being expressly given by the said act, made in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, to any particular court to grant such writs of assistance for the officers of the customs in the said plantations, it is doubted whether such officers can legally enter houses and other places on land, to search for and seize goods, in the manner directed by the said recited acts: To obviate which doubts for the future, and in order to carry the intention of the said recited acts into effectual execution, be it enacted …, That from and after the said twentieth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, such writs of assistance, to authorize and impower the officers of his Majesty’s customs to enter and go into any house, warehouse, shop, cellar, or other place, in the Britishcolonies or plantations in America, to search for and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods, in the manner directed by the said recited acts, shall and may be granted by the said superior or supreme court of justice having jurisdiction within such colony or plantation respectively…

Introduction:

Background:

Overview of the Act:

Impact of the Act:

What is the Enabling Act of 1933?

The Enabling Act of 1933 was passed by the Reichstag party of Germany and signed by President Paul Von Hindenburg. The legislation represented the second major (the first was the Reichstag Fire Decree) step in Hitler’s rise to power.

Chancellor Adolf Hitler, through the passing of the Enabling Act, obtained plenary powers and legally established his dictatorship. The Enabling Act, as its name suggest, allowed Hitler to assume control of the government and vaulted him into a position of unquestioned power. The Enabling Act granted Hitler’s party to enact laws without the direct participation of the Reichstag.

Background of the Enabling Act:

After Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January of 1933, he asked President Hindenburg to do away with the Reichstag. An election was scheduled for March of 1933 to uphold the democratic government in Germany; however, six days prior an arson attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin officially dissolved the government and was viewed as a pivotal step towards the establishment of the Nazi regime.

The burning of the Reichstag building was the overwhelming symbol for the beginning of the Nazi revolution. The attack gave way to the Reichstag Fire Decree, which definitely suspended habeas corpus rights and an assortment of civil liberties. Hitler used this decree to raid various government offices (including the Communist Party Offices) to effectively eliminate all political counterparties.

Voting on the Enabling Act:

Although the Nazi party (NSDAP) received a substantial amount of votes, they failed to win an absolute majority in parliament—52 seats were won by the party’s coalition partner, the German National People’s Party. This slim majority was not sought by Hitler, who immediately freed himself from the National Party’s dependency, by forcing the cabinet to draft the initial legislation for the Enabling Act. This proposal would shift legislative power from the Reichstag and its parties to the cabinet for a period of four years. The Nazis drafted the Enabling Act to gain complete political dominance, without the support of a majority in the Reichstag and without the need to include or bargain with their coalition parties.

The Rules Enabling Act allowed Hitler’s cabinet to draft and subsequently enact legislation, including all laws that deviated from or effectively reformed the nation’s constitution. These abilities were thus transferred to Hitler without the need for consent of the Reichstag. Because the Enabling Act allowed the party to depart from the nation’s constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and as such, its formal adoption required a two-thirds majority vote.

The Enabling act was originally thought to be struck-down by the Communists and the Social Democrats; however, Hitler’s government had all Communist and the majority of Social Democrats arrested under the Reichstag Fire Decree. This elimination of the opposition and Hitler’s influence over the Centre Party was enough to receive the two-thirds majority vote.

Although the enabling act was eventually passed, Hitler’s negotiations with the Centre Party was tenuous—Hitler talked with the Ludwig Kass, the Centre Party’s Chairman, and guaranteed the protection of religious liberties and the retention of civil workers affiliated with the party. On the day of the vote, debate within the Centre Party emerged—Kaas advocated voting in favor of the act, referring to the written agreement from Hitler, while other party leaders called for a rejection of the Enabling Act. The Centre Party ultimately sided with Kaas.

The remaining Social Democrats planned to obstruct the passing of the Enabling Act by boycotting the Reichstag session. This boycott would render the gathering short of the two-thirds vote that was mandatory for constitutional amendments. The Reichstag; however, changed its rules of procedure and allowed the President to declare any absent deputy to be considered as present. Because of this change, the Social Democrats were obliged to attend the meeting and committed by voting against the Act.

Later in the day, the Reichstag gathered under intimidating circumstances—Hitler’s troops swarmed the chambers. At this time, the majority of party leaders supported the bill, and those that didn’t were intimidated by SA troops to do so. When the vote was finalized, all parties except the Social Democrats favored the passing of the Enabling Act.

Consequences of the Enabling Act:

According to the rules enabling act, the government possessed the authority to pass laws without parliamentary consent. This shift of power was unprecedented; for the first time, laws could deviate from the nation’s Constitution. The Act, thus, eliminated the Reichstag as an influence in German politics. Combined with the Reichstag Fire Decree (documents that curtailed civil liberties and transferred powers to the Reich Government) the rules enabling act transformed Hitler’s governing body into a full-fledged dictatorship.

The rules enabling act also removed Presidential oversight—Hindenburg withdrew from day-day government affairs. Furthermore, cabinet meetings were exceedingly rare after the Enabling Act had been passed.

Although the rules enabling act gave legislative powers to the government, this authority was exercised predominantly by Hitler himself. The passing of the rules enabling act reduced the Reichstag to a mere platform for which Hitler could orate. The Reichstag was a shell; it met only a handful of times until the end of the Second World War and enacted only a few meaningless laws. Within months after the passing of the Enabling Act of 1933, all parties except the Nazi regime were eliminated or pressured into dissolving themselves.

The Enabling Act was renewed in 1937 and 1941. In 1942, Hitler was given the power of life and death over every German citizen.

Specific Articles of the Enabling Act:

The Enabling Act was enacted by the Reichstag party and is divided into the following articles:

Article 1 of the Enabling Act: The opening article of the rules enabling act stated that in addition to the process prescribed by Germany’s constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the governing body of the Reich. This provision includes all laws referred to by Article 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the nation’s Constitution.

Article 2 of the Enabling Act: The second act of the rules enabling act stated that government may deviate from the nation’s constitution as long as the deviation does not affect the institutions of the German government and the Reichstrat. Through this article, the president or ruler’s powers and rights remain unaltered.

Article 3 of the Enabling Act: States that any law enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor (leader) and officially announced in the nation’s leading newspaper—the Reich Gazette. The announcements will be made on the day following the enactment unless the government prescribed a different date. Certain provisions of the Constitution will not apply to the laws enacted by the Reich government.

Article 4 of the Enabling Acts: This portion of the rules enabling act stated that treaties of the Reich with foreign states that affect matters of legislation will not require the approval of the legislature. This section of the enabling act states that the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the passing of such treaties.

Article 5 of the Enabling Acts: This portion of the rules enabling act states that any law passed by the government takes effect during the day of its proclamation. The law will then lose its force on April 1st of 1937 (4 years after it is passed) or if the present government is replaced.

Text of the Enabling Act:

The Reichstag has passed the following law, which is, with the approval of the Reichsrat, herewith promulgated, after it has been established that it meets the requirements for legislation altering the Constitution.

Article 1. National laws can be enacted by the Reich Cabinet as well as in accordance with the procedure established in the Constitution. This also applies to the laws referred to in Article 85, Paragraph 2, and Article 87 of the Constitution.

Article 2. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3. The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet shall be prepared by the Chancellor and published in theReichsgesetzblatt. They come into effect, unless otherwise specified, the day after their publication. Articles 68-77 of the Constitution do not apply to the laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet.

Article 4. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which concern matters of national legislation do not require the consent of the bodies participating in legislation. The Reich Cabinet is empowered to issue the necessary provisions for the implementation of these treaties.

Article 5. This law becomes effective on the day of its publication. It becomes invalid on April 1, 1937; it also becomes invalid if the present Reich Cabinet is replaced by another.

Reich President von Hindenburg

Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler

Reich Minister of the Interior Frick

Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs Baron von Neurath

Reich Minister of Finances Count Schwerin von Krosigk

Source of English translation: Law to Remove the Distress of the People and the Reich (Enabling Act); reprinted in U.S. Department of State, Division of European Affairs, National Socialism. Basic Principles, their Application by the Nazi Party’s Foreign Organizations, and the Use of Germans Abroad for Nazi Aims. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1943, Appendix, Document 11, pp. 217-18. (Translation edited by GHI staff.)

Source of original German text: Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (Ermächtigungsgesetz) (23. März 1933), Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Part I, No. 25, p. 141; also reprinted in Paul Meier-Benneckenstein, ed.,Dokumente der deutschen Politik, Volume 1: Die Nationalsozialistische Revolution 1933, edited by Axel Friedrichs. Berlin, 1935, pp. 42-43.

The 16th Amendment of the Constitution: A Comprehensive Guide

The 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution, also known as the Income Tax Amendment, grants Congress the power to levy taxes on the income of individuals and corporations without apportioning the tax among the states or basing it on a census. The amendment was ratified in 1913 as a result of the changing economic landscape of the country and has since played a significant role in the government’s revenue collection efforts. In this article, we’ll take a deeper look at the 16th Amendment, its history, and how it has impacted subsequent tax legislation.

Background and Context of The 16th Amendment

Prior to the 16th Amendment’s ratification, the federal government was largely dependent on customs duties and excise taxes to generate revenue, which often fluctuated with economic conditions. The government was also limited in its ability to tax individual income. In 1894, Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, which included a provision for a 2% income tax on annual incomes over $4,000. The Supreme Court, however, declared the provision unconstitutional in the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. The Court held that the act violated the Constitution’s provision that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states. The decision effectively crippled the government’s ability to levy taxes on individual income.

The 16th Amendment was introduced following the Pollock decision as a response to the increasing need for a more stable and reliable source of government revenue. It was first proposed in 1909 and was promptly ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913.

The Language of The 16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment’s language is relatively simple and straightforward, stating that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” This language effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Pollock and established the income tax as a constitutionally permissible form of taxation.

Effects of The 16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment has had a profound impact on the government’s revenue collection efforts. Since its ratification, income taxes have become a significant source of revenue for the federal government, accounting for over 50% of total revenue in some years. The amendment has also allowed the government to levy taxes on high-income earners and corporations, who may have previously avoided or mitigated their tax burden through loopholes or other means.

However, the implementation of the income tax has not been without controversy. Critics argue that the tax is overly complex, cumbersome, and burdensome to taxpayers, and particularly on small businesses. The tax code has grown substantially since its inception, with nearly 4 million words in the current version of the code. Additionally, the taxes have been subject to political and ideological debates, with some arguing that the government’s reliance on income taxes has encouraged wasteful spending and expansion of government.

Recent Developments

In recent years, there has been a growing debate regarding the effectiveness of The 16th Amendment in generating revenue and promoting economic growth. In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law, reducing tax rates for individuals and corporations, while eliminating some deductions and credits. The law was touted as a major reform and economic stimulus measure, with many supporters arguing that it would stimulate growth and investment.

However, critics of the TCJA argue that the law primarily benefited corporations and high-income earners, while doing little to help low- and middle-income households. There are also concerns that the law may contribute to the expanding budget deficit and increase economic inequality.

Conclusion

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution represents a significant shift in the government’s revenue collection efforts, allowing for the implementation of an income tax. While controversy and political debate have surrounded the amendment and the implementation of income taxes, it remains an essential part of the government’s revenue collection efforts and a critical tool for funding essential services and programs. As the country continues to evolve economically, it will be critical for lawmakers to consider how to balance the need for revenue with the concerns of taxpayers, stakeholders, and the broader economy.

Popular Cases Involving the 16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, gave the federal government the power to tax individual income. Over the past century, there have been numerous cases involving the 16th Amendment, with some of the more notable cases involving tax evasion, challenges to the legality of income taxes, and disputes over the interpretation of the amendment’s language. In this article, we will explore some of the most popular cases involving the 16th Amendment.

Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1924)

Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue was the first case to challenge the constitutionality of the income tax. Frank Smith argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the 5th Amendment’s due process clause and the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states and to the people. The Supreme Court rejected Smith’s argument, ruling that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax incomes, and that the tax did not violate any other constitutional provisions.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916)

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, Charles Brushaber challenged the constitutionality of the income tax, arguing that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the power to tax individual income. The Supreme Court rejected Brushaber’s argument, ruling that the 16th Amendment did give Congress the power to tax incomes, and that income taxes were not direct taxes subject to the constitutional apportionment requirement.

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895)

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. was the first major case involving income taxes, and was the catalyst for the 16th Amendment. The case involved a challenge to the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which imposed a tax on income from dividends, interest, and rents. The Supreme Court struck down the tax, ruling that it was a direct tax that violated the constitutional apportionment requirement. The decision was widely criticized, and led to calls for a constitutional amendment to allow income taxes.

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert (1918)

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert was a landmark case that established the principle of “ordinary and necessary expenses” in tax law. Stratton’s Independence argued that it should be able to deduct the cost of bribing government officials from its taxable income, on the grounds that such payments were a necessary part of doing business. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, ruling that expenses must be “ordinary and necessary” to be deductible, and that bribes are neither ordinary nor necessary expenses.

Griffin v. State of Wisconsin (1941)

Griffin v. State of Wisconsin was a case involving the interpretation of the 16th Amendment’s language. Griffin argued that the amendment only allowed Congress to tax incomes derived from property, and did not give Congress the power to tax wages and salaries. The Supreme Court rejected Griffin’s argument, ruling that the amendment gave Congress the power to tax all sources of income, regardless of their origin.

Cheek v. United States (1991)

Cheek v. United States was a high-profile case involving tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. The defendant, Charles Cheek, argued that he believed the income tax was unconstitutional, and therefore he had no obligation to pay it. The Supreme Court rejected Cheek’s argument, ruling that a good faith belief that the law is unconstitutional is not a defense to a charge of tax evasion. The decision has been cited in numerous tax-evasion cases since then.

United States v. Ballard (1946)

United States v. Ballard was a case involving the religious beliefs of the defendants in a tax evasion case. The defendants, who were members of a religious group called the ‘I AM’ Activity, believed that they could avoid paying taxes by invoking divine intervention. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, ruling that the First Amendment’s protection of religious beliefs did not exempt the defendants from complying with the tax laws.

Conclusion

The 16th Amendment has been the subject of numerous cases over the past century, involving challenges to the constitutionality of income taxes, disputes over the interpretation of the amendment’s language, and charges of tax evasion. Despite the challenges and criticisms, the income tax has remained a vital part of the federal government’s revenue system, and the 16th Amendment has been a cornerstone of tax law and policy in the United States.

Summary of the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and became ratified on February 3, 1913. The amendment allowed Congress to impose a Federal income tax.

The Sixteenth Amendment states the following:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The history behind the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

After the end of the Civil War, industry and the financial markets in the Northeastern States began to grow, but Reconstruction efforts in the south and agriculture throughout the south and the west continued to struggle. The farmers were forced to sell their products for low prices and pay heavy prices for manufactured goods—mainly from the northern states.

During the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers in the south and the west began to form political organizations like the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s Party. All of these groups wanted legislation for a graduated income tax.

Legislation Begins

In 1894, legislation began that would ultimately lead to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress passed the high tariff bill in 1894 which placed a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The Supreme Court quickly struck down the bill in a 5-4 decision even though the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Civil War tax in 1881.

Farmers were furious over the Court’s decision, but hostility decreased around 1900 and slowed the need for reform because business was steadily increasing in the United States—even in the southern and western states.

Democratic platforms and the progressive wing of the Republican Party continued to stress legislation for an income tax, and a provision for an income tax was introduced into Congress in 1909 and attached to a tariff bill. Many conservatives in Congress wanted to end proposed legislation for an income tax for good and proposed an amendment to the constitution because they believed three-fourth of states would never adopt the ratification.

The plan didn’t work. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified by the state after state until it took effect on February 25, 1913. Secretary of State Philander C. Knox certified the Amendment. Sadly, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes in 1913 at a rate of 1 percent of net income because of large deductions and exemptions.

Cases that Appealed the Income Tax

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad(1916), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not violate the Fifth Amendment and its prohibition against the government taking property without due process.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co(1955), the Supreme Court established standards for gross income. Congress was allowed to make specific exemptions for things like scholarships, life insurance proceeds, and more.

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution: Protecting Equal Rights for All

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution was one of the most important amendments ever passed in United States’ history. Its ratification gave constitutional protection to basic civil rights and has impacted countless court cases and the lives of millions of Americans. This amendment has been central in the fight for equality and protection against discrimination. In this article, we will explore the history and impact of the 14th Amendment, including recent updates on the topic using government resources.

The History of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment was adopted in July 1869, as part of the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War. This amendment addressed important issues related to legal equality, citizenship, due process and equal protection under the law. The amendment was passed with the intent of protecting the rights of all people, regardless of skin color or ethnicity, from discrimination by states.

The language of the 14th Amendment is divided into five sections, which we will explore in more detail below:

Section 1: Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

One of the most important sections of the 14th Amendment is Section 1, which has been widely used to strike down state and local laws that discriminate against minorities. This section guarantees equal protection under the law for all people. It states that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This section was meant to ensure that all people living within the United States were granted equal protection under the law. In doing so, it essentially overruled several Supreme Court cases, including the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which denied citizenship to African Americans.

Section 2: Apportionment of Representatives

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment addressed the issue of apportionment and representation in Congress. It provided that each state’s representation in the House of Representatives would be based on their total population, which includes all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. However, this section of the amendment became nullified by Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote.

Section 3: Disqualification from Office

Section 3 of the amendment bars anyone from holding public office in the United States if they had previously sworn an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but then later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it. It was enacted in response to the rampant defiance of Southern states during the early years of Reconstruction and was meant to prevent former Confederate leaders from regaining power.

Section 4: Public Debt

Section 4 of the amendment provided for the validity of the public debt of the United States and prohibited states from repudiating any debts owed. This section was a response to fears that some Southern states might attempt to secede again and repudiate any debts accumulated as part of the war.

Section 5: Enforcement

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorized Congress to enforce the provisions of the amendment through legislation. This section of the amendment has been critical in the vast array of civil rights legislation that has been passed since its adoption.

The Impact of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment has been pivotal in shaping the legal landscape of the United States since its ratification. The language of the amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in countless cases and has helped provide protections and rights to millions of Americans.

To truly comprehend the scope of the 14th Amendment, one must consider a few landmark cases where it played a significant role.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Perhaps the most famous and significant case that relied on the 14th Amendment was Brown v. Board of Education. This case challenged the “separate but equal” doctrine that had been established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which had upheld segregation in schools. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision was monumental in the fight against racials segregation, changing the perception of African Americans in the U.S. forever.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Another case that relied on the 14th Amendment was Roe v. Wade. This case challenged a Texas law that prohibited abortions, stating that it was unconstitutional and violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, was protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and thus invalidated the ban on abortion. This ruling was a milestone decision for women’s rights and reproductive freedom.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

In 2015, the Supreme Court issued another important decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which challenged that same-sex couples had a right to marry. The Court held that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all individuals, including the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. This ruling broadened the legal recognition of marriage, extending the protections afforded to married partners to same-sex couples.

The 14th Amendment and Current Events

In recent events, the 14th Amendment has again come under debate. One of the most significant recent events related to the amendment is in response to the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India. The Indian Citizenship Act has been seen by some to have violated the very spirit of similar due process rights given under the 14th Amendment. The Citizenship Amendment Act would grant citizenship to a controversial group of illegal immigrants entering India, excluding Muslims. In addition to violating several core beliefs of the Indian Constitution, the Citizenship Amendment Act has been challenged in several courts, which has prompted many constitutional scholars to draw parallels between the current situation in India and past injustices in the United States.

In summary, the 14th Amendment has played a significant role in the civil rights movement, ensuring that all peoples are protected under the law. This amendment has been included in many important court cases throughout history and has created a framework through which discrimination is prohibited, life, liberty, and property are protected, and legal due process is available for all citizens. As demonstrated by recent events with the Citizenship Amendment Act, the protection this amendment offers should not be taken for granted and must continue to be been defended to ensure equal rights for all individuals under the law.

Summary of the Original Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and mainly ensured former slaves were protected by constitutional rights within the country.

Section 1

Section 1 stated that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens, thus states could not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Section 2

The original section of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed voting rights to all male citizens 23 years of age and older. This section was amended by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and gave voting rights to any person (regardless of gender) 18 years of age or older.

Section 3

This section of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no person can hold a position of office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State if they were engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. This section mainly applied to persons in the office that supported confederate states. The disability could be removed if Congress reached a two-thirds vote.

Section 4

This section of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that no debts for the suppression of insurrection or rebellion could be questioned. The section also states that the United States was not responsible for debts from the loss or emancipation of any slave. These debts were illegal and void.

Section 5

This section simply states that Congress has the ability to enforce the provisions of this Article with appropriate legislation.

The Need for the Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment was needed because provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments that denied these basic civil liberties. For example, in 1835 during Barron v. Baltimore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights was only enforceable against the actions of the federal government.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution thus ensured due process and gave federal courts jurisdiction to the case if a state denied basic civil liberties.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution also allowed a person to sue the federal court if a state law regulation denied “equal protection of the laws.” For example, during the famous caseBrown v. Board of Education (1954), the federal courts ended segregation in public schools because equal protection was denied by the Kansas school’s adoption of unconstitutional operating standards.

Minimum Standards under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment allows a federal court to hear cases that violate minimum standards under the Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education deprived students of equal protection because the schools were segregated. However, a similar case shows the federal court’s inability to rule on more complex issues. In the caseSan Antonia Independent School District v Rodriguez (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the unequal quality between rich and poor communities and their school districts is not unconstitutional. The Court ruled that “The Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”

Sources:

1.https://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/LegalLandmarks/JudicialInterpretationFourteenthAmmendment.aspx

2. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Title 18 of the United States Code, popularly known as the “criminal code,” is a comprehensive compilation of federal criminal law in the United States. It was first enacted in 1948 as part of the codification effort of the United States Congress, which aimed to gather and organize federal criminal statutes into one coherent document.

Title 18 contains a plethora of criminal offenses ranging from theft, fraud, and financial crimes to violent crimes and terrorism-related offenses. It outlines the guidelines for criminal procedures, including the rules and regulations for the arrest, trial, and sentencing of criminal offenders. Additionally, it also provides for procedural protections for criminal defendants, such as the right to counsel and due process guarantees.

One of the most significant features of Title 18 is its federal jurisdiction. Under federal law, certain crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States may be subject to prosecution in federal courts, regardless of whether they violate state laws. Some crimes that fall under the federal jurisdiction per §3231 of Title 18 include drug trafficking, organized crime, economic espionage, white-collar crimes, and terrorism-related offenses.

Title 18 also outlines several high-profile and landmark federal criminal laws, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which provides for severe penalties for organized crime, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which criminalizes unauthorized access or use of a computer system.

Moreover, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which govern sentencing for federal criminal cases, are also included in Title 18. The Guidelines provide a framework for judges to determine appropriate sentences for convicted criminal offenders, based on a complex system of offense level and criminal history.

In conclusion, Title 18 of the United States Code is a crucial component of the federal criminal justice system. It outlines the federal laws, guidelines, and procedures governing criminal offenses in the United States. Its comprehensive and detailed compilation of federal criminal law reaffirms the values of justice, fairness, and the rule of law in our society.

Title 18 of the United States Code: Part I—Crimes

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Chapter 2: Aircraft and Motor Vehicles

Chapter 3: Animals, Birds, Fish, and Plants

Chapter 5: Arson

Chapter 7: Assault

Chapter 9: Bankruptcy

Chapter 10: Biological Weapons

Chapter 11: Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest

Chapter 11A: Child Support

Chapter 11B: Chemical Weapons

Chapter 12: Civil Disorders

Chapter 13: Civil Rights

Chapter 15: Claims and Services in Matters Affecting Government

Chapter 17: Coins and Currency

Chapter 17A: Common Carrier under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Chapter 18: Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault

Chapter 19: Conspiracy

Chapter 21: Contempts

Chapter 23: Contracts

Chapter 25: Counterfeiting and Forgery

Chapter 26: Criminal Street Gangs

Chapter 27: Customs

Chapter 29: Elections and Political Activities

Chapter 31: Embezzlement and Theft

Chapter 33: Emblems, Insignia, and Names

Chapter 37: Espionage and Censorship

Chapter 39: Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles

Chapter 40: Importation, Manufacture, Distribution, and Storage of Explosive Materials

Chapter 41: Extortion and Threats

Chapter 42: Extortionate Credit Transactions

Chapter 43: False Personation

Chapter 44: Firearms

Chapter 45: Foreign Relations Threats

Chapter 46: Forfeiture

Chapter 47: Fraud and False Statements

Chapter 49: Fugitives from Justice

Chapter 51: Homicide

Chapter 53: Indians

Chapter 55: Kidnapping

Chapter 57: Labor

Chapter 59: Liquor Traffic

Chapter 60: Illegal Grocery Delivery

Chapter 61: Lotteries

Chapter 63: Mail Fraud

Chapter 65: Malicious Mischief

Chapter 67: Military and Navy

Chapter 68: [Repealed]

Chapter 69: Nationality and Citizenship

Chapter 71: Obscenity

Chapter 73: Obstruction of Justice

Chapter 74: Partial-Birth Abortions

Chapter 75: Passports and Visas

Chapter 77: Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons

Chapter 79: Perjury

Chapter 81: Piracy and Privateering

Chapter 83: Postal Service

Chapter 84: Presidential and Presidential Staff Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault

Chapter 85: Prison-Made Goods

Chapter 87: Prisons

Chapter 88: Privacy

Chapter 89: Professions and Occupations

Chapter 90: Protection of Trade Secrets

Chapter 90a: Protection of Unborn Children

Chapter 91: Public Lands

Chapter 93: Public Officers and Employees

Chapter 95: Racketeering

Chapter 96: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Chapter 97: Railroads

Chapter 99: [Repealed]

Chapter 101: Records and Reports

Chapter 102: Riots

Chapter 103: Robbery and Burglary

Chapter 105: Sabotage

Chapter 107: Seamen and Stowaways

Chapter 109: Searches and seizures

Chapter 109a: Sexual Abuse

Chapter 110: Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children

Chapter 110a: Domestic Violence and Stalking

Chapter 111: Seamen Shipping

Chapter 113: Stolen Property

Chapter 113a: Telemarketing Fraud

Chapter 113b: Terrorism

Chapter 113c: Torture

Chapter 114: Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco

Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities

Chapter 117: Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes

Chapter 118: War Crimes

Chapter 119: Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications

Chapter 121: Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access

Chapter 123: Prohibition on Release and Use of Certain Personal Information from State Motor Vehicle Records

Title 18 of the United States Code: Part II—Criminal Procedure

Chapter 201: General Provisions

Chapter 203: Arrest and Commitment

Chapter 204: Rewards for Information Concerning Terrorist Acts and Espionage

Chapter 205: Searches and Seizures

Chapter 206: Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

Chapter 207: Release and Detention Pending Judicial Proceedings

Chapter 208: Speedy Trial

Chapter 209: Extradition

Chapter 211: Jurisdiction and Venue

Chapter 212: Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Chapter 212a: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over Certain Trafficking In-person Offenses

Chapter 213: Limitations

Chapter 215: Grand Jury

Chapter 216: Special Grand Jury

Chapter 217: Indictment and Information

Chapter 219: Trial by United States Magistrate Judges

Chapter 221: Arraignment, Pleas and Trial

Chapter 223: Witnesses and Evidence

Chapter 224: Protection of Witnesses

Chapter 225: Verdict

Chapter 227: Sentences

Chapter 228: Death Sentence

Chapter 228a: Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Chapter 229: Postsentence Administration

Chapter 231: [Repealed]

Chapter 232: Miscellaneous Sentencing Provisions

Chapter 232a: Special Forfeiture of Collateral Profits of Crime

Chapter 233: Contempts

Chapter 237: Crime Victims Rights

Title 18 of the United States Code: Part III—Prisons and Prisoners

Chapter301: General Provisions

Chapter 303: Bureau of Prisons

Chapter 305: Commitment and Transfer

Chapter 306: Transfer To or From Foreign Countries

Chapter 307: Employment

Chapter 309: [Repealed]

Chapter 311: [Repealed]

Chapter 313: Offenders with Mental Disease or Defect

Chapter 314: [Repealed]

Chapter 315: Discharge and Release Payments

Chapter 317: Institutions for Women

Chapter 319: National Institute of Corrections

Title 18 of the United States Code: Part IV—Correction of Youthful Offenders

Chapter 401: General Provisions

Chapter 402: [Repealed]

Chapter 403: Juvenile Delinquency

Title 18 of the United States Code: Part V—Immunity of Witnesses

Chapter 601: Immunity of Witnesses

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18

The Declaration of the Rights of Man: A Landmark Document in the Struggle for Human Rights

History of the Declaration

Legacy of the Declaration

Conclusion

What is the Declaration of the Rights of Man?

The Declaration of the Rights of Man was one of the most fundamental documents of the French Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was drafted over a period of 6 days between August 20th and August 26th, 1789 by the National Assembly of France. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was, like the Declaration of Independence in the American Colonies, a statement to the aristocracy of the public disdain for specific policies and would eventually become the essence of the preamble to the Constitution of 1791.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man was drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette and was strongly influenced by the theories of the social contract and individualism espoused by Jean-Jacques Rousseau as well as the separation of powers theory discussed by Baron de Montesquieu. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was heavily influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights as well as the Dutch Patriot Movement.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man was written as a direct refutation of the laws and policies of the aristocratic regimes of the past. Popular sovereignty was to replace “divine right.” The Declaration of the Rights of Man also had the goal of granting individuals the “natural, inalienable and sacred human rights” including “freedom, property, safety and the right to resist oppression.”

Articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man

The articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man consists of 17 articles that cover a number of topics. Articles 1, 2, and 17 specifically refer to an individual’s rights to be free from government intrusion and to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. The specific provisions of these Articles are:

Article 1 – All people shall have equal rights upon birth and ever after. The general utility is the only permissible basis for social distinctions.

(This article was specifically designed to do away with the social, and economic, benefits that came with being born into a specific class. Where the Declaration of the Rights of Man made it a point to define the rights of all citizens it did not include women and there is no mention of slavery.)

Article 2 – The aim of all political associations shall be to preserve man’s natural and imprescriptible rights. These are the right to freedom, property, safety, and the right to resist oppression.

(When referring to the rights of man the Declaration of the Rights of man only applied to landowning men who were 25 years or older and paid taxes equal to 3 days worth of work and were not servants. This essentially gave the right to be an “active citizen” to only 4.5 million out of 29 million citizens. It was not until the 1940’s that the rights of “active citizens” were granted to women.)

Article 17 – The right of ownership is an inviolable and sacred right; one may not be deprived of one’s property, unless where public need, duly ascertained by law, clearly requires it, and subject to the condition that fair and prior compensation be made.

Articles 3 thru 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of man were drafted concerning the government, especially the legislature, its power; how it should be created, and how it may be permitted to influence the public.

Article 3 – The principle of all sovereignty resides in the Nation. Nobody or individual may exercise any power other than that expressly emanating from the Nation.

Article 4 – Freedom is the power to do anything which does not harm another: therefore, the only limits to the exercise of each person’s natural rights are those which ensure that the other members of the community enjoy those same rights. The legislation only may set these limits.

(Article 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man was specifically written to combat the practices of the aristocracy by which individuals would be arrested and charged with criminal conduct that was not prescribed by law.)

Article 5 – Only actions harmful to the community may be made illegal. No-one may be prevented from doing that which the law does not forbid, nor be forced to do that which the law does not command.

Article 6– Legislation expresses the overall will. All citizens, either in person or through their representatives, are entitled to contribute to its formation. Legislation must be the same for all, whether it serves to protect or to punish. As all citizens are equal in the eye of the law, positions of high rank, public office, and employment are open to all on an equal basis according to ability and without any distinction other than that based on their merit or skill.

(Article 6 of the Declaration of The Rights of Man specifically attacks the nature of the French government as it then stood in 1789. Where the King was the sole legislative body in the government. Article 6 specifically calls for a legislative body represented by and elected by, the people. Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man also provides for access to public office positions and employment by all active citizens based on merit; unlike the cronyism that was prevalent under the aristocracy.)

Articles 7 thru 9 are designed strictly to create the rights of individuals to be free from the unwarranted seizure of their person or property without justification, akin to the 4th Amendment in the United States.

Article 7 – A person may be accused, arrested, or detained only in the cases specified by law and in accordance with the procedures which the law provides. Those who solicit, forward, carry out, or have arbitrary orders carried out shall be punished; however, any citizen summoned or apprehended pursuant to law must obey forthwith; by resisting, he admits his guilt.

(Article 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man was meant to directly attack the policy of arresting members of the public for arbitrary reasons. It requires that all members of the public be informed of the laws of which they are required to follow.)

Article 8 – Only penalties which are strictly and clearly necessary may be established by law, and no-one may be punished other than pursuant to a law established and enacted prior to the offense and applied lawfully.

Article 9 – As all persons are presumed innocent until declared guilty, the force used in making indispensable arrests which exceed that needed, shall be severely punished by law.

Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man were written to address the prohibitive nature of the government in preventing the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. Much like the 1st Amendment in the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Articles 10 and 11 address the right of every individual to be vocal about the government and be able to express their freedom of religion.

Article 10 – No-one may be troubled due to his opinions, whether or not they are on religious issues provided that the expression of these opinions does not disturb the peace.

Article 11 – Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious human rights; all citizens may therefore speak, write and print freely, though they may be required to answer for abusing this right in cases specified by law.

Article 12 – The protection of the rights of man and the citizen requires the police force; consequently, this force is established in the interest of all, not in that of those to whom it has been entrusted.

(Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man focuses on the protection of citizens of France from abusive police conduct. It is much akin to the United States Constitution’s third and Fourth Amendments. It focuses on the idea that the police are representatives of the citizenry and should not act arbitrarily or at the will of the government.)

Articles 13 and 14 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man focus primarily on the issue of taxation. Article 13 specifically calls for all active citizens to contribute to public resources, especially for law enforcement. Article 14 prescribes that all active citizens may contribute to the creation of the tax code either through their own involvement in the government or through their elected representatives. This is the equivalent of “no taxation without representation” in the United States.

Article 13- The maintenance of the police force and administration expenses require public contributions. These contributions are to be borne by the citizens equally according to their resources.

Article 14 – All citizens have the right, either in person or through their representatives, to ascertain the need for the public contributions, to freely authorize these contributions, to monitor their use, and to determine the amount, basis, collection, and duration of contributions.

Article 15 – The community has the right to ask any public officer to account for his service.

Article 16 – Any society in which rights are not guaranteed, nor the scope of power determined, has no Constitution.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1793

The original Declaration of the Rights of Man, drafted in 1789, was created, not only to rally the citizens around a common cause, but also as a template for any future government that would come out of the french revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was eventually updated from a list of 17 articles to a list of 35 articles. The Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1793 was the first version to include the article noting the rights of “equality, liberty, security & property.” The 1793 Declaration of the Rights of Man also made out specific articles for education, term limits for government officials, and for the maintenance of the poor.

Introduction

History of the Jones Act

Text of the Jones Act

Impact of the Jones Act

Arguments For and Against the Jones Act

Conclusion

TITLE 46, APPENDIX–SHIPPING
CHAPTER 24–MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1920

Sec. 883. Transportation of merchandise between points in the United States in other than domestic built or rebuilt and documented vessels; incineration of hazardous waste at sea No merchandise, including merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State (as defined in section 2101 of the 1 title 46), or a subdivision of a State shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture of the merchandise (or a monetary amount up to the value thereof as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the actual cost of the transportation, whichever is greater, to be recovered from any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person or persons so transporting or causing said merchandise to be transported), between points in the United States, including:

Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built-in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States, or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by section 808 of this

Appendix or section 22 2 of this Act:

Provided, That no vessel having at any time acquired the lawful right to engage in the coastwise trade, either by virtue of having been built in, or documented under the laws of the United States, and later sold foreign in whole or in part, or placed under foreign registry, shall hereafter acquire the right to engage in the coastwise trade: Provided further, That no vessel which has acquired the lawful right to engage in the coastwise trade, by the virtue of having been built in or documented under the laws of The United States, and which has later been rebuilt shall have the right thereafter to engage in the coastwise trade, unless the entire rebuilding, including the construction of any major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel is effected within the United States, its territories (not including trust territories), or its possessions:

Provided further, That this section shall not apply to merchandise transported between points within the continental United States, including Alaska, over through routes heretofore or hereafter recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission for which routes rate tariffs have been or shall hereafter be filed with said Commission when such routes are in part over Canadian rail lines and their own or other connecting water facilities:

Provided further, That this section shall not become effective upon the Yukon River until the Alaska Railroad shall be completed and the Secretary of Transportation shall find that proper facilities will be furnished for transportation by persons citizens of the United States for properly handling the traffic:

Provided further, That this section shall not apply to the transportation of merchandise loaded on railroad cars or to motor vehicles with or without trailers, and with their passengers or contents when accompanied by the operator thereof, when such railroad cars or motor vehicles are transported in any railroad car ferry operated between fixed termini on the Great Lakes as a part of a rail route, if such car ferry is owned by a common carrier by water and operated as part of a rail route with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and if the stock of such common carrier by water, or its predecessor was owned or controlled by a common carrier by rail prior to June 5, 1920, and if the stock of the common carrier owning such car ferry is, with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, now owned or controlled by any common carrier by rail and if such car ferry is built-in and documented under the laws of the United States:

Provided further, That upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury by regulation may prescribe, and, if the transporting vessel is of foreign registry, upon a finding by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to information obtained and furnished by the Secretary of State, that the government of the nation of registry extends reciprocal privileges to vessels of the United States, this section shall not apply to the transportation by vessels of the United States not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade, or by vessels of foreign registry, of

(a) Empty cargo vans, empty lift vans, and empty shipping tanks

(b) Equipment for use with cargo vans, lift vans, or shipping tanks

(c) Empty barges specifically designed for carriage aboard a vessel and equipment, excluding propulsion equipment, for use with such barges

(d) Any empty instrument for international traffic exempted from application of the customs laws by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the provisions of section 1322

(a) Of title 19, if the articles described in clauses (a) through (d) are owned or leased by the owner or operator of the transporting vessel and are transported for his use in handling his cargo in foreign trade; and (e) stevedoring equipment and material, if such equipment and material is owned or leased by the owner or operator of the transporting vessel, or is owned or leased by the stevedoring company contracting for the lading or unlading of that vessel, and is transported without charge for use in the handling of cargo in foreign trade:

Provided further, That upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury by regulation may prescribe, and, if the transporting the vessel is of foreign registry, upon his finding, pursuant to information furnished by the Secretary of State, that the government of the nation of registry extends reciprocal privileges to vessels of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury may suspend the application of this section to the transportation of merchandise between points in the United States  (excluding transportation between the continental United States and noncontiguous states, districts, territories, and possessions embraced within the coastwise laws) which, while moving in the foreign trade of the United States is transferred from a non-self-propelled bargen certified by the owner or operator to be specifically designed for carriage aboard a vessel and regularly carried aboard a vessel in foreign trade to another such barge owned or leased by the same owner or operator, without regard to whether any such barge is under foreign registry or qualified to engage in the coastwise trade:

Provided further, That until April 1, 1984, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any vessel documented under the laws of the The United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States may, when operated upon a voyage in foreign trade, transport merchandise in cargo vans, lift vans, and shipping-tanks between points embraced within the coastwise laws for transfer to or when transferred from another vessel or vessels, so documented and owned, of the same operator when the merchandise movement has either a foreign origin or a foreign destination;

But this proviso (1) shall apply only to vessels which that the same operator owned, chartered, or contracted for the construction of prior to November 16, 1979, and (2) shall not apply to movements between points in the contiguous United States and points in Hawaii, Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and United States territories and possessions. For the purposes of this section, after December 31, 1983, or after such time as an appropriate vessel has been constructed and documented as a vessel of the United States, the transportation of hazardous waste, as defined in section 6903(5) of title 42, from a point in the United States for the purpose of the incineration at sea of that waste shall be deemed to be transportation by water of merchandise between points in the United States:

Provided, however, That the provisions of this sentence shall not apply to this transportation when performed by a foreign-flag ocean incineration vessel, owned by or under construction on May 1, 1982, for a corporation wholly owned by a citizen of the United States; the term “citizen of the United States”, as used in this proviso, means a corporation as defined in section 802(a) and (b) of this Appendix. The incineration equipment on these vessels shall meet all current United States Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency standards.

These vessels shall, in addition to any other inspections by the flag state, be inspected by the United States Coast Guard, including drydock inspections and internal examinations of tanks and void spaces, as would be required of a vessel of the United States. The satisfactory inspection shall be certified in writing by the Secretary of Transportation. Such inspections may occur concurrently with any inspections required by the flag state or subsequent to but no more than one year after the initial issuance or the next scheduled issuance of the Safety of Life at Sea Safety Construction Certificate. In making such inspections, the Coast Guard shall refer to the conditions established by the initial flag state certification as the basis for evaluating the current condition of the hull and superstructure.

The Coast Guard shall allow the substitution of an equivalent fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment other than that required for vessels of the United States if the Coast Guard has been satisfied that fitting, material, appliance, apparatus, or equipment is at least as effective as that required for vessels of the United States 3 Provided further, That for the purposes of this section, supplies aboard The United States documented fish processing vessels, which are necessary and used for the processing or assembling of fishery products aboard such vessels, shall be considered ship’s equipment and not merchandise:

Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the term “merchandise” includes valueless material:

Provided further, That this section applies to the transportation of valueless material or any dredged material regardless of whether it has commercial value, from a point or place in the United States or a point or place on the high seas within the Exclusive Economic Zone as defined in the Presidential Proclamation of March 10, 1983, to another point or place in the United States or a point or place on the high seas within that Exclusive Economic Zone:

Provided further, That the transportation of any platform jacket in or on a launch barge between two points in the United States, at one of which there is an installation or other device within the meaning of section 1333(a) of title 43, shall not be deemed transportation subject to this section if the launch barge has a launch the capacity of 12,000 long tons or more, was built as of June 7, 1988, and is documented under the laws of the United States, and the platform the jacket cannot be transported on and launched from a launch barge of lesser launch capacity that is identified by the Secretary of Transportation and is available for transportation.

—————————————————————————

1. So in original. The word “the” probably should not appear.
2. See References in Text note below.
3. So in original. Probably should be followed by a colon.

—————————————————————————

(June 5, 1920, ch. 250, Sec. 27, 41 Stat. 999; Ex. Ord. No. 6166,

Sec. 12, eff. June 10, 1933; Apr. 11, 1935, ch. 58, 49 Stat. 154; July

2, 1935, ch. 355, 49 Stat. 442; June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title II,

Sec. 204, title IX, Sec. 904, 49 Stat. 1987, 2016; 1950 Reorg. Plan No.

21, Sec. 204, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3178, 64 Stat. 1276; July 14,

1956, ch. 600, Sec. 1, 70 Stat. 544; July 7, 1958, Pub. L. 85-508,

Sec. 27(a), 72 Stat. 351; July 5, 1960, Pub. L. 86-583, Sec. 1, 74 Stat.

321; Sept. 21, 1965, Pub. L. 89-194, 79 Stat. 823; Aug. 11, 1968, Pub.

L. 90-474, 82 Stat. 700; Nov. 23, 1971, Pub. L. 92-163, Sec. 1, 85 Stat.

486; Oct. 3, 1978, Pub. L. 95-410, title II, Sec. 213, 92 Stat. 904;

Nov. 16, 1979, Pub. L. 96-112, Sec. 4, 93 Stat. 848; Aug. 6, 1981, Pub.

L. 97-31, Sec. 12(49), 95 Stat. 157; Dec. 29, 1982, Pub. L. 97-389,

title V, Secs. 502, 504, 96 Stat. 1954, 1956; Jan. 11, 1988, Pub. L.

100-239, Sec. 6(c)(1), 101 Stat. 1782; June 7, 1988, Pub. L. 101-329,

Sec. 1(a), 102 Stat. 588; Nov. 4, 1992, Pub. L. 102-587, title V,

Sec. 5501(b), 106 Stat. 5085.)

References in Text

Section 22 of this Act, referred to in text, is section 22 of the act June 5, 1920, which was classified to section 13 of former Title 46, Shipping, and was repealed by Pub. L. 100-710, title II, Sec. 202(4), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4753. The Presidential Proclamation of March 10, 1983, referred to in text, is Proc. No. 5030, Mar. 10, 1983, 48 F.R. 10605, which is set out as a note under section 1453 of Title 16, Conservation.

Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Feb. 17, 1898, ch. 26, Sec. 1, 30 Stat. 248, which was classified to section 290 of this Appendix.

Amendments

1992–Pub. L. 102-587, in the first sentence, substituted “No merchandise, including merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State (as defined in section 2101 of the title 46), or a subdivision of a State,” for “No merchandise”. 1988–Pub. L. 100-329 inserted provision relating to alternate determination of penalty as based on the actual cost of the transportation, and provisos defining term “ merchandise” to include valueless material, making section applicable to valueless or dredged material, and relating to the transportation of any platform jacket in or on a launch barge. Pub. L. 100-239 struck out “of more than five hundred gross tons” after “no vessel” in the second proviso. 1982–Pub. L. 97-389, Sec. 502, the inserted provision relating to the transportation of hazardous waste, the proviso thereto for foreign-flag transport, and further provisions relating to standards for and the inspection of vessels engaged in such transport.

Pub. L. 97-389, Sec. 504, inserted proviso defining supplies aboard The United States fish processing vessels used for fishery products manufacture as ship’s equipment. 1981–Pub. L. 97-31 in the fourth proviso substituted “Secretary of Transportation” for “Secretary of Commerce”. For prior transfers of functions, see Transfer of Functions note below. 1979–Pub. L. 96-112 inserted proviso that, until April 1, 1984, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any vessel documented under the laws of the United States and owned by citizens of the United States could, when operated upon a voyage in foreign trade, transport merchandise in cargo vans, lift vans, and shipping-tanks between points embraced within the coastwise laws for transfer to or when transferred from another vessel or vessels, so documented and owned, of the same operator when the merchandise movement had either a foreign origin or a foreign destination, but that the proviso would apply only to vessels which that same operator owned, chartered orcontracted for the construction of prior to Nov. 16, 1979, and would not apply to movements between points in the contiguous United States and points in Hawaii, Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States territories and possessions.

1978–Pub. L. 95-410, in the first sentence, substituted “forfeiture of merchandise” for “forfeiture thereof” and inserted parenthetical text for forfeiture of a monetary amount up to the value of the merchandise as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be recovered from any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person or persons transporting or causing the merchandise to be transported. 1971–Pub. L. 92-163 inserted “and equipment, excluding propulsion equipment, for use with such barges” after “(c) empty barges specifically designed for carriage aboard a vessel” and inserted reciprocity proviso reciprocally permitting foreign-flag Specialty barges, specifically designed and regularly carried aboard a barge carrying ship in foreign trade to carry export or import cargo between United States points which have been transferred from one such barge to another.

1968–Pub. L. 90-474 in final proviso designated existing provisions relating to empty cargo vans, empty lift vans, and empty shipping tanks as cl. (a), added cls. (b) to (d), saved modifying provisions relating to empty cargo vans, empty lift vans, and empty shipping tanks so as to render them applicable to cls. (a) to (d), and added cl. (e). 1965–Pub. L. 89-194 inserted proviso that section should not apply to the transportation of empty cargo vans, lift vans, and shipping tanks by vessels of the United States not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade of by vessels of foreign registry so long as such vans or tanks are owned or leased by the owner or operator of the transporting vessels and are being transported for use in the carriage of goods in foreign trade.

1960–Pub. L. 86-583 prohibits the operation in the coastwise trade of a rebuilt vessel unless the entire rebuilding, including the construction of any major components of the hull and superstructure of the vessel is accomplished in the United States. 1958–Pub. L. 85-508 substituted “including Alaska” for “excluding Alaska”. 1956–Act July 14, 1956, inserted proviso to prohibit the operation in the coastwise trade of vessels of more than 500 gross tons which have been rebuilt outside the United States. 1935–Act July 2, 1935, amended section generally. Act Apr. 11, 1935, inserted the fifth proviso.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Section 6(c)(2) of Pub. L. 100-239 provided that: “Paragraph (1) of this subsection [amending this section] does not apply to a vessel under contract to be purchased or rebuilt entered into before July 28, 1987, if that vessel is rebuilt before July 28, 1990.”

Effective Date of 1960 Amendment

Section 4 of Pub. L. 86-583 provided that: “This Act [amending this section and section 883a of this Appendix] shall be effective from the time of enactment [July 5, 1960] hereof: Provided, however, That no the vessel shall be deemed to have lost its coastwise privileges as a result of the amendments made by this Act if it is rebuilt within the United States, its Territories (not including trust territories), or its possessions under a contract executed before such date of enactment and if the work of rebuilding is commenced not later than twenty-four months after such date of enactment.”

Effective Date of 1956 Amendment

Section 4 of act July 14, 1956, provided that: “This Act [amending this section and enacting sections 883a and 883b of this Appendix] shall be effective from the date of enactment [July 14, 1956] hereof: Provided, however, That no vessel shall be deemed to have lost its coastwise privileges hereunder if it is rebuilt under a contract entered into before such date of enactment and if the work of rebuilding is commenced not later than six months after such date of enactment.”

Repeals

For the effect of subtitle IV (Sec. 10101 et seq.) of Title 49, Transportation, see note set out preceding section 801 of this Appendix.

Transfer of Functions

Functions conferred upon Secretary of Commerce by provisions of Reorg. Plan No. 21 of 1950 to remain vested in Secretary except to extent inconsistent with sections 101(b) and 104(b) of Reorg. Plan No. 7 of 1961. See section 202 of Reorg. Plan No. 7 of 1961, set out under section 1111 of this Appendix. “Secretary of Commerce” substituted in text for “United States Maritime Commission” on the authority of Reorg. Plan No. 21 of 1950, set out under section 1111 of this Appendix, section 306 of which abolished United States Maritime Commission and section 204 of which transferred to Secretary of Commerce such Commission’s functions not transferred to Federal Maritime Board.

Previously, “United States Maritime Commission” substituted for “Shipping Board”. For dissolution of Board and transfer of functions to United States Maritime Commission, see Ex. Ord. No. 6166 and act June 29, 1936. Ex. Ord. No. 6166 is set out as a note under section 901 of Title 5, Government Organization, and Employees. Executive and administrative functions of United States Maritime Commission transferred to Chairman thereof by Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1949, eff. Aug. 20, 1949, 14 F.R. 5228, 63 Stat. 1069, set out under section 1111 of this Appendix.

Non applicability of Pub. L. 100-329 to Certain Vessels Section 5501(c) of Pub. L. 102-587 provided that: “The Act of June 7, 1988 (Public Law 100-329; 102 Stat. 588) [amending this section and section 316 of this Appendix, and enacting provisions set out above and below], including the amendments made by that Act, does not apply to a vessel–

“(1) engaged in the transportation of valueless material or valueless dredged material; and

“(2) owned or chartered by a corporation that had on file with the Secretary of Transportation on August 1, 1989, the certificate specified in section 27A of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883-1).”

Launch Barge Inventory; Purpose; Development, Maintenance, and Updating; Contents; Publication of Initial and Current Inventory

Section 1(b) of Pub. L. 100-329 provided that:

“(1) For purposes of interpreting the proviso pertaining to transportation of any platform jacket by launch barge, as added by subsection (a) of this section to section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Secretary of Transportation shall develop, maintain, and periodically update an inventory of launch barges with less than a launch capacity of 12,000 long tons that are qualified to engage in the coastwise trade. Each launch barge listed on such the inventory shall be identified by its name, launch capacity, length, beam, depth, and other distinguishing characteristics. For each such launch barge, the name, and address of the person to whom inquiries may be made shall also be included in the inventory.

A launch barge not listed on such inventory shall be deemed not to be `a launch barge of lesser launch capacity identified by the Secretary of Transportation’ within the meaning of such proviso to section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920.

“(2) Not later than 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act [June 7, 1988], the Secretary of Transportation shall publish in the Federal Register an initial inventory of launch barges developed and maintained in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection.

“(3) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act [June 7, 1988], and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register, a current inventory of launch barges developed, maintained, and updated in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection.”

Transportation of Municipal Sewage Sludge

Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-329 provided that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Act [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as a note above], a vessel may transport municipal sewage sludge if that vessel, regardless of where it was built, is documented under the laws of the United States and, on the date of enactment of this Act [June 7, 1988], that vessel–

“(1) is in use by a municipality for the transportation of sewage sludge; or

“(2) is under contract with a municipality for the transportation of sewage sludge.”

Vessel Under Contract With Municipality for Transportation of Sewage Sludge: Applicability of Provisions

Section 4 of Pub. L. 100-329 provided that: “For purposes of the first paragraph of section 805(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1223(a)), a vessel described in section 3(2) of this Act [set out as a note above] is not a vessel engaged in domestic intercoastal or coastwise service, but the prohibitions in the second paragraph applies to that vessel.”

Certificate of Documentation to Vessel Transporting Valueless Material in Coastwise Trade, or Dredged Material, Whether or Not of Value; Issuance, Endorsement, Etc. Section 5 of Pub. L. 100-329 provided that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Act [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as a note above], the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a certificate of documentation under section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, to a vessel that–

“(1) is engaged in transporting only valueless material in the coastwise trade or transporting dredged material, whether or not of value, (A) from a point or place on the high seas within the Exclusive Economic Zone as defined in the Presidential Proclamation of March 10, 1983 [16 U.S.C. 1453 note], to a point or place in the The United States or to another point or place on the high seas within such Exclusive Economic Zone or (B) from a point or place within The United States to a point or place on the high seas within such Exclusive Economic Zone;

“(2) had a certificate of documentation issued under section 12105 of that title on October 1, 1987;

“(3) had been sold foreign or placed under a foreign registry before that certificate was issued; and

“(4) was built in the United States; except that such certificate of documentation shall be endorsed to restrict the use of such vessel to the transportation of valueless the material in the coastwise trade, and to the transportation of dredged material, whether or not of value, (i) from a point or place on the high seas within such Exclusive Economic Zone to a point or place in the The United States or to another point or place on the high seas within such Exclusive Economic Zone, or (ii) from a point or place within the United States to a point or place on the high seas within such Exclusive Economic Zone.”

Transportation of Merchandise or Passengers Within Alaska by Foreign Built Hovercraft Pub. L. 95-599, title I, Sec. 146, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2714, provided that:

“(a) Effective during the five-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 6, 1978], nothing in section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 [this section], or any other provision of law restricting the coastwise trade to vessels of the United States shall prohibit the transportation within the State of Alaska of merchandise or passengers by foreign-built hovercraft.

“(b) For the purpose of this section the term `hovercraft’ means a a vehicle which travels over land or water in a cushion of air generated by such vehicle.” Report to Congress Regarding Effect of Reciprocity Provisions Section 2 of Pub. L. 92-163 authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, for a period of five years following Nov. 23, 1971, to make a report at the beginning of each regular session to the Congress regarding activities under Pub. L. 92-163, including but not limited to the extent to which foreign governments are extending reciprocal privileges to the vessels of the United States.

Regulations Section 3 of Pub. L. 86-583 provided that: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act [amending sections 883 and 883a of this Appendix].”

Admission of Alaska as State Effectiveness of amendment of this section by Pub. L. 85-508 was dependent upon the admission of Alaska into the Union under section 8(b) of Pub. L. 85-508. Admission was accomplished Jan. 3, 1959, on the issuance of Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1 and 8(c) of Pub. L. 85-508. See notes preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Jurisdiction Over Common Carriers Between Ports in Hawaii and Other Ports Pub. L. 86-3, Sec. 18(a), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 12, as amended Pub. L. 86-624, Sec. 46, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 423, provided that: “Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as depriving the Federal Maritime Board [now Secretary of Transportation] of the exclusive jurisdiction heretofore conferred on it over common carriers engaged in transportation by water between any port in the State of Hawaii and other ports in the United States, or possessions, or as conferring on the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over transportation by water between any such ports.”

[Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104-88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 702 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104-88, set out as a note under section 701 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104-88, set out as a note under section 701 of Title 49.]

Jurisdiction Over Common Carriers Between Ports in Alaska and Other Ports Section 27(b) of Pub. L. 85-508 provided that: “Nothing contained in this or any other Act shall be construed as depriving the Federal Maritime Board [now Secretary of Transportation] of the exclusive jurisdiction heretofore conferred on it over common carriers engaged in transportation by water between any port in the State of Alaska and other ports in the United States, its Territories or possessions, or as conferring upon the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over transportation by water between any such ports.”

[Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104-88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 702 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104-88, set out as a note under section 701 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104-88, set out as a note under section 701 of Title 49.]

Transportation of Lumber to Puerto Rico Pub. L. 87-877, Sec. 4, Oct. 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 1201, allowed for suspension of this section during a 1-year period beginning Oct. 24, 1962, with respect to the transportation of lumber to Puerto Rico from ports or terminal areas in the United States if Secretary of Commerce determined that no domestic vessel was reasonably available. Transportation of Coal Between Points in the United States in Canadian Vessels Act Aug. 7, 1956, ch. 1028, 70 Stat. 1090, permitted Canadian vessels to transport coal to Ogdensburg, N.Y, from other points in theUnited States, on the Great Lakes, or their connecting or tributary waters for a period ending June 30, 1957.

Transportation of Iron Ore in Vessels of Canadian Registry Act June 24, 1952, ch. 458, 66 Stat. 156, provided for the transportation of iron ore and terminated on Dec. 31, 1952. Similar provisions were contained in the following acts:

Mar. 29, 1951, ch. 25, 65 Stat. 28.

June 30, 1950, ch. 427, Sec. 5, 64 Stat. 309.

Mar. 28, 1949, ch. 36, 63 Stat. 16.

Mar. 24, 1948, ch. 144, 62 Stat. 84.

Jan. 27, 1942, ch. 21, 56 Stat. 19, as amended Aug. 1, 1942, ch.

544, 56 Stat. 735, and repealed July 25, 1947, ch. 327, Sec. 2b, 61

Stat. 451, eff. six months after July 25, 1947.

May 31, 1941, ch. 158, 55 Stat. 236.

Transportation of Grain Between United States Ports on Great Lakes by Vessels of Canadian Registry During 1951 Act Oct. 10, 1951, ch. 459, 65 Stat. 371, provided for the transportation of grain and terminated on Dec. 31, 1951. Transportation of Merchandise Between Hyder, Alaska, and United States Act July 30, 1947, ch. 387, 61 Stat. 632, as amended June 28, 1948, ch. 693, 62 Stat. 1067, provided for the transportation of merchandise between Hyder, Alaska, and United States and terminated on June 30, 1949.

Cross References Corporation meeting certain conditions deemed citizen for purposes of this section, see section 883-1 of this Appendix. Provisions restricting coastwise transportation to vessels of United States not applicable to American Samoa, see section 1664 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. Transportation of passengers and merchandise in Canadian vessels between points in Alaska and United States, see section 289b of this Appendix.

Transportation of passengers in foreign vessels, see section 289 of this Appendix and notes thereunder. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in sections 292, 316, 446b, 883-1 of this Appendix; title 19 section 1554; title 46 sections 3704, 12101, 12106, 14305

Introduction

Historical Context

The Text of the Enabling Act

Significance of the Enabling Act

Conclusion

2071. Rule-making power generally

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.

(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such an effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

(c)(1) A rule of a district court prescribed under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the judicial council of the relevant circuit.

(2) Any other rule prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the Judicial Conference.

(d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public. (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment. (f) No rule may be prescribed by a district court other than under this section.

2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and courts of appeals.

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.
2073. Rules of procedure and evidence; method of prescribing

(a)(1) The Judicial Conference shall prescribe and publish the procedures for the consideration of proposed rules under this section. (2) The Judicial Conference may authorize the appointment of committees to assist the Conference by recommending rules to be prescribed under sections 2072 and 2075 of this title. Each such committee shall consist of members of the bench and the professional bar, and trial and appellate judges.

(b) The Judicial Conference shall authorize the appointment of a standing committee on rules of practice, procedure, and evidence under subsection (a) of this section. Such standing committee shall review each recommendation of any other committees so appointed and recommend to the Judicial Conference rules of practice, procedure, and evidence and such changes in rules proposed by a committee appointed under subsection (a)(2) of this section as may be necessary to maintain consistency and otherwise promote the interest of justice.

(c)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter by any committee appointed under this section shall be open to the public, except when the committee so meeting, in open session and with a majority present, determines that it is in the public interest that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public, and states the reason for so closing the meeting. Minutes of each meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter shall be maintained by the committee and made available to the public, except that any portion of such minutes, relating to a closed meeting and made available to the public, may contain such deletions as may be necessary to avoid frustrating the purposes of closing the meeting.

(2) Any meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter, by a committee appointed under this section, shall be preceded by sufficient notice to enable all interested persons to attend. (d) In making a recommendation under this section or under section 2072 or 2075, the body making that recommendation shall provide a proposed rule, an explanatory note on the rule, and a written report explaining the body’s action, including any minority or other separate views. (e) Failure to comply with this section does not invalidate a rule prescribed under section 2072 or 2075 of this title.

2074. Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date

(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.

(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

2075. Bankruptcy rules

The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in cases under title 11.

Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.

The Supreme Court shall transmit to Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under this section is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. The rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which it is transmitted to Congress unless otherwise provided by law.

The bankruptcy rules promulgated under this section shall prescribe a form for the statement required under section 707(b)(2)(C) of title 11 and may provide general rules on the content of such statement.
2076. Repealed. Pub.L. 100-702, Title IV, § 401(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4650]

Section repealed effective Dec. 1, 1988.2077. Publication of rules; advisory committees

(a) The rules for the conduct of the business of each court of appeals, including the operating procedures of such court, shall be published. Each court of appeals shall print or cause to be printed necessary copies of the rules. The Judicial Conference shall prescribe the fees for sales of copies under section 1913 of this title, but the Judicial Conference may provide for free distribution of copies to members of the bar of each court and to other interested persons.

(b) Each court, except the Supreme Court, that is authorized to prescribe rules of the conduct of such court’s business under section 2071 of this title shall appoint an advisory committee for the study of the rules of practice and internal operating procedures of such court and, in the case of an advisory committee appointed by a court of appeals, of the rules of the judicial council of the circuit. The advisory committee shall make recommendations to the court concerning such rules and procedures. Members of the committee shall serve without compensation, but the Director may pay travel and transportation expenses in accordance with section 5703 of title 5.

Introduction

Background

Provisions of the Townshend Act

Reaction to the Townshend Act

Conclusion

The Townshend Revenue Act

June 29, 1767

AN ACT for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoanuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthenware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations.

WHEREAS it is expedient that revenue should be raised, in your Majesty’s dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government, in such provinces as it shall be found necessary; and towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the said dominions;…

be it enacted… That from and after the twentieth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, for upon and the respective Goods hereinafter mentioned, which shall be imported from Great Britain into any colony or plantation in America which now is or hereafter maybe, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, the several Rates and Duties following; that is to say,

For every hundredweight avoirdupois of the crown, plate, flint, and white glass, four shillings, and eightpence.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of red lead, two shillings.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of green glass, one shilling and two pence.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of white lead, two shillings.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of painters colors, two shillings.

For every pound weight avoirdupois of tea, threepence.

For every ream of paper, usually called or known by the name of Atlas fine, twelve shillings. …

IV. …and that all the monies that shall arise by the said duties (except the necessary charges of raising, collecting, levying, recovering, answering, paying, and accounting for the same) shall be applied, in the first place, in such manner as is hereinafter mentioned, in making a more certain and adequate provision for the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government in such of the said colonies and plantations where it shall be found necessary; and that the residue of such duties shall be paid into the receipt of his Majesty’s exchequer, and shall be entered separately and apart from all other monies paid or payable to his Majesty . . .; and shall be there reserved, be from time to time disposed of by parliament towards defraying the necessary expense of defending, protecting, and securing, the British colonies and plantations in America.

V. And be it further enacted . . ., That his Majesty and his successors shall be, and are hereby, empowered, from time to time, by any warrant or warrants under his or their royal sign manual or sign manuals, countersigned by the high treasurer, or any three or more of the commissioners of the treasury, for the time being, to cause such monies to be applied, out of the produce of the duties granted by this act, as his Majesty, or his successors, shall think proper or necessary, for defraying the charges of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government, within all or any of the said colonies or plantations. . .

X. And whereas by an act of parliament made in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses, in his Majesty’s customs, and several other acts now in force, it is lawful for any officer of his Majesty’s customs, authorized by writ of assistance under the seal of his Majesty’s court of exchequer, to take a constable, headborough, or other public officer inhabiting near unto the place, and in the daytime to enter and go into any house, shop cellar, warehouse, or room or other place and, in case of resistance, to break open doors, chests, trunks, and other pakage there, to seize, and from thence to bring, any kind of goods or merchandise whatsoever prohibited or uncustomed, and to put and secure the same in his Majesty’s storehouse next to the place where such seizure shall be made;

And whereas by an act made in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, intituled An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses, in the plantation trade, it is, amongst otherthings, enacted, that the officers for collecting and managing his Majesty’s revenue, and inspecting the plantation trade, in America, shall have the same powers and authorities to enter houses or warehouses, to search or seize goods prohibited to be imported or exported into or out of any of the said plantations, or for which any duties are payable, or ought to have been paid;

And that the like assistance shall be given to the said officers in the execution of their office, as, by the said recited act of the fourteenth year of King Charles the Second, is provided for the officers of England: but, no authority being expressly given by the said act, made in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, to any particular court to grant such writs of assistance for the officers of the customs in the said plantations, it is doubted whether such officers can legally enter houses and other places on land, to search for and seize goods, in the manner directed by the said recited acts:

To obviate which doubts for the future, and in order to carry the intention of the said recited acts into effectual execution, be it enacted . . ., That from and after the said twentieth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, such writs of assistance, to authorize and impower the officers of his Majesty’s customs to enter and go into any house, warehouse, shop, cellar, or other place, in the British colonies or plantations in America, to search for and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods, in the manner directed by the said recited acts, shall and may be granted by the said superior or supreme court of justice having jurisdiction within such colony or plantation respectively. . . .