The Abby Dodge

Citations

• 223 U.S. 166
• 32 S. Ct. 310
• 56 L. Ed. 390
• 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2222

Syllabus

<p>Each State-owns the beds of all tide waters within its jurisdiction unless they have been granted away; also the tide waters themselves and the-fish in them so far as they are capable of ownership while running. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U,. S„. 391.</p> <p>Congress has no control over sponges growing on the land beneath tide .water within the ■ jurisdiction of a State.,</p> <p>Where two interpretations of a statute are admissible, one of which makes the statute constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the former must be adopted. United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 IT. S. 366, 407.</p> <p>Thé act of ..June 20, 1906, 34 Stat. 313, e. 3442, regulating the landing of sponges at ports of the United States, relates only to sponges taken outside of the. territory of any State.</p> <p>The power of Congress over foreign commerce is complete; no one has a vested right to carry on foreign commerce with the United States. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470..</p> <p>Congress can, by exertion of its power to regulate foreign commerce, forbid the importation of sponges gathered under conditions expressed in the act of June 20, 1906.</p> <p>Where the act of Congress, under which forfeiture is sought, does not apply to territorial waters, the libel must aver that the acts were done outside of the territorial limits of any State.</p> <p>When Congress, under its power to regulate foreign commerce, prohibits the importation of certain merchandise, it may cast on the one seeking to bring merchandise in the burden of establishing that it is exempt from the operation of the statute.</p> <p>Under the circumstances of this case it is proper to allow the Government to amend the libel to present a case within the statute as construed in this opinion. The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 389.</p>