## Facts

- Wiltberger was the master of an American merchant vessel.
- He was indicted for manslaughter of a seaman aboard the vessel.
- The alleged killing occurred on the ship while it lay in the River Tigris in China, about 35 miles above the river’s mouth and about 100 yards from shore, below the low-water mark.
- The prosecution relied on § 12 of the Crimes Act of 1790, which punished manslaughter committed “upon the high seas.”
- A separate provision of the same Act (§ 8) covered certain offenses committed on the “high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.”

## Issues

1. Whether § 12 of the Crimes Act of 1790, punishing manslaughter “upon the high seas,” conferred federal jurisdiction over manslaughter committed on a U.S. merchant vessel while in a foreign river within a foreign sovereign’s territorial authority.
2. Whether the broader place-language in § 8 (“in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State”) could be imported into § 12 to expand federal jurisdiction for manslaughter.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction under § 12 to try the charged manslaughter.
- The Court ruled that § 12’s “high seas” language did not reach a killing in a foreign river.
- The Court rejected transferring § 8’s broader geographic description into § 12 to expand criminal jurisdiction.
- The certified jurisdictional question was resolved against federal jurisdiction, rendering the federal conviction unsustainable.

## Legal Principles

- Penal statutes are construed strictly; courts may not enlarge criminal liability or jurisdiction beyond the statute’s clear text.
- Legislative intent governs interpretation, but intent cannot justify extending a penal law where Congress did not use words that cover the conduct or location.
- Separate statutory sections are interpreted by their own terms; broader language in one section cannot be grafted onto another to expand coverage, absent textual support.
- When Congress specifies places for some crimes but not for others, courts should not treat omissions as authorization to extend jurisdiction by implication, including into foreign territorial waters.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that the federal manslaughter provision in the Crimes Act of 1790 applied only to offenses committed “upon the high seas,” and it refused to expand that jurisdiction to a foreign river by importing broader place-language from another section of the Act.


United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820)