Summary of Opinion: The United States v. Kelly and Others (February Term, 1826)

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendants, Kelly and others, were indicted in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania for an offense alleged to have occurred on December 24, 1824. The indictment charged that, while seamen on the merchant vessel Lancaster on the high seas, the defendants "feloniously endeavoured to make a revolt" on board the vessel, contrary to the Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, c. 36. s. 12. The defendants were found guilty in the Circuit Court and moved in arrest of judgment, arguing that the statute did not define the offense and that the court could not give a judicial definition of a previously undefined crime. The judges of the Circuit Court were divided on that motion, and the point was certified to the Supreme Court for decision. The cause was submitted in the Supreme Court by the Attorney General; no counsel appeared for the prisoners.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, when the Crimes Act of 1790 (c. 36, s. 12) does not define the offence of "endeavouring to make a revolt," it is competent for the Court to supply a judicial definition of that offence.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

The defendants moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the Act of Congress does not define the offence of "endeavouring to make a revolt," and that it is not competent for the Court to give a judicial definition of a crime heretofore unknown.

Government's Position

The Attorney General submitted the cause to the Court; the opinion indicates the submission was made without argument. No counsel appeared for the prisoners.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the certified point concerning the competence of the judiciary to define an offence that the statute does not itself define. The Court expressly held that, although the Act of Congress did not define the offence of "endeavouring to make a revolt," it was nevertheless competent for the Court to give a judicial definition of that offence.

The Court articulated the elements of the offence as follows:

The offence consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of the vessel's commander;
Such endeavour must be accompanied by an intent to remove the commander from his command; or
It consists of, against the commander's will, taking possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her; or
It consists of transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.

The Court's analysis is limited to asserting the judiciary's competence to define the offence and to specifying the conduct and intent that constitute the offence, as set out above. The opinion concludes with the notation "Certificate accordingly," signaling that the Court answered the certified question in the manner described.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court held that it is competent to give a judicial definition of the offence of "endeavouring to make a revolt" under the Crimes Act of 1790 even though the statute itself does not define the offence, and the Court supplied the definition set out above.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision was to answer the certified question by providing a judicial definition of the offence; the opinion itself contains no extended discussion of broader legal consequences or of any change to existing precedent beyond the definition provided. The opinion concludes with the certificate to the lower court in accordance with the Court's stated view.

Show full summary ...

The UNITED STATES v. KELLY and Others.

Although the Crimes Act of 1790, c. 36. [ix.] s. 12. does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, it is competent for the Court to give a judicial definition of it. The offence consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of the commander, with intent to remove him from his command, or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.

THE defendants, Kelly and others, were indicted in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, for that the defendants, on the 24th of December, 1824, being seamen on board a merchant vessel of the United States, called the Lancaster, on the high seas, feloniously endeavoured to make a revolt in the said vessel, contrary to the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, c. 36. [ix.] s. 12. The defendants were found guilty, and moved the Court in arrest of judgment, upon the ground, "that the act of Congress does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, and that it was not competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of a crime heretofore unknown." The opinions of the Judges of the Court below being divided upon this motion, the case was certified to this Court for determination.

Mr. Justice WASHINGTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case comes before the Court upon a certificate of a division of opinion of the Judges of the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, upon the following point assigned by the defendants as a reason in arrest of judgment, viz. "that the act of Congress does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, and it is not competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of an offence heretofore unknown."

This Court is of opinion, that although the act of Congress does not define this offence, it is, nevertheless, competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of it. We think, that the offence consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command, or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.

Certificate accordingly.

UNITED STATES v. KELLY