The Shadow Over San Juan Island
A Supreme Court justice warns that the legal limbo surrounding the San Juan islands threatens to turn the territory into a lawless refuge for criminals.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In the case of The United States vs. Watts, Chief Justice O. Jacobs issued a dissenting opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the San Juan islands. He argued that the convention between the United States and Great Britain, while intended to prevent military conflict, inadvertently created a dangerous legal vacuum. Because territorial laws were excluded from the islands to maintain the peace, the Justice feared the area had become an 'asylum for thieves and murderers.' He contended that for the sake of public order, the laws of the United States must apply, as the alternative was a total lack of governance over citizens on the island. He rejected the idea that joint possession by two nations meant no laws applied, asserting that even in disputed territories, the government responsible for its citizens must assert its judicial authority.
“Was the intention then of the high contracting parties to exclude all laws from San Juan Island and to make it a secure asylum for thieves and murderers? I think not.”
This 1871 debate over jurisdictional authority and 'lawless' zones mirrors modern complexities in Seattle's governance, where fragmented enforcement and competing claims of sovereignty or jurisdiction often leave the city struggling to address homelessness and public safety in contested urban spaces.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.