From 12B U.S. Dig, Statutes, § 84, Construction as to territoriality.

16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law § 147.

Extraterritoriality, power to operate, see Conflict Of Laws § 2.

A statute will not be presumed to have extraterritorial effect. Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367.

A statute will not be construed as operating only on contracts made outside the jurisdiction and between persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the legislature if it will admit of any other interpretation which is rational and not too much strained. Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367.

All legislation is prima facie territorial and words having universal scope will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only every one subject to such legislation, not that all the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347, 29 S Ct 511, 53 L Ed 826.

Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits which the law making power has jurisdiction. Sandberg v McDonald, 248 US 185, 39 S Ct 84, 63 L Ed 200.

Congressional legislation, unless the contrary intent appears, is construed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Blackner v United States, 284 US 421, 52 S Ct 252, 76 L Ed 375.

Criminal statutes of the United States are not by implication given extraterritorial effect. United States v Flores, 289 US 137, 53 S Ct 580, 77 L Ed 1086.

Unless a contrary intent appears, legislation of Congress is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Foley Bros. v Filardo, 336 US 281, 69 S Ct 575, 93 L Ed 680; United States v Spelar, 338 US 217, 70 S Ct 10, 94 L Ed 3; Steele v Bulova Watch Co., 344 US 280, 73 S Ct 252, 97 L Ed 319.

An intention to regulate labor conditions in a foreign country should not be attributed to Congress in the absence of a clearly expressed purpose. Foley Bros. v Filardo, 336 US 281, 69 S Ct 575, 93 L Ed 680.

A general canon of construction in maritime jurisprudence is that, if any construction otherwise be possible, an act will not be construed as applying to foreigners in respect of acts done by them outside the dominions of the enacting sovereign. Lauritzen v Larsen, 345 US 571, 73 S Ct 921, 97 L Ed 1254.

Statutes which contain no provisions as to their foreign application and are in general terms, leaving their application to be judicially determined from context and circumstance, have been, by usage, construed to apply only to areas and transactions in which American law would be imperative under prevalent doctrines of international law. Lauritzen v Larsen, 345 US 571, 73 S Ct 921, 97 L Ed 1254.

(pp.)

An Act of Congress should never be construed by the courts to violate the law of nations, if another possible construction remains; while considerations of this nature apply with less force to a statute which by its terms is designed to affect conditions on United States enclaves outside of the territorial limits of this country than they do to the construction of statutes couched in general language which are sought to be applied in an extra-territorial way they are not without force in either case. Weinberger v Rossi, 456 US 25, 102 S Ct 1510, 71 L Ed 2d 715.

Unless a contray intent appears, legislation of Congress is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. (US) 109 S Ct 683, 102 L Ed 2d 818.