eyewitnesses; all the reports were decidedly in
support of the colonists. The pamphlet, how-
ever, was not distributed in Boston, due to the
belief that it might interfere with the fairness of
the trial.
The trial became a controversial issue with
political aspects. In addition to the murder
charge, the legal action intensified the struggle
between the King’s men, who desired a verdict
in their favor to counteract the tactics of
Samuel Adams, and the colonists, who wanted
the trial to be an example to Parliament against
further use of the
MILITIA to restrain their
freedom.
Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson believed
that an immediate court hearing would be
detrimental and unfair to the King’s men; he
advocated a series of postponements and the
trial finally began in the fall of 1770.
ROBERT
TREAT PAINE
served as PROSECUTOR, and JOHN
ADAMS
(cousin to Samuel Adams) and Josiah
Quincy were the defense counselors.
The trial progressed and arguments were
presented for both sides. The defense was
determined to prove that the soldiers were acting
in
SELF-DEFENSE. The prosecution attempted to

the specified voyage or during the limited time, the
lender will lose his or her money according to the
provisions of the contract. A contract by which a
ship or its freight is pledged as security for a loan,
which is to be repaid only in the event that the
ship survives a specific risk, voyage, or period.
A bottomry bond is the instrument that
embodies the contract or agreement of bottomry.
v
BOUDINOT, ELIAS
The first lawyer admitted to practice before the
U.S. Supreme Court was New Jersey patriot
ELIAS BOUDINOT. A good friend of President
George Washington’s, Boudinot was a promi-
nent public official who strongly supported the
American Revolution. Boudinot held sever al key
positions in the
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS and
signed the 1783 peace treaty with England
after the United States’ victory in the
WAR OF
INDEPENDENCE
. After the war he aligned himself
with Federalists
JOHN ADAMS and ALEXANDER
HAMILTON
. Like them, Boudinot supported a
strong, centralized national government and
distrusted many of the principles of participa-
tory democracy.

1787 Boudinot played a key role in obtaining
New Jersey’s
RATIFICATION of the new U.S.
Constitution.
In 1789 Boudinot became a member of the
House of Representatives from New Jersey,
holding office during the first three sessions
of Congress. Once the U.S. Supreme Court was
officially established, Boudinot became the
first lawyer admitted to practice before it, on
February 5, 1790. He also served as a trustee of
Princeton University and was director of the
U.S. Mint in Philadelphia from 1795 to 1805.
In the later years of his life, Boudinot’s
interests turned from politics to evangelical
theology. Founder and president of the Ameri-
can Bible Association, Boudinot proposed a
universal acceptance of
RELIGION as a cure for
society’s ills.
Boudinot died in New Jersey on October
24, 1821, at age 81.
BOUNDARIES
Boundaries are natural or artificial separations
or divisions between adjoining properties that
show their limits.
Boundaries are used to establish private
and public ownership by determining the exact
location of the points at which one piece of land
is distinguishable from another. They are also

border.
Several types of maritime boundaries exist,
such as the territorial sea, which is a belt of
coastal waters—controlled by the adjacent state
and subject to rights such as those of foreign
ships to passage—whose boundary is a line
measured three miles from the low-water mark
along the shore; contiguous zones, which
extend beyond the territorial sea to a maximum
THERE ARE NO
EXPRESS WORDS
;
AND THIS IS THE CASE
WITH MOST OF THE
POWERS EXERCISED
BY
CONGRESS.
—ELIAS BOUDINOT
Elias Boudinot 1740–1821
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1740 Born,
Philadelphia, Pa.
1760 Admitted to

of twelve miles, within which the controlling
state may act to prevent or punish violations of
its regulations; and a two-hundred-mile exclu-
sive economic zone, subject to a nation’s rights
of exploration, exploitation, conservation, and
management of marine life, which was autho-
rized by the Third United Nations Conf erence
on the
LAW OF THE SEA.
Marine boundaries provide fertile ground
for international conflict. In June 1990, the
United States and the Soviet Union signed an
agreement resolving a 1,600-mile-lon g maritime
boundary dispute that began in 1977. The area
at issue, some 21,000 square nautical miles,
contained valuable fishing grounds and possible
oil and gas fields. The conflict had its origins in
1867, when czarist Russia sold Alaska to the
United States. It was not until more than 100
years later, while establishing their respective
200-mile fisheries zones off the coasts of Alaska
and Siberia in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and
Arctic Ocean, that the two countries realized
they had each set a different boundary for
Alaska.
Even marine boundaries that have been
widely accepted for years can be suddenly
ignored. For example, in March 1995 Canada
seized a Spanish trawler fishing for halibut in
international waters just beyond Canada’s 200-

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. The
most typical path to the nation’s high court is by
APPEAL, either from a federal court of appeals or
a state supreme court. Article III, Section 2 gives
the Court original jurisdiction to try cases
“affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall
be a Party.”
In 1993 the state of New Jersey filed a
complaint in the Supreme Court against the
state of New York, alleging that filled portions
of Ellis Island belonged to New Jersey. In 1834
a
COMPACT between New York and New Jersey,
Within the
boundaries of an
exclusive economic
zone, a nation has the
right to drill for oil,
explore, and manage
marine life.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
90 BOUNDARIES
approved by Congress, established the boundary
line between the states as the middle of the
Hudson River. Ellis Island, then only three
acres, became part of New York according to
the compact. The United States in 1891 decided

Delaware involving the shared boundary of
the Delaware River separating the states. The
first matter was settled in 1907 by a compact
addressing respective fishing right s, but the
compact did not address the interstate bound-
ary line in the river (New Jersey v. Delaware I,
205 U.S. 550 [1907]). In 1934 the Supreme
Court settled the second dispute by determining
the location of the boundary (New Jersey v.
Delaware II, 291 U.S. 361 [1934]). In New Jersey
v. Delaware III (128 S. Ct. 1410, 552 U.S. ___
[2008]), the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources refused to let British Petroleum (BP)
America construct a liquefied natural gas
terminal projected to extend some 2,000 feet
beyond the New Jersey shore into Delaware
territory. The Supreme Court, by a 6-2 margin,
sided with Delaware. It held that, while
Delaware could not interfere with ordinary
projects, it had the right to regulate industrial
development that affected Delaware’s waters
and coastline, even though the project was
based, and began in, New Jersey.
A prior Supreme Court decision involved
the states of New Hampshire and Maine. New
Hampshire officials filed a lawsuit asking the
Supreme Court to decide whether the Ports-
mouth Naval Shipyard is located in one state
or the other. At stake in the case was approxi-
mately $3 million per year in income taxes that

in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
in 1997.
In Virginia v. Maryland (540 U.S. 56, 124
S. Ct. 598 [2003]), the issue was whether the
state of Virginia could build a water intake pipe
in the middle of the Potomac River to provide
water to Virginia residents. In 1632 King
Charles I, through
CHARTER, had given the
Potomac River to Lord Baltimore and the then-
colony of Maryland. Virginia argued that in 1785
the two states entered into an agreement which
gave each “the privilege of making and carrying
out wharfs and other improvements” in the
Potomac. The Supreme Court again appointed
a special master to review the matter, and
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BOUNDARIES 91
ultimately agreed with his decision in favor of
Virginia. In a 7–2 opinion, the high court ruled
that Virginia had sovereign authority, not
compromised by the 1785 agreement, to build
IMPROVEMENTS along the shore and withdraw
water from the Potomac without interference
from Maryland.
Private boundary disputes have reached epic
and dramatic proportions. On June 14, 2003,
in Pikeville, Kentucky, representatives of the
Hatfield and McCo y families signed a truce
officially ending the most famous mountain

M
ost citizens do not realize bounty
hunters still exist in modern
society and that these agents have few
limitations placed on them by state laws.
Concerns have been raised about the
failure of many states to regulate the
actions of bounty hunters. In general,
bounty hunters are not subject to civil
LIABILITY for the injuries they may cause in
recapturing a person who has been
released on bond and fled. Critics contend
that the legal privileges granted to bounty
hunters in the nineteenth century make
no sense today, and that it might be
prudent to outlaw bounty hunters. Defen-
ders reply that bounty hunters serve an
important role i n the criminal justice
system and should not be forced to follow
regulations that will prevent them from
carrying out their responsibilities.
Defenders of bounty hunters note that
the
COMMON LAW right of recapture dates
back to the constitutional beginnings of
the United States. They contend that
critics have ignored the underlying legal
relationship between the
BAIL bonding
company and the principal, the person

hunters cause most of the problems.
Defenders of bounty hunting believe that
the occasional public outcries over violent
recapture of a bail-skipper are the result
of a few irresponsible freelancers.
Defenders rely on the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Taylor v. Taintor (83
U.S. (16 Wall.) 366, 21 L. Ed. 287 [1872]).
The Taylor ruling, which remains good
law, gives bounty hunters authority to
seize and imprison a principal at any
time. The decision also allows bounty
hunters to pursue a person to another
state and arrest the pursued person
without legal process. Taylor concludes
that the bail bonding company has the
“principal on a string,” and “may pull
the string” whenever it pleases. Defenders
conclude, therefore, that the Court has
given bounty hunters authority under the
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
92 BOUNDARIES
FURTHER READINGS
Epstein, Richard A. 2000. Private and Common Property.
New York: Garland.
Herzog, Lawrence. 1991. “International Boundary Cities:
The Debate on Transfrontier Planning in Two Border
Regions.” Natural Resources Journal 31.
———. 1990. Where North Meets South: Cities, Space, and
Politics on the U.S Mexico Border. Austin, Tex.: CMAS

to appear for court appointments. Bail skipping
U.S. Constitution to practice their trade.
This authority has never been revoked.
Finally, defenders point out that
defendants who skip bail do not want to
be found and do not want to surrender, if
discovered. Bounty hunters do not seek to
inflict injuries on principals or damage
property, but in many situations surprise
entry into a dwelling is required to effect
the arrest. Physical resistance by the
principal leads to most of the violence
associated with bounty hunters.
Critics of bounty hunters contend
that the time has long passed for bounty
hunters. The Taylor decision was ren-
dered a few years after the Civil War, at a
time when the United States was rela-
tively unpopulated and the West was just
beginning to be settled. Moreover, police
departments in urban areas were inade-
quate, poorly equipped, and badly
trained. Cooperation between jurisdic-
tions was minimal, and there was no
organization similar to the
FEDERAL BU-
REAU OF INVESTIGATION
(FBI) with the
power to cross state borders in pursuit
of escaped felons. In addition, commu-

Some states, such as Florida, require
bounty hunters to be licensed and to be
employed by only one bail bonding
company that will supervise and be
responsible for the agents. Florida
imposes age and residence requirements
on licensed bounty hunters, who must
also demonstrate they are of high moral
character. Some states also require boun-
ty hunters to complete a certification
course in criminal justice within a few
years of obtaining their license. Some
jurisdictions mandate that bounty hun-
ters take continuing education courses
in their field every year. Many of these
reforms have been proposed by the
National
INSTITUTE of Bail Enforcement,
which seeks to professionalize its
membership and enhance its public
reputation.
Critic s also believe it is essential that
bounty hunters be held liable for inju-
ries to persons and property. State laws
must, they argue, be amended to impose
civil liability. Such legislation would
deter bounty hunters from taking dan-
gerous actions that may injure innocent
people. Congress has not addressed
this issue on a national level. A bill that

bail bondsman.
Bounty hunters have existed since medieval
times—the notion of bail predates written
ENGLISH LAW. The foundation for bounty-hunter
rights in the United States was laid down in the
1872 case of Taylor v. Taintor (83 U.S. [16 Wall.]
366, 21 L. Ed. 287 [1872]). “Where one charged
with crime is released upon bail, he is regarded
as being delivered to custody of his sureties.
Their dominion is a continuance of the original
imprisonment,” wrote the U.S . Supreme Court,
in a decision that as of 2009 had never been
overruled.
There has been increasing controversy in
the United States over bounty hunters, with
concern voiced over the lack of control that
a state has over their behavior. In response,
some states have taken to curbing the bounty
hunter’s activities. For example, Arizona
restricts bounty hunters from entering a resi-
dence without the consent of an occupant, and
it prohibits bou nty hunters from misrepresent-
ing themselves as law enforcement agents or
from working as a bounty hunter if convicted of
certain crimes.
FURTHER READINGS
Drimmer, Jonathan. 1996. “When Man Hunts Man: The
Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in the American
Criminal Justice System.”Houston Law Review Vol. 33
(fall).

site for service as an adult volunteer.
Asked to identify the grounds for the
decision, Monmouth Council executive James
Kay told Dale that the BSA forbids “membership
to homosexuals.” Kay noted that Dale had been
in a newspaper photograph taken at Rutgers,
where he was co-president of the university’s
gay and lesbian campus organization. The
accompanying newspaper story reported that
Dale “admit[ted] his homosexuality during his
second year at Rutgers.” According to Kay,
Dale had demonstrated his inability to live by
the Scout
OATH and Law by publicly avowing
his homosexuality.
Dale filed suit against the BSA in New Jersey
state court, charging that his expulsion as an
assistant scoutmaster violated New Jersey’s Law
Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5–1
et seq. LAD prohibits discrimination based
on several categories, including affecti onal or
sexual orientation, which encompasses male
or female heterosexuality, homosexuality, or
bisexuality. The suit sought money damages
and a court order reinstating him as assistant
scoutmaster.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
94 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
The trial court d is missed his suit, ru ling
that the BSA had consistently excluded any

WILLIAM
REHNQUIST
, the Court said that BSA enjoys a
constitutionally protected right of “expressive
association” that would be undermined if the
organization were forced to accept the
PLAINTIFF
as an assistant scoutmaster. Describing the Boy
Scouts as a private organization that “believes
homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the
values it seeks to instill in its youth members,”
Rehnquist wrote that “Dale’s presence in the Boy
Scouts would, at the very least, force the organi-
zation to send a message, both to the youth
members and the world, that the Boy Scouts
accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate
form of behavior.”
As a basic principle, Rehnquist stressed, the
forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a
group infringes the group’s freedom of expres-
sive association if the presence of that person
affects in a significant way the group’s ability to
ADVOCATE public or private viewpoints. First, the
Court said that the BSA engages in expressive
activity by seeking to instill values in young
people, and its expres sive freedom would be
curtailed if it had to accept avowed homo-
sexuals as members despite the organization’s
policy to the contrary. Second, Rehnquist stated
that the forced inclusion of an avowed gay

GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE 95
organization’s views on homosexuality. “Unless
one is prepared to turn the right to associate
into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an
independent inquiry is a necessity,” he wrote.
Rehnquist w as joined in the majority
opinion by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor,
ANTONIN SCALIA, ANTHONY M. KENNEDY,and
CLARENCE THOMAS. Justices DAVID H. SOUTER,
RUTH B ADER GINSBURG,andSTEPHE N G. BREYER
joined Stevens in the dissent. In the wake of
the Dale decision, some have speculated that
states may face First Amendment restrictions
in applying anti-discrimination laws to private
organizations that, like the Boys Scouts, are
engaging in what can be deemed to be expressive
activity.
The Dale ruling spurred many community
organizations and governments to examine their
relationships with the Boy Scouts. The Episcopal
Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, which has 117
congregations, adopted a resolution deploring
the BSA policy. In Montclair, Cub Scout Pack
5 circulated petitions rejecting the BSA’santi-
gay stance. A Princeton scout troop was denied
permission to use a borough parking lot for its
Christmas tree sale, and numerous companies
and

in Gay-Rights Fight.” New York Times (Dec. 6).
CROSS REFERENCES
Discrimination; First Amendment; Freedom of Association
and Assembly; Gay and Lesbian Rights.
BOYCOTT
A lawful concerted attempt by a group of people
to express displeasure with, or obtain concessions
from, a particular person or company by refusing
to do business with them. An unlawful attempt
that is prohibited by the Sherman Anti-trust
Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), to adversely affect a
company through threat, coercion, or intimidation
of its employees, or to prevent others from doing
business with said company. A practice utilized
in labor disputes whereby an organized group
of employees bands together and refrains from
dealing with an employer, the legality of which
is determined by applicable provisions of statutes
governing labor-management relations.
A classic example of this is a consumer
boycott whereby a group of customers refu ses
to purchase a particular product in order to
indicate their dissatisfaction with excessive
prices or the offensive actions of a particular
manufacturer or producer.
CROSS REFERENCE
Labor Law.
v
BOYLE, JOHN
John Boyle was born October 28, 1774, near

to the Pennsylvania bar in 1806 and practiced
law in Pennsylvania as well as Missouri and
Louisiana from 1810 to 1814, and in Baltimore
from 1814 to 1817.
After serving as deputy attorney general and
district judge in Louisiana, Brackenridge was a
member of the Maryland legislature from 1814
to 1817 and from 1819 to 1821. He was a strong
supporter of the South American nations, and
in 1817 was sent to South America as part of
a commission to study the political conditions
of the area. Subsequently, he relocated to
Florida where he worked for Governor
ANDREW
JACKSON
from 1821 to 1832, serving as secretary
and judge of the Florida Territory.
As an author, Brackenridge wrote many
publications, including Views of Louisiana
(1814); History of the Late War (1816); Voyage
to South America (1819); Letters to the Public,
(1832); and History of the Western Insurrection
in Western Pennsylvania (1859).
Brackenridge died January 18, 1871, in
Pittsburgh.
BRACKET
The category of the percentage of income tax
found on the tax tables set by the Internal Revenue
John Boyle 1774–1835
▼▼

1826 Appointed
U.S. district
judge for
Kentucky
1835 Died,
Danville, Ky.
Henry Marie Brackenridge 1786–1871
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆◆
◆
◆
◆
1786 Born,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
1803 President
Jefferson "purchased"
Louisiana Territory
1806 Admitted to
Pennsylvania bar
1811–14 Helped frame judicial system;
served as judge and deputy attorney general
1814 Views of Louisiana published
1821–32 Served as
secretary and judge
in Florida Territory
1819 Voyage to South America published
1817 Sent to South America