the general smith: early 19th century baltimore and the supreme court's admiralty jurisdiction
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
1/29
FOREWORD:
Title
The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's
Admiralty Jurisdiction
Author
Michael Schearer
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2014
Keywords
maritime liens, supreme court, admiralty jurisdiction, 1819, home port lien
doctrine
Abstract
The General Smithis a minor admiralty case that established the home-port lien
doctrine, a doctrine that was overturned by federal law over a century ago. The
case itself has been mostly forgotten to history, and is but a footnote even toadmiralty historians. Yet the story behind the case provides fascinating insight
early 19th century Baltimore as a growing hub of trade and commerce in the
years immediately after the War of 1812. The story behind the case reveals to us
the colorful personalities of Baltimores early 19th century maritime merchants
and lawyers. Most importantly, it helps to uncover surprising insights into the
inner workings of the Supreme Court of the United States and clandestine efforts
by the Court's personalities to enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal
courts.
Disciplines
Admiralty Law, Law, Maritime History, Supreme Court
1
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
2/29
The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore
and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
The General Smith is a mostly-forgotten admiralty case whose principle holding was 1
overruled by statute over a century ago. The case was immediately overshadowed by a pair of
landmark cases defining the scope of the constitutional power of the early Republics
government. It now exists (if at all) only as a paragraph or historical footnote in modern2
admiralty casebooks. Yet beneath that historical dust lies a case that provides fascinating insight3
into American privateers-turned merchants during and after the War of 1812, particularly as they
relate to Baltimore as a thriving hub of trade and commerce. The authors of one of the most
influential texts on admiralty law wrote that The General Smith was one of two of "the most
ill-advised admiralty decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court." The case is consumed 4
by colorful personalities of early 19th century merchants and lawyers, and uncovers surprising
(and controversial) insights into the inner workings of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Part I: The Owner
By the time George Pitt Stevenson was born in 1791, his family had already begun to 5
make significant contributions to Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Henry Stevenson (Georges
grandfather) and Dr. John Stevenson (George's great uncle), both born in Londonderry, Ireland,
arrived in Baltimore in 1745. At the time, Baltimore was nothing more than two dozen homes 6
117 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 438 (1819).2SeeDartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819) McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
316 (1819).3See generallyNICHOLASJ. HEALY& DAVIDJ. SHARPE, CASESANDMATERIALSONADMIRALTY(2nd ed. 1986) GRANT
GILMORE& CHARLESJ. BLACK, JR., THELAWOFADMIRALTY(2NDED. 1975) DAVIDW. ROBERTSON, ADMIRALTYAND
FEDERALISM(1970).4GILMORE& BLACK,supranote 3, at 648.5Sometimes seen as Stephenson.6JOHNR. QUINAN, MEDICALANNALSOFBALTIMOREFROM1608 TO1880, at 164-65 (1884).
2
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
3/29
and perhaps less than 200 people. Henry set up a hospital out of part of his home, and both 7
brothers provided smallpox inoculations at no cost to their patients. John Stevenson also went 8
the commerce route and was the first exporter of wheat and flour from Baltimore. For this he 9
earned the nickname "Romulus of Maryland."10
Henry's son George (George's father), born in 1766, also became a doctor and was widely
regarded. When George's father died, his mother Esther Hetty Smith Stevenson married Peter
Carr, Thomas Jefferson's nephew, in 1797. For a time, George lived on his step-father Carr's 11
plantation in Virginia.12
The Baltimore that George P. Stevenson was born into was primed for commercial
success, in part due to his family's accomplishments. Centered primarily in the two areas now
known as the Inner Harbor and Fells Point, Baltimore was a growing city whose economic 13
engine was powered by flour milling and the shipping of wheat and iron ore. By 1790, the 14
population of Baltimore was nearly 14,000, on its way to more than 26,000 by the turn of the
century and over 46,000 by 1810.15
George was married to Elizabeth Goodwin in 1812, and they lived at 124 Hanover 16
Street. Seeking to capitalize on the privateering opportunities as a result of the War of 1812,17
7GARYL. BROWNE, BALTIMOREINTHENATION, 1789-1861, at 3 (1980).8QUINAN,supranote 6, at 165.9Ruthella M. Bibbins, The City of Baltimore, 1797-1850, in1 BALTIMORE: ITSHISTORYANDITSPEOPLE63, 70 (Clayton
C. Hall ed., 1912) QUINAN,supranote 6, at 165.10QUINAN,supranote 6, at 165.11
Id.12George P. Stevenson to Thomas Jefferson, 2 March 1813,
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-05-02-0552 [hereinafter Stevenson Letter].13SeeA.P. Folie, Plan of the Town of Baltimore and It's Environs (1792).14Bibbins,supranote 9, at 73.15U.S. Census data, 1790-1910.16The Goodwins of Baltimore, Maryland, 8 WM. & MARYQUARTERLY108, 111 (No. 2, Supplement, Oct., 1899).17 James Lakin, The Baltimore Directory and Register for 1814-15, at 179 (1814). By 1822, reflecting George P.
Stevensons death, the annual directory listed Elizabeth Goodwin as a widow and living on the west side of Eutaw
Street south of Conway. C. Kennan's Baltimore Directory for 1822 & 1823, at 263 (1822).
3
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
4/29
George opened a commission business with his brother-in-law, Thomas Parkin Goodwin. 18
Stevenson operated his business out of 45 S. Gay Street, just off what is now the Inner Harbor 19
and later from 79 Smiths wharf. During the war, Stevenson held ownership interests in at least 20
fifteen privateering vessels. Despite these rather extensive ownership interests, Stevenson was 21
mostly unsuccessful as a privateer owner. Although close to many of the central monied 22
interests of Baltimore, Stevenson himself does not appear to have been particularly wealthy as
compared to other privateer owners. Instead, Stevenson was often extended credit from, and
because of, family ties and close associations. A notice published in the New York Evening 23
Post in 1816 indicated that the partnership between Stevenson and Goodwin expired by mutual
consent, and that [t]he concerns of the firm will be settled by Thomas P. Goodwin, who will
continue to transact Commission Business at No. 41 South-street. Due to a combination of 24
mostly unsuccessful privateering and poor post-war investments, Stevenson overextended
himself and went bankrupt, owing his creditors in excess of $250,000.25
18Stevenson Letter,supranote 12.19Lakin,supranote 17, at 179. According to the same directory, the prominent firm of Hollins & McBlair was two
doors down at 49 S. Gay Street.Id. at 106.20
Edward Machett, The Baltimore Directory and Register, for the Year 1816, at 151 (1816).21Bordeaux Packet,Burrows, Cashier, Chasseur, Chance,Daedalus,Hollins,Hussar,Lawrence,Patapsco,Racer,
Sparrow, Tuckahoe, Wave, and Whig JOHNP. CRANWELL& WILLIAMB. CRANE, MENOFMARQUE412 (1940) JEROMER.
GARITEE, THEREPUBLIC'SPRIVATENAVY264 (1977).22Of the 15 privateers in which Stevenson held an ownership interest, six were taken before they could take another
ship, and another was run aground. Only the Chasseur(25 captures ) andLawrence(22 captures) would prove
successful under Stevensons ownership. CRANWELL& CRANE,supranote 21, at 374-400.23GARITEE,supranote 21, at 72.24Notice of George P. Stevenson and Thomas P. Goodwin, New York Evening Post, 1816 (specific date unknown).25Stevenson Letter,supranote 12.
4
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
5/29
Part II: The Ship
One of the assets Stevenson unloaded to satisfy creditors was the General Smith. Despite
Stevenson's extensive privateering interests during the War of 1812, the General Smith was not a
privateer. Whether she was originally intended to be a privateer and simply missed out because26
of the end of the war is unknown. Instead, evidence suggests that Stevenson purchased the ship
"new" after the war as a commercial investment. The General Smith was built in 1816 by 27
perhaps the most famous of Baltimore's early shipbuilders, Thomas Kemp of Fell's Point. The 28
ship was 71 feet in length (76 keel) her beam was 26 feet, 6 inches her draft was 10 feet and
she held 284.33 tons. Although there are no readily available sources to confirm it, it seems 29
likely that the ship's namesake was Samuel Smith, Major General of the Maryland Militia and
hero of the Battle of Baltimore. There must have been a personal satisfaction in owning the
General Smith, too: Samuel Smith was George's uncle.30
The General Smiths maiden voyage took place in late Spring 1816 with stops in
Rotterdam and Liverpool. Gores General Advertiser, a Liverpool newspaper, noted the 31
impending arrival:
For BALTIMORE, The fine coppered American Ship GENERAL SMITH,-
EDWARD VEAZEY, Master, This vessel is now on her first voyage, and being
built under the particular inspection of her owners she is in every respect a most
excellent vessel. She has good and commodious accommodations for
26Not to be confused with the Canadian sloop General Smith (or General Smyth), which was, in fact, a privateer. See
http://1812privateers.org/Canada/index.html.27GARITEE,supranote 21, at 231.28Card File, Maryland Historical Society (visited October 1, 2014).29Id. By comparison, the General Smith was smaller than another Kemp-built ship, the privateer Chasseur, which was
115 feet, 6 inches in length, with a 26 foot, 8 inch beam and 12 feet, 9 inches of draft and 356 tons.30Stevenson Letter,supranote 12.31General Smith Case Papers 6,
http://www.mdhistory.net/nara_m214/general_smith_nara_m214_47_911_912/html/general_smith_nara_m214_47_91
1_912-0006.html [hereinafter General Smith Case Papers]. The last number (or two) of the URL is the page number of
the Case Papers. For this reference, the page number is 6. Future references to the Case Papers will omit the URL.
5
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
6/29
passengers, and will receive quick dispatch. For freight or passage apply to the
Captain on board the vessel, or to RATHBONE, HODGSON and Co.32
On September 30, 1816, the General Smith returned to Baltimore. By this time, Stevenson was 33
scrambling to cover his debts while his creditors came calling. As a result of the impending34
bankruptcy, Stevenson assigned the General Smith (and most of his other assets) to fellow
Baltimore merchants John Hollins and James W. McCulloh via a deed of trust.35 36
Part III: The Case
On October 4, 1816, just one day after Stevenson assigned his assets to Hollins and
McCulloh, James Ramsey filed a libel against the General Smith. In his claim, Ramsey alleged
that he:
supplied and furnished for the use, accommodation, and equipment of the Ship
General Smith, at the District aforesaid to equip and prepare her for a Voyage on
the high seas and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Various Articles
of Cordage Ship Chandlery and stores amounting in the whole to the value of four
thousand five hundred and ninety nine dollars and fifty seven cents for no part of
which has he received any compensations payment or security.37
32Gore's General Advertiser (Liverpool), July 4 & 11, 1816, Volume LIII, Issues 2634 and 2635. The use of copper
sheathing to protect a ship's wooden hull from shipworm and the corrosive effects of salt water was developed by the
Royal Navy in the 18th century and saw widespread implementation in warships by the time of the American war of
independence. Still, by 1816, only 18 percent of British merchant ships were coppered. This suggests that the GeneralSmith's copper sheathing was in fact a fairly modern convenience at the time. See generallyMIKEMCCARTHY, SHIPS'
FASTENINGS: FROMSEWNBOATTOSTEAMSHIP101-114 (2005).33General Smith Case Papers,supranote 31, at 6-7.34Id. See alsoGARITEE,supranote 21, at 231-32.35James W. McCulloh, who was a Baltimore merchant and cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the
United States (and petitioner in the famous Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) in which
McCullohs name was misspelled), should not be confused with Baltimore customs collector James H. McCulloch.).36General Smith Case Papers,supranote 31, at 7.37Id. at 2.
6
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
7/29
Then on November 11, 1816, just over one month later, Rebecca Cockrill, as administrix of her
husband Thomas Cockrills estate, filed a similar libel against the General Smith for two
thousand and fifty dollars.38
Both Ramsey and Cockrills claims were filed by
Maryland lawyer William H. Winder (right). Winder was an
accomplished advocate who read law with Gabriel Duvall in
Annapolis, before Duvall was nominated to Supreme Court. His
military service during the War of 1812 was controversial: troops
led by Winder were defeated at Bladensburg, after which
Washington, D.C. fell into the hands of the British. After the war,
his law practice was considered one of the largest both in Baltimore and at the Supreme Court in
Washington, D.C. 39
The primary answer was filed by lawyer John Purviance on behalf of John Hollins and
James W. McCulloh. Hollins and McCulloh made claims to the General Smith, and in support,
attached the deed of trust assigning Stevensons property to them. Hollins and McCulloh 40
alleged that Ramsey permitted the General Smith to leave Baltimore without attempting to stop
it, and failed to file a lien at that time. Additionally, the answer alleged that if the District Court 41
were to rule in favor of Ramsey, a decree By your Honor, according to the prayer of the
Libellant will deprive the United States to that extent of the lien or right of priority to them. 42
38Id. at 21, 28.39BRANTZMAYER, BALTIMORE: PASTANDPRESENT541-44 (1871).40General Smith Case Papers,supranote 31, at 3-8.41Id. at 4, 7. The deed of trust was witnessed by John F. Harris and John Mitchell, justices of the peace for Baltimore
County and signed and sealed by William Gibson, the clerk for Baltimore County.Id. at 12-13.42Id. at 5.
7
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
8/29
Hollins and McCulloh believed that the deed of trust that assigned Stevensons property to them
was for the purpose of [first] paying the Debt so due by him to the United States as aforesaid so
far further as the same way adequate thereto, and [only then] to apply the residue if any to the
payment of his other creditors. In other words, a ruling in favor of Ramsey would deprive the 43
United States government of its place first in line to collect Stevensons debt. Indeed, the
Custom House was listed as the first priority creditor in Stevensons deed of trust to Hollins
and McCulloh.44
Nevertheless, despite the arguments of John Purviance, on June 6, 1817, Judge James
Houston ordered the General Smith condemned and sold by the
Marshall of the Court. He further decreed Ramsey should be paid 45
his full libel against the ship ($4,599.57) from the proceeds of the
sale, and that the Cockrill estate should be paid $778.30 from the46
same proceeds. On November 8, 1817, the decision was "affirmed47
pro forma by consent" by Supreme Court Associate Justice Gabriel
Duvall (left), as the presiding judge for the Fourth Circuit and
District Judge James Houston.48
43
Id.44Id. at 11.45Id. at 14.46Id. at 14-15.47Id. at 35.48Id. at 15-16. There is no evidence that Justice Duvall ever wrote an opinion as a Circuit Judge. Duvall has been the
subject of debate among scholars arguing over who should be considered the most insignificant justice. In 23 terms on
the Court, he wrote only eighteen opinions (fifteen for the Court, two concurrences, and one dissent). See, e.g., David
P. Currie, The Most Insignificant Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry, 50 U. CHI. L. REV. 466 (1983)
Frank H. Easterbrook, The Most Insignificant Justice: Further Evidence, 50 U. CHI. L. REV. 481 (1983).
8
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
9/29
Hollins and McCulloh appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted the appeal in both
cases. The Supreme Court received and filed the case records on February 3, 1818, and49
assigned them docket numbers 911 (Ramsey libel) and 912 (Cockrill libel). Additionally, the 50
renowned Maryland lawyer and Supreme Court litigator William
Pinkney (right) took over the cause for Hollins and McCulloh.
Pinkney had just returned from a two-year-long overseas
assignment and was presumably excited to get back to the
business of Supreme Court litigation. Oral argument was set for 51
Tuesday, March 9, 1819.52
What exactly William Pinkney argued before the Supreme
Court that day regarding the general admiralty jurisdiction of the
federal courts is a matter of historical controversy to be discussed in the next section. What was 53
reported, according to Supreme Court reporter Henry Wheatons headnotes to the case, and what
seems undisputed, is that Pinkney:
...denied, that a suit in rem could be maintained, in the present case, because the
parties had no specific lien upon the ship for supplies furnished in the port to
which she belonged. In the case of materials furnished or repairs done to a foreign
ship, the maritime law has given such a lien, which may be enforced by a suit in
the admiralty. But in the case of a domestic ship, it was long since settled by the
most solemn adjudications of the common law (which is the law of Maryland on
this subject), that mechanics have no lien upon the ship itself for their demands,
but must look to the personal security of the owner.54
49
General Smith Case Papers,supranote 31, at 16, 37.50Supreme Court Docket, February Term 1818, at 984-85,available at
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m216_1/pdf/nara_m216_1-0504.pdf and
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m216_1/pdf/nara_m216_1-0505.pdf [hereinafter Supreme Court Docket].51Pinkney was the Minister Plenipotentiary to Russia, with a special mission to Naples from 1816-1818 and
presumably unavailable to argue cases during that time. SeeBiographical Directory of the United States Congress,
PINKNEY, William, (1764-1822), available athttp://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000362.52Supreme Court Docket,supranote 50, at 984-85.53See infraPart IV.54The General Smith, 17 U.S. 438, 441-42 (1819).
9
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
10/29
In support of Pinkneys argument, he cited a Circuit Court case from Georgia, Woodruff v. The
Levi Dearborne, which held that the admiralty law of the United States, is [not] the civil law of
the Roman government. The admiralty law of Great Britain is the admiralty law here. In55
that case, Justice Johnson (sitting as the Circuit Judge), wrote that [t]he lien on vessels for
material men and shipwrights, exists only in a foreign port. Where the owner is present and
resident, the common law principle must govern. In such case, no lien on the vessel is created. 56
Pinkney also cited English common law, which held that:
a shipwright who has once parted with the possession of the ship, or has worked
upon it without taking possession, and a tradesman, who has provided ropes, sails,provisions, or other necessaries for a ship, are not by the law ofEnglandpreferred
to other creditors, nor have any particular claim or lien upon the ship itself for the
recovery of their demands.57
In response, William Winder argued that the universal maritime law, as administered in
the European courts of admiralty should apply, as opposed to the English common law. In 58
support, Winder citedStevens v. The Sandwich, a District Court case from Maryland which held
that a ship-carpenter, by the maritime law, has a lien on the ship for repairs in port. Winder 59
also cited Justice Storys First Circuit opinion in De Lovio v. Boit, widely considered one of the 60
seminal cases of federal maritime jurisdiction. In that case, Story rejected the narrow admiralty
jurisdiction of the English courts in favor of a much broader jurisdiction in early American
courts:
On the whole, I am, without the slightest hesitation, ready to pronounce, that thedelegation of cognizance of "all civil cases of admiralty and maritime
554 Hall's L. Jour. 97 (6th Cir. 1811).56Id.57Abbott on Ship. p. 2, c. 3, 9-13 (1829), in The General Smith, 17 U.S. at 442.58The General Smith, 17 U.S. at 442.591 Pet. Adm. 233 (D. Md. 1801).607 F.Cas. 418 (No. 3,776) (C.C.D.Mass. 1815).
10
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
11/29
jurisdiction" to the courts of the United States comprehends all maritime
contracts, torts, and injuries. The latter branch is necessarily bounded by locality
the former extends over all contracts (wheresoever they may be made or executed,
or whatsoever may be the form of the stipulations) which relate to the navigation,
business or commerce of the sea.61
Story (below) had already written that "[i]n my judgment, and after having given the subject a
very grave consideration, the admiralty has always rightfully possessed jurisdiction over all
maritime contracts..." Indeed, the reported opinion inDe Lovio62
v. Boitcontains no facts about the circumstances that brought the
case to the courts. Rather, "with a manuscript dissertation on this 63
subject nearly finished," Story used the case to write his admiralty
views into law with a dissertation that had been written before the
case ever made it to the court. Beginning withDe Lovio, then, 64
Justice Story sought to break from the English common law and
enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. In citing 65
De Lovio, Winder must have felt confident that Storys expansive view of admiralty jurisdiction
would lean strongly in favor of Ramsey and Cockrills claims.
61Id.62John Gallison, Manuscript Diary, July 4, 1815, Massachusetts Historical Society, inGERALDT. DUNNE, JUSTICEJOSEPH
STORYANDTHERISEOFTHESUPREMECOURT129 (1971).63For a factual description of the case, see HEALY& SHARPE,supranote 3, at 12.64GERALDT. DUNNE, JUSTICEJOSEPHSTORYANDTHERISEOFTHESUPREMECOURT129 (1971).65
Story probably expected the Supreme Court to review his case. Although he presumably would have preferred thatthe Court affirm his decision, he seemed fully prepared to be reversed. He closed his lengthy opinion by writing:
In making this decree, I am fully aware, that from its novelty it is likely to be put to the question with
more than usual zeal nor can I pretend to conjecture, how far a superior tribunal may deem it fit to
entertain the principles, which I have felt it my solemn duty to avow and support. Whatever may be
the event of this judgment, I shall console myself with the memorable words of Lord Nottingham, in
the great case of the Duke of Norfolk, 3 Ch. Cas. 52: "I have made several decrees, since I have had
the honor to sit in this place, which have been reversed in another place and I was not ashamed to
make them, nor sorry when they were reversed by others."
7 F.Cas. 418 (No. 3,776) (C.C.D.Mass. 1815).
11
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
12/29
When the Supreme Court met for oral argument on March 9, 1819, present were Chief
Justice John Marshall, and Associate Justices Bushrod Washington, William Johnson,
Brockholst Livingston, Gabriel Duvall, and Joseph Story. Oral argument inThe General Smith 66
was the first of three cases heard on that Tuesday morning, and the judgment was announced the
next day. The Supreme Court Minutes recorded the following judgment on March 10, 1819:67
This cause came to be heard on the Transcript of the Record and was argued by
counsel on consideration whereof. It is the opinion of this Court that the Libellant
has no lien upon the said Ship General Smith. It is therefore decreed and ordered
that the decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland in this be and the
same is hereby reversed and annulled: And it is further ordered that the said cause
be remanded to the said Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein
according to law.68
Two separate, but nearly identical judgments were recorded against both James Ramsey and
Rebecca Cockrill. The Supreme Court Docket indicates Mandate for Plaintiffs to Nathaniel69
Williams Dist. Attorney. Although the United States was not a named party toThe General 70
Smith, one can speculate that the notation of the District Attorney was in reference to the right of
66Supreme Court Minutes, March 9, 1819, at 73, available at
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m215_1/pdf/nara_m215_1-0400.pdf. By the time The General Smithwas
argued, the Court had already heard and decided two cases that would later go down in history as landmark cases in
constitutional law:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) had been decided just three days earlier on
March 6, 1989 andDartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819) on February 2, 1819.67Supreme Court Docket,supranote 50, at 984-85. Given the short turnaround, one might wonder, given Storys
pre-written dissertation inDe Lovio, if much of his opinion had been written ahead of time.68
Supreme Court Minutes, February Term 1819 Judgments and Decrees, at 85, available athttp://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m215_1/pdf/nara_m215_1-0406.pdf.69Id.70Supreme Court Docket,supranote 50, at 984-85. Although the Docket refers to Nathaniel Williams by name as the
District Attorney, archive records show that he didnt become District Attorney of Maryland until 1824 (and served
until 1841). Archives of Maryland (Biographical Series), Nathaniel F. Williams (1782-1864), available at
http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/001800/001824/html/01824bio.html. Marylands
District Attorney at the time was Elias Glenn, who served from 1812-1824. One can speculate that Williams might
have been the Acting District Attorney perhaps due to an illness he served as the Acting Attorney General from
1820-1822 while Luther Martin was ill and might have done the same for Glenn.Id.
12
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
13/29
priority of the United States government to collect on George P. Stevensons debt, as John
Purviance had argued in the original answer at the District Court level.71
Justice Storys opinion was relatively short at only 350 words. He began his opinion by
declaring that [n]o doubt is entertained by this court, that the admiralty rightfully possesses a
general jurisdiction in cases of material-men and if this had been a suit in personam, there
would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction of the district court. This was 72
a startling admission, but because The General Smithwas anin remcase, it is not clear that this
opening dicta was fully appreciated at the time nonetheless, it is something worthy of its own
discussion. Story continued that because this case was filedin rem, it is incumbent upon those73
who seek the aid of the court, to establish the existence of such lien in the particular case. 74
Story went on to explain, without any citation to authority, that the general maritime law
presumed the existence of such a lien for repairs a to foreign ship. But in respect to repairs 75
and necessaries in the port or state to which the ship belongs, the case is governed altogether by
the municipal law of that state and no lien is implied, unless it is recognised by that law. 76
Because Maryland law provided for no such lien, Ramsey and Cockrill had no claim. 77
Although James Ramsey ultimately lost at the Supreme Court in 1819, he did appear to
find some measure of success in recovering property for Stevensons debts. In addition to his
claim against the General Smith in Maryland, Ramsey filed a lawsuit against Stevenson in
71General Smith Case Papers,supranote 31, at 5, 11.72The General Smith, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 438, 443 (1819).73See infraPart IV.74The General Smith, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 443.75Id.Foreignin this case refers to any ship away from its home port or state, not necessarily only a non-U.S. vessel. In
other words, a ship based in Massachusetts would be a foreign ship in Baltimore.76Id.77Indeed, there is no evidence that any state provided for such a lien at the time of The General Smith.
13
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
14/29
Louisiana. Hollins and McCulloh, as the trustees of Stevensons property, intervened. The78
District Court ruled for Ramsey, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. Writing for the
Court, presiding Judge George Mathews found that because the property assigned to Hollins and
McCulloh had not yet been actually delivered to them, it was thus subject to payment of
Ramseys debts.79
On its face, Justice Storys opinion in The General Smith was a straightforward, if
somewhat curious decision, that established the home port lien doctrine. But beyond the direct
impact of the decision on James Ramsey, Rebecca Cockrill, John Hollins, and James W.
McCulloh, The General Smithbecame the unlikely vessel for the expansion of the admiralty
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As demonstrated in the next section, the means by whichThe
General Smithcarried this expansion forward were all but straightforward.
Part IV: The Conspiracy
On March 2, 1827, nearly eight years after The General Smith, the Supreme Court
decided another admiralty case entitledRamsay v. Allegre. In that case, one Ramsey outfitted 80
the schooner Dorothea and received a promissory note for payment, which was never received. 81
Ramsey filed a libel against Allegre, the ship's owner. In a short opinion by Chief Justice 82
78Ramsey v. Stevenson, 5 Mart.(o.s.) 23 (La. 1817). The Case Papers inRamsey v. Stevensonare available online at
http://libweb.uno.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/8747. Although it is not clear from the opinion, presumably Ramsey
filed in Louisiana because Stevenson owned some property there.79Id. at 77-78. A number of questions remain unresolved regarding this case. It is unclear whether any of the property
at issue in Louisiana was the same property at issue in Maryland it is unknown whether Ramsey actually obtained
payment for the judgment against Stevenson and it is uncertain whether the judgment from the Louisiana Supreme
Court remained undisturbed by the Supreme Courts decision in The General Smith, or whether The General Smithhad
the impact of overturning the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.8025 U.S. 611 (1827). Although the case is styled asRamsay v. Allegre, the Courts syllabus indicates the plaintiff as
Ramsey. Could this be another case filed by James Ramsey? Only more research will tell.81Id.82Id.
14
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
15/29
Marshall, the Court ruled that when the owner of a ship has given a promissory note for supplies
furnished in her home port, a suit in personamunder the Court's admiralty jurisdiction cannot be
maintained against him by a material man, if the local law gives no specific lien on the ship,
especially if the note has not given up or offered to be given up (in this case, it was not).83
Ramsay v. Allegrewas not especially notable for its holding or majority opinion, but for
Justice William Johnsons lengthy concurrence. Justice Johnson wrote not about Ramseys case,
but what he perceived to be an underhanded move to enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the
federal courts. His opening paragraph is illustrative of his objective:
I concur with my brethren in sustaining the decree below, but cannot consent toplace my decision upon the ground on which they have placed theirs. I think it
high time to check this silent and stealing progress of the Admiralty in acquiring
jurisdiction to which it has no pretensions. Unfounded doctrines ought at once to
be met and put down and dicta, as well as decisions, that cannot bear
examination, ought not to be evaded and permitted to remain on the books to be
commented upon, and acquiesced in, by Courts of justice, or to be read and
respected by those whose opinions are to be formed upon books. It affords
facilities for giving an undue bias to public opinion, and, I will add, of
interpolating doctrines which belong not to the law.84
With that paragraph, Johnson began upon a journey to explore the history of admiralty law of
England in an effort to undermine the rationale for the Courts prior decision in The General
Smith in large part by attacking the historical basis of Justice Storys opinion inDe Lovio. To
understand Johnsons claims, though, requires some important historical background.
First, as previously noted, Justice Story had a specific interest in the Courts admiralty
jurisdiction, had written a manuscript dissertation that sought to expand the admiralty
jurisdiction of the federal courts, and used that dissertation as the First Circuits opinion inDe
83Id. at 613-14.8425 U.S. at 614 (Johnson, J., concurring) (emphasis added).
15
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
16/29
Lovio v. Boit. Second, Supreme Court reporter (and Supreme Court practitioner) Henry 85
Wheaton also shared Justice Storys interest in admiralty jurisdiction. In the Appendix of his 86
first volume of the United States Reports, Wheaton included an essay entitled, On the Practice
in Prize Causes.87
Third, as the first non-Federalist appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Johnson (left)
was an independent-minded justice who was not afraid to question
his loyalties or his colleagues. For example, while riding circuit 88
in South Carolina, Johnson reversed the decision of the District
Court and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Collector
of the Port of Charleston to issue a clearance to a vessel
attempting to carry rice to Baltimore. The Collector had stopped 89
the ship, pursuant to Embargo Act, which the Secretary of the
Treasury (by direction of President Thomas Jefferson) interpreted
85See infranotes 60-65 and accompanying text.86See generallyHENRYWHEATON, A DIGESTOFTHELAWOFMARITIMECAPTURESANDPRIZES(1815). In United States v.
Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), Wheaton and Attorney General William Wirt argued on behalf of the United
States against Daniel Webster in Websters first major admiralty case.871 Wheat. 494 (1816). In fact, On the Practice in Prize Causes was written by Justice Story. Extract from a
Memorandum Book of Judge Story, in JOSEPHSTORY, NOTESONTHEPRINCIPLESANDPRACTICEOFPRIZECOURTS12
(Frederic T. Pratt ed. 1854) (June 19. 1819.--It is not my desire ever to be known as the author of any of the notes in
Mr. Wheatons Reports lest, however, the fact should transpire and it should be supposed that he is under obligationsto me for notes which are his own, I think it best to put down those notes which I have written. I made it an express
condition, that the notes furnished by me should pass as his own, and I know full well that there is nothing in any of
them which he could not have prepared with a very little exertion of his own diligence and learning.).88In his diary entry for March 27, 1820, John Quincy Adams would later write of Johnson: This Judge Johnson is a
man of considerable talents and law knowledge, but a restless, turbulent, hot-headed politician caballing Judge. JOHN
QUINCYADAMS, MEMOIRSOFJOHNQUINCYADAMS12 (1875).89Gilchrist v. Collector of Charleston, 10 F. Cas. 355 (C.C.D.S.C. 1808). This case is sometimes styled as Ex parte
Gilchrist. For a longer discussion of this case, see CHARLESWARREN, 1 THESUPREMECOURTINUNITEDSTATESHISTORY
316-365 (1999).
16
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
17/29
to stop all vessels. Rebuking both the President who appointed him and Attorney General 90
Caesar A. Rodney, Johnson believed that the Executive Branch had exceeded its authority:
We are of opinion that the act of congress does not authorize the detention of this
vessel. That without the sanction of law, the collector is not justified by theinstructions of the executive, in increasing restraints upon commerce, even if this
case had been contemplated by the letter alluded to but that from a temperate
consideration of that letter, this case does not appear to come within the spirit and
meaning of the instructions which it contains.91
Years later, Justice Johnson authored another Circuit Court opinion that reversed a District Court
decision. In the case ofThe Amanda, the District Court had relied upon Justice Storys opinion 92
in De Lovio v. Boit. Attacking Storys expansive premise of admiralty jurisdiction, Johnson
believed that it was a slippery slope that must be stopped in its tracks. Returning to Ramsay v. 93
Allegre, the history now shows the sharp conflict that had arisen between Justices Story and
Johnson.
Justice Johnsons concurrence does not quarrel with the result inThe General Smith, but
rather with the rationale that the Court used to get there:
The correctness of the decision in the case of The General Smith, cannot be
questioned it dismisses the libel upon the ground, that material men and
mechanics, furnishing repairs to a domestic ship, have no particular lien upon the
ship itself for the recovery of their demands. But why have they no lien upon the
ship? or, to speak more correctly, why are they precluded from a remedy in the
Admiralty for subjecting the ship to arrest and sale in order to satisfy their
demands?94
The difference between Storys reasoning in The General Smithand Johnsons rationale in
Ramsay is deceptive precisely because both Justices would have come to the same result. But the
90Gilchrist, 10 F. Cas. 356.91Id. at 357.92Unreported, but later printed in the CITYGAZETTEANDCOMMERCIALDAILYADVERTISER(Charleston), Jan. 18, 1822.93G. EDWARDWHITE, III-IV HISTORYOFTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES465 (Paul A. Freund & Stanley N.
Katz eds. 1988).94Ramsay v. Allegre, 25 U.S. 611, 614-15 (1827).
17
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
18/29
reasoning could not be more different. In The General Smith, Story began his opinion by
declaring that [n]o doubt is entertained by this court, that the admiralty rightfully possesses a
general jurisdiction in cases of material-men and if this had been a suit in personam, there
would not have been any hesitation in sustaining the jurisdiction of the district court. 95
Likewise, Henry Wheaton reported as a headnote that [t]he admiralty possesses a general
jurisdiction is cases of suits by material-men,in personam, andin rem. Of course, becauseThe 96
General Smith was an in rem case, Storys opening line is dictum. Likewise, Wheatons
headnote went beyond the scope of the case. But more importantly, Story denied the lien because
there was no state law that provided for such a lien. His opinion did not question the Courts
admiralty jurisdiction and certainly provided dicta to expand it.
On the other hand, according to Johnson, the Court in The General Smithshould have
denied the lien:
...because jurisdiction over the contract has been taken from the Courts of
Admiralty, and the exercise of jurisdiction, in such a case, prohibited to them by
the common law Courts of Great Britain for hundreds of years. And it is a fact of
the most positive certainty and notoriety, that so far from retaining jurisdiction
over this contract in personam, after being driven from jurisdiction in rem, that
the former was first surrendered, and that in the most unequivocal terms.
Thus, the battle was joined. When the libel was filed in the Ramsay case, it was filed in
personam and relied expressly uponThe General Smith. Looking back upon the reports ofThe
General Smith, which he admitted he had never read, Johnson realized that something sinister
might be afoot.97
95The General. Smith, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 438, 443 (1819).9617 U.S. at 441.97Ramsay, 25 U.S. at 614.
18
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
19/29
Whites HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has reconstructed what
Justice Johnson must have begun to realize in 1827. Wheaton's notes on The General Smith
indicated (and then crossed out), "don't give the Argt in this case. Merely say it was argued by
Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Winder." Later, Wheaton wrote a note to himself on his notes on Ramsay:98
Mem. Prepare a short argument in this case as it ought to have been
argued--giving all the authorities. They will be found principally in 2 Gallis.
N.B. Pinkney admit the Adm.jurisdictionto its full extent.99
According to White, Wheaton's memo to himself was, as far as can be determined,
unprecedented in his tenure as Reporter. The reference to 2Gallisis to Storys opinion inDe 100
Lovio, which is a curious source for a case that results in denying the lien, but begins to make
sense when seen in the light of the dispute between Story and Johnson. Wheatons note about
Pinkney suggests at a minimum that Wheaton wanted to emphasize the 'concession' in
Pinkney's argument.101
Without the benefit of Wheatons notes, it seems likely that Justice Johnson suspected
that Wheaton had cooked the books, either at the behest of Story or at least to advance his
agenda. Writing in Ramsay, Johnson couldnt believe that William Pinkney would have made
such a broad concession of admiralty jurisdiction in The General Smith:
A gentleman of the bar, whose knowledge, particularly in the Admiralty,
commanded the highest respect in this Court, is reported to have laid down a
doctrine in very explicit terms, which, I will venture to say, has no authority in
law and the Court, carried away probably by the influence of his concessions,
echoes them in terms which are not only not called for by the case, but actually, asI conceive, contradicted by the decision which is rendered. Now I have too high
an opinion of Mr. Pinkney's lawreading, and of his talents as an advocate, not to
98WHITE, supra note 93, at 397.99Id.100Id.101Id. at 398.
19
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
20/29
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
21/29
Justice Johnson may have only had enough evidence to demonstrate that this was a
misunderstanding. But when combined with Wheatons notes, White make a convincing case for
a potential, but ultimately unrealized, conspiracy. White says one cannot definitely conclude 109
that Wheatons effort...was a deliberate attempt at subterfuge, but [t]he incident is striking in
the degree and nature of Wheatons intervention. It is also suggestive because of the strong
involvement of Wheaton, Pinkney, Story, and Johnson with the jurisprudential and political
struggles over admiralty jurisdiction that were taking place at the time. What does seem clear 110
is that Story used Wheaton as an instrument of change with Story as constant supporter and
sometimes collaborator to advance Story's ambitions for the Supreme Court and American
law. Conspiracy or not, the Courts admiralty jurisdiction would expand and largely vindicate111
Justice Storys view.112
Part V: The Aftermath
George P. Stevensons assignment of his property (including the General Smith) to John
Hollins and James W. McCulloh meant that Stevenson, even though he was the original owner of
the ship when it was outfitted, was never a party to the case. Nonetheless, because Stevensons
merchant credit was largely supported by his relatives, his financial troubles rebounded on them.
The larger merchant firms like Hollins & McBlair and Smith & Buchanan took significant hits
from Stevensons failures. The Panic of 1819, combined with stiff post-war competition from 113
109Id. at 336.110Id. at 400.111Craig Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy ,
83 MICH. L. REV. 1291, 1312-1313 (1985).112Id. at 480.113GARITEE,supranote 21, at 232.
21
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
22/29
British shipping, signaled the end for a number of prominent Baltimore merchant firms. On May
24, 1819, John Quincy Adams reported:
Forbes came in from Baltimore with the news that the houses of Smith and
Buchanan, Hollins and McBlair, Didier and D'Arcy, four Williamses, and manyothers, this day failed. Smith and Buchanan have been for many years the greatest
commercial house in Baltimore the others have all been in immense business,
but bank speculation is what has broken them down. They will undoubtedly
drown numberless others with them.114
In 1817, about a year after the lawsuit was filed, Stevenson traveled to Cuba where he
served as U.S. Agent for Commerce and Seamen (Consul) in Havana. He served in that capacity
until he died of yellow fever on July 11, 1819. George P. Stevenson is buried at Westminster 115
Burial Grounds in Baltimore, Maryland.116
Very little exists of the ship General Smith after the conclusion of the Supreme Court
case. A Collectors Office manifest from the Second Quarter 1820 shows a list of 30 English
immigrants arriving on June 30, 1820, in Baltimore from Le Havre, France, aboard the General
Smith. A second manifest from June 2, 1838, shows a ship General Smith carrying passengers117
from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The report indicates that 118
"Coleman is Master from Buenos Ayres, burthen 300 tons, and owned by William Howell &
Sons of Baltimore and bound to Philadelphia." The best evidence that this is the same ship 119
114JOHNQUINCYADAMS,supranote 88, at 370.115George P. Stevenson's Obituary, BALTIMOREPATRIOT, July 13, 1819, at 2Maj George Pitt Stevenson, FINDA GRAVE
(Oct. 22, 2010) http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=60499178.116
Mary E. Hayward & R. Kent Lancaster,Baltimore's Westminster Cemetery & Westminster Presbyterian Church, AGuide to the Markers and Burials, 1775-1943, at 36 (1984). The Guide lists Stevensons date of death as July 10, 1818,
but most other sources indicate July 11, 1819.117National Archives and Records Administration, Film M596, Reel 1 transcribed by Robert W. Grose, Immigrant
Ships Transcribers Guild (4 March 2004) available online at
http://www.immigrantships.net/v6/1800v6/generalsmith18200400.html.118National Archives and Records Administration, Film M425, Reel 53 transcribed by Harry Green, Immigrant Ships
Transcribers Guild (20 May 2009) available online at
http://www.immigrantships.net/v11/1800v11/generalsmith18380602.html.119Id.
22
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
23/29
(beyond its name, of course) is that it is owned by a Baltimore merchant and that its listed
burthen of 300 tons is closely consistent with the tonnage listed on the ships card file (284.33
tons).120
Meanwhile, Justice Storys decision in The General Smithto disallow a home port lien
unless provided for by state statute had the predictable impact of encouraging the passage of
state lien laws. According to Professors Gilmore and Black in their textbook The Law of 121
Admiralty, the construction of these statutes, with a few to determining just how they fitted into
the general maritime law, became the principal admiralty business of the Supreme Court over a
long period.122
The home port lien doctrine was at issue again in the case ofPeyroux v. Howard. In 123
that case, two citizens of New Orleans filed a libel to recover for work and materials performed
on the steamboat Planter. LikeThe General Smith, in this case the services were performed in 124
the vessel's home port. But unlikeThe General Smith, the civil code of Louisiana provided that 125
"workmen employed in the construction or repairs of ships or boats enjoy the privilege of a lien
of such ships or boats, without being bound to reduce their contracts to writing, whatever may be
their amount. The result in Peyroux, then, was that the workmen had a lien against the126
Planter. Nonetheless, this holding was consistent with the Courts home port lien doctrine as127
120See supranote 29 and accompanying text.121GILMORE& BLACK,supranote 3, at 642.122Id.12332 U.S. (7 Pet.) 324 (1833).124Id.125Id.126Id.127Id.
23
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
24/29
originally described inThe General Smith. Justice Story reaffirmed this doctrine later in the case
of The Orleans.128
By 1844, the Supreme Court issued its first set of admiralty rules. The 12th Rule
incorporated the holdings of the The General Smith, Peyroux, and The Orleans. Because of 129
"embarrassing difficulties" by federal courts in interpreting the myriad of state lien laws, the
Court modified the rule in 1858. "The intention of the amendment being, to leave liens 130
depending upon state laws, to be enforced by the state courts. Although Chief Justice Taney 131
argued that the rule change did not involve the scope of admiralty jurisdiction of the courts, 132
the rule had the impact of removing the power from the district courts to enforce maritime claims
against domestic vessels by process in rem. Indeed, the 1858 rule change "made the situation 133
of the domestic materialmen hopeless...they could not proceed in rem in the admiralty and
comparable relief in state courts was denied them on Constitutional grounds." In any case, the 134
Court amended the rule yet again in 1872. That change largely reversed the impact of the 1858
12836 U.S. (11 Pet.) 175 (1837).129The original Rule 12 read as follows: in all suits by material-men for supplies, repairs or other necessaries for a
foreign ship, or for a ship in a foreign port, the libellant may proceed against the ship and freight in rem, or against the
master and owner alone in personam and the like proceeding in rem shall apply to cases of domestic ships, where, by
the local law, a lien is given to materialmen for supplies, repairs and other necessaries. 44 U.S. (3 How.) ix (1844).
One writer has said that The General Smithset the stage for a thorny complex of problems with regard to the
federal-state allocation of competence over maritime matters. ROBERTSON,supranote 3, at 127.130The St. Lawrence, 66 U.S. 522 (1861). The 1858 amendment modified the last clause of the 12th rule so as to read
as follows: "And the like proceeding in personam, but not in rem, shall apply to domestic ships for supplies, repairs or
other necessaries." 62 U.S. (21 How.) iv (1858).131ERASTUSC. BENEDICT, THEAMERICANADMIRALTY160 (1870). Benedict seems to have recognized the inherent
problems with the 1858 amendment: "These cases do not seem to be based on any principle of the maritime law, and
can hardly fail to be reconsidered at some future time."Id.132The St. Lawrence, 66 U.S. 522 (1861).133The Adele, 1 Ben. 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1867). Justice Bradley would later write that the 1858 rule change was designed to
avoid inconveniences arising from the often intricate and conflicting State laws creating such liens. The Lottawanna,
88 U.S. 558, 581 (1874).134GILMORE& BLACK,supranote 3, at 647. SeeThe Moses Taylor 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 (1866)
The Hine v. Trevor 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 555 (1866).
24
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
25/29
rule change. This final rule change was simply intended to remove all obstructions and135
embarrassments in the way of instituting proceedings in rem in all cases where liens exist by
law. Two authors have suggested that the 1858 rule change was not acceptable to powerful136
interests, and that the Courts 1872 amendment was designed to remedy this problem.137
Despite all of the controversy surrounding the Supreme Courts home port lien doctrine,
especially the difficulties of the federal courts in interpreting the patchwork of state lien laws, the
Court reaffirmed the holding of The General Smith in the 1874 case of The Lottawanna. 138
Writing for the Court, Justice Bradley seemed to question the original validity of the doctrine
(whatever may have been the origin of the practice, and whether or not it was based on the
soundest principles), but nonetheless declined to overrule The General Smith because it
became firmly settled, and it is now too late to question its validity.139
Justice Bradley concluded his opinion by suggesting that Congress act to clean up the
mess: It would undoubtedly be far more satisfactory to have a uniform law regulating such
liens, but until such a law be adopted (supposing Congress to have the power) the authority of
the States to legislate on the subject seems to be conceded by the uniform course of decisions. 140
In fact, Congress did act--36 years later. In 1910, Congress passed the Federal Maritime Lien
Act. Section 1 of the Act overruledThe General Smithby expressly permitting a maritime lien141
135The 1872 rule read: "In all suits by materialmen for supplies or repairs or other necessaries, the libellant may
proceed against the ship and freight in remagainst the master or owner alone in personam."136The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. at 579.137GILMORE& BLACK,supranote 3, at 647.138The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. at 581.139Id.140The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. at 581.14136 Stat. 604 (June 23, 1910).
25
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
26/29
whether the vessel in question was foreign or domestic, and Section 5 provided for federal
preemption of federal law over state lien laws.142
Conclusion
And thus, nearly a century after the curious case of The General Smith, Congress
overruled the cases principle holding. The case itself was long ago forgotten to history, and is
but a footnote even to admiralty historians. Yet the story behind the case provides fascinating
insight early 19th century Baltimore as a growing hub of trade and commerce in the years
immediately after the War of 1812. The story behind the case reveals to us the colorful
personalities of Baltimores early 19th century maritime merchants and lawyers, and helps to
uncover surprising insights into the inner workings of the Supreme Court of the United States.
142Id.
26
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
27/29
Appendix I: Biography of George Pitt Stevenson
George Pitt Stevenson (Stephenson) was a merchant born on December 14, 1791 in
Baltimore, Maryland. He married Elizabeth Eliza Goodwin (b. October 11, 1790 in Baltimore)
on January 9, 1812 (First Methodist Episcopal Church, Baltimore). The Stevensons had four
children: i. Esther Smith ii. Elizabeth Augusta iii. Maria Louise and iv. George Pitt. Stevenson
partnered with his brother-in-law, Thomas Parkin Goodwin, to open a commission business.
During the War of 1812, Stevenson served in the Maryland Militia as aide-de-camp to Brigadier
General John Stricker. He rose to the rank of Major and fought during the Battle of North Point
(September 12, 1814), where he served with distinction. Stephenson held ownership interests in
at least fourteen privateers, includingBordeaux Packet,Burrows,Cashier,Chasseur,Daedalus,
General Smith, Hollins, Lawrence, Patapsco, Racer(captured by the British and renamed the
HMS Shelburne),Sparrow,Tuckahoe,Wave, andWhig. At the same time, he wrote to Congress
on behalf of other Baltimore privateers to pay bounties to privateers for sinking enemy ships,
rather than taking them as prizes. Despite his extensive ownership interests, Stevenson was
generally unsuccessful as a privateer owner and went bankrupt, owing his creditors in excess of
$250,000. After the war, he was also a founding director of the Baltimore Exchange Company,
which built the Exchange Building that housed the customs house and Baltimore branch of the
Second Bank of the United States (which itself would become the center of controversy at the
Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland). Stevenson also corresponded with Thomas
Jefferson. Stevenson died on June 11, 1819, in Havana, Cuba, as a result of yellow fever. He is
buried in Baltimores Westminster Cemetery.
27
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
28/29
Appendix II Participants and Personalities
Cockrill, Rebecca. Administratrix of Thomas Cockrill, libellant
Duvall, Gabriel. Supreme Court justice (1811-1835)
Glenn, Elias. District Attorney (1812-1824), namesake of Glen Burnie (Glennsburne)
Hollins, John. Claimant, Baltimore merchant, privateer
Houston, James. Maryland District Court judge (1806-1819)
Johnson, William. Supreme Court justice (1804-1834)
McCulloh, James W. claimant, merchant (cashier in McCulloch v. Maryland)
Moore, Philip. Clerk of the District Court/Clerk of the Circuit Court
Pinkney, William. lawyer for the appellants and claimants (Supreme Court)
Purviance, John. lawyer for claimants (lower courts)
Ramsey, James. libellant
Rutter, Thomas. Marshal, District Court (1804-1817)
Stevenson, George P. former owner of the General SmithStory, Joseph. Supreme Court justice (1811-1845)
Veazey, Edward. Ships master.
Wheaton, Henry. Supreme Court reporter (1816-1827)
Williams, Nathaniel F. Acting Attorney General (1820-1822) District Attorney (1824-1841)
Winder, William H. Lawyer for James Ramsey
28
-
8/9/2019 The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's Admiralty Jurisdiction
29/29
Appendix III: Case Abstract and Timeline
Abstract: Ramsey and Cockrill filed libels against the General Smith for supplies provided to
equip the ship for voyage. The General Smith was originally owned by George P. Stevenson, but
by the time the lawsuits were filed, Stevenson had assigned the ship to John Hollins and James
W. McCulloh, who answered the lawsuit as as claimants to the ship. The Maryland district court
ordered the ship to be sold, so that Ramsey and Cockrill could be paid from the proceeds for the
supplies they furnished. The Circuit Court affirmed. In a short opinion written by Justice Story,
the Supreme Court reversed, finding that an in remlawsuit against a ship receiving supplies and
repairs in its home port was governed not by general maritime law, but by the laws of the
homeport (Maryland). Since Maryland law did not provide for such liens, the Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and ruled in favor of Hollins and McCulloh.
October 3, 1816: George P. Stevenson assigns property to creditors
October 4, 1816: James Ramsay filed libel against General SmithNovember 11, 1817: Rebecca Cockrill filed libel against General Smith
June 3, 1817: Answer of part-owner Edward Veazey
June 3, 1817: Answer to Ramsay of claimants John Hollins and James W. McCulloh
June 3, 1817: Answer to Cockrill of claimants John Hollins and James W. McCulloh
June 6, 1817: Statement filed in Ramsey case
June 6, 1817: Statement filed in Cockrill case
June Term, 1817: District Court decision (June 6)
July 1, 1817: Louisiana Supreme Court issues ruling inRamsey v. Stevenson, 5 Mart.(o.s.) 23
(1817). After Stevenson assigned all of his property to various creditors, Ramsey had filed alawsuit against Stevenson in Louisiana (presumably trying to go after property that Stevenson
had owned in New Orleans?). The Louisiana courts ruled for Ramsey, finding that the
assignments were not completed because the property had not been transferred.
November Term, 1817: Circuit Court decision (November 8)
February 3, 1818: Records received and filed at the Supreme Court
February Term, 1818: Continued
August Term, 1818: Continued
March 9, 1819: Argument heard and concluded
March 10, 1819: Decision Decree of Circuit Court reversed and cause remanded
March 2, 1827: Supreme Court decidesRamsay v. Allegre, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 611 (1827).
Justice Johnson writes long concurrence in which he questions the role of Justice Story, William
Pinkney, and Henry Wheaton in enlarging the Court's admiralty jurisdiction. Wheaton replies by
attaching a comment following the opinion in his reports.
June 23, 1910: Congress enacts the Federal Maritime Lien Act, which overturns the holding of
The General Smith.