the general smith: early 19th century baltimore and the supreme court's admiralty jurisdiction

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/29

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


20/29


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

the general smith: early 19th century baltimore and the supreme court's admiralty jurisdiction

Documents