FOREWORD:

Title
The General Smith: Early 19th Century Baltimore and the Supreme Court's
AdmiraltyJurisdiction
Author

MichaelSchearer

DocumentType

Article

PublicationDate

2014

Keywords

maritime liens, supreme court, admiralty jurisdiction, 1819, home port lien
doctrine

Abstract

The General Smith is a minor admiralty case that established the homeportlien
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 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 revealstous
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 andclandestineefforts
by the Court's personalities to enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal
courts.

Disciplines

AdmiraltyLaw,Law,MaritimeHistory,SupremeCourt

TheGeneralSmith:Early19thCenturyBaltimore
andtheSupremeCourt'sAdmiraltyJurisdiction

The General Smith1 is a mostlyforgotten admiralty case whose principle holding was
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.2 It now exists (if at all) only as a paragraph or historical footnote in modern
admiralty casebooks.3 Yet beneaththathistoricaldustliesacasethatprovidesfascinatinginsight
into American privateersturned merchantsduringandaftertheWarof1812,particularlyasthey
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
illadvised admiralty decision ever handed down by the SupremeCourt."4Thecaseisconsumed
by colorful personalities of early 19th century merchants and lawyers, and uncovers surprising
(andcontroversial)insightsintotheinnerworkingsoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.

PartI:TheOwner
By the time George Pitt Stevenson5 was born in 1791, his family had already begun to
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 1745.6 At the time, Baltimore was nothing more than two dozen homes
1

17U.S.(4Wheat.)438(1819).
SeeDartmouthCollegev.Woodward,17U.S.(4Wheat.)518(1819)McCullochv.Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.)
316(1819).
3
SeegenerallyNICHOLASJ.HEALY&DAVIDJ.SHARPE,CASESANDMATERIALSONADMIRALTY(2nded.1986)GRANT
GILMORE&CHARLESJ.BLACK,JR.,THELAWOFADMIRALTY(2NDED.1975)DAVIDW.ROBERTSON,ADMIRALTYAND
FEDERALISM(1970).
4
GILMORE&BLACK,supranote3,at648.
5
SometimesseenasStephenson.
6
JOHNR.QUINAN,MEDICALANNALSOFBALTIMOREFROM1608TO1880,at16465(1884).
2

and perhaps less than 200 people.7 Henry set up a hospital out of part of his home, and both
brothers provided smallpox inoculations at no cost to their patients.8 John Stevenson also went
the commerce route and was the first exporter of wheat and flour from Baltimore.9 For this he
earnedthenickname"RomulusofMaryland."10
Henry's sonGeorge(George'sfather),bornin1766,alsobecameadoctorandwaswidely
regarded. When George's father died, his mother Esther Hetty Smith Stevenson marriedPeter
Carr, Thomas Jefferson's nephew, in 1797.11 For a time, George lived on his stepfather Carr's
plantationinVirginia.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, 13 Baltimore was a growing city whose economic
engine was powered by flour milling and the shipping of wheat and iron ore.14 By 1790, the
population of Baltimore was nearly 14,000, on its way to more than 26,000 by the turn of the
centuryandover46,000by1810. 15
George was married to Elizabeth Goodwin in 1812,16 and they lived at 124 Hanover
Street.17 Seeking to capitalize on the privateering opportunities as a result of the War of 1812,
7

GARYL.BROWNE,BALTIMOREINTHENATION,17891861,at3(1980).
QUINAN,supranote6,at165.
9
RuthellaM.Bibbins,TheCityofBaltimore,17971850,in1BALTIMORE:ITSHISTORYANDITSPEOPLE63,70(Clayton
C.Halled.,1912)QUINAN,supranote6,at165.
10
QUINAN,supranote6,at165.
11
Id.
12
GeorgeP.StevensontoThomasJefferson,2March1813,
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/0305020552[hereinafterStevensonLetter].
13
SeeA.P.Folie,PlanoftheTownofBaltimoreandIt'sEnvirons(1792).
14
Bibbins,supranote9,at73.
15
U.S.Censusdata,17901910.
16
TheGoodwinsofBaltimore,Maryland,8WM.&MARYQUARTERLY108,111(No.2,Supplement,Oct.,1899).
17
JamesLakin,TheBaltimoreDirectoryandRegisterfor181415,at179(1814).By1822,reflectingGeorgeP.
Stevensonsdeath,theannualdirectorylistedElizabethGoodwinasawidowandlivingonthewestsideofEutaw
StreetsouthofConway.C.Kennan'sBaltimoreDirectoryfor1822&1823,at263(1822).
8

George opened a commission business with his brotherinlaw, Thomas Parkin Goodwin.18
Stevenson operated his business out of 45 S.GayStreet,just offwhatisnow theInnerHarbor19
and later from 79 Smithswharf.20Duringthewar,Stevensonheldownershipinterestsinatleast
fifteen privateering vessels.21 Despite these rather extensive ownership interests, Stevenson was
mostly unsuccessful as a privateer owner.22 Although close to many of the central monied
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.23 A notice published in the New York Evening
Post in 1816 indicated that the partnership between StevensonandGoodwinexpiredbymutual
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 Southstreet.24 Due to a combination of
mostly unsuccessful privateering and poor postwar investments, Stevenson overextended
himselfandwentbankrupt,owinghiscreditorsinexcessof$250,000.25

18

StevensonLetter,supranote12.
Lakin,supranote17,at179.Accordingtothesamedirectory,theprominentfirmofHollins&McBlairwastwo
doorsdownat49S.GayStreet.Id.at106.
20
EdwardMachett,TheBaltimoreDirectoryandRegister,fortheYear1816,at151(1816).
21
BordeauxPacket,Burrows,Cashier,Chasseur,Chance,Daedalus,Hollins,Hussar,Lawrence,Patapsco,Racer,
Sparrow,Tuckahoe,Wave,andWhigJOHNP.CRANWELL&WILLIAMB.CRANE,MENOFMARQUE412(1940)JEROMER.
GARITEE,THEREPUBLIC'SPRIVATENAVY264(1977).
22
Ofthe15privateersinwhichStevensonheldanownershipinterest,sixweretakenbeforetheycouldtakeanother
ship,andanotherwasrunaground.OnlytheChasseur(25captures)andLawrence(22captures)wouldprove
successfulunderStevensonsownership.CRANWELL&CRANE,supranote21,at374400.
23
GARITEE,supranote21,at72.
24
NoticeofGeorgeP.StevensonandThomasP.Goodwin,NewYorkEveningPost,1816(specificdateunknown).
25
StevensonLetter,supranote12.
19

PartII:TheShip
One of the assets Stevenson unloaded tosatisfy creditorswastheGeneralSmith.Despite
Stevenson's extensive privateering interestsduringtheWarof1812,theGeneralSmith wasnota
privateer.26 Whether she was originallyintendedtobeaprivateerandsimplymissedout because
of the end of the war is unknown. Instead, evidence suggests that Stevenson purchased the ship
"new" after the war as a commercial investment.27 The General Smith was built in 1816 by
perhaps the most famous of Baltimore's early shipbuilders, Thomas Kemp of Fell's Point.28 The
ship was 71 feet in length (76 keel) her beam was 26 feet, 6 inches her draftwas10feetand
she held 284.33 tons.29 Although there are no readily available sources to confirm it, it seems
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
GeneralSmith,too:SamuelSmithwasGeorge'suncle.30
The General Smiths maiden voyage took place in late Spring 1816 with stops in
Rotterdam and Liverpool.31 Gores General Advertiser, a Liverpool newspaper, noted the
impendingarrival:
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 everyrespectamost
excellent vessel. She has good and commodious accommodations for

26

NottobeconfusedwiththeCanadiansloopGeneralSmith(orGeneralSmyth),whichwas,infact,aprivateer.See
http://1812privateers.org/Canada/index.html.
27
GARITEE,supranote21,at231.
28
CardFile,MarylandHistoricalSociety(visitedOctober1,2014).
29
Id.Bycomparison,theGeneralSmithwassmallerthananotherKempbuiltship,theprivateerChasseur,whichwas
115feet,6inchesinlength,witha26foot,8inchbeamand12feet,9inchesofdraftand356tons.
30
StevensonLetter,supranote12.
31
GeneralSmithCasePapers6,
http://www.mdhistory.net/nara_m214/general_smith_nara_m214_47_911_912/html/general_smith_nara_m214_47_91
1_9120006.html[hereinafterGeneralSmithCasePapers].Thelastnumber(ortwo)oftheURListhepagenumberof
theCasePapers.Forthisreference,thepagenumberis6.FuturereferencestotheCasePaperswillomittheURL.

passengers, and will receive quick dispatch. For freight orpassageapplytothe

Captainonboardthevessel,ortoRATHBONE,HODGSONandCo.32

On September 30, 1816, the General SmithreturnedtoBaltimore.33Bythistime,Stevensonwas

scrambling to cover his debts while his creditors came calling.34 As a result of the impending
bankruptcy, Stevenson assigned the General Smith (and most of his other assets) to fellow
BaltimoremerchantsJohnHollinsandJamesW.McCulloh35viaadeedoftrust.36

PartIII:TheCase
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
thathe:
supplied and furnished for the use, accommodation, and equipment of the Ship
General Smith, at the District aforesaid to equip and prepare herforaVoyageon
the high seas and within theJurisdictionofthisHonorableCourtVariousArticles
of CordageShipChandleryandstoresamountinginthewhole tothevalueoffour
thousand five hundred and ninety nine dollars and fifty sevencentsfornopartof
whichhashereceivedanycompensationspaymentorsecurity.37

32

Gore'sGeneralAdvertiser(Liverpool),July4&11,1816,VolumeLIII,Issues2634and2635.Theuseofcopper
sheathingtoprotectaship'swoodenhullfromshipwormandthecorrosiveeffectsofsaltwaterwasdevelopedbythe
RoyalNavyinthe18thcenturyandsawwidespreadimplementationinwarshipsbythetimeoftheAmericanwarof
independence.Still,by1816,only18percentofBritishmerchantshipswerecoppered.ThissuggeststhattheGeneral
Smith'scoppersheathingwasinfactafairlymodernconvenienceatthetime.SeegenerallyMIKEMCCARTHY,SHIPS'
FASTENINGS:FROMSEWNBOATTOSTEAMSHIP101114(2005).
33
GeneralSmithCasePapers,supranote31,at67.
34
Id.SeealsoGARITEE,supranote21,at23132.
35
JamesW.McCulloh,whowasaBaltimoremerchantandcashieroftheBaltimorebranchoftheSecondBankofthe
UnitedStates(andpetitionerinthefamousSupremeCourtcaseMcCullochv.Maryland,17U.S.316(1819)inwhich
McCullohsnamewasmisspelled),shouldnotbeconfusedwithBaltimorecustomscollectorJamesH.McCulloch.).
36
GeneralSmithCasePapers,supranote31,at7.
37
Id.at2.

Then on November 11, 1816, just over one month later, Rebecca Cockrill, as administrixofher
husband Thomas Cockrills estate, filed a similar libel against the General Smith for two
thousandandfiftydollars.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 ofthe British.Afterthewar,
his law practice was considered oneofthelargestbothinBaltimoreandattheSupremeCourtin
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.40 Hollins and McCulloh
alleged that Ramsey permitted the General Smith to leave Baltimore without attempting to stop
it, and failed tofilealienatthattime.41Additionally,theanswerallegedthatifthe District Court
were to rule in favor of Ramsey, a decree By your Honor, according to the prayer of the
Libellant will deprive the United Statestothatextentofthelienorrightofprioritytothem.42

38

Id.at21,28.
BRANTZMAYER,BALTIMORE:PASTANDPRESENT54144(1871).
40
GeneralSmithCasePapers,supranote31,at38.
41
Id.at4,7.ThedeedoftrustwaswitnessedbyJohnF.HarrisandJohnMitchell,justicesofthepeaceforBaltimore
CountyandsignedandsealedbyWilliamGibson,theclerkforBaltimoreCounty.Id.at1213.
42
Id.at5.
39

Hollins and McCulloh believed that the deed of trustthatassignedStevensonspropertytothem

was for the purpose of [first]payingtheDebtsoduebyhimtotheUnitedStatesasaforesaidso
far further as the same way adequate thereto, and [only then] to apply the residue if any to the
payment of his other creditors.43 In other words, a rulinginfavorofRamseywoulddeprivethe
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
andMcCulloh.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.45 He further decreedRamseyshouldbepaid
his full libel against the ship ($4,599.57) from the proceeds of the
sale,46 and that the Cockrill estate should be paid$778.30fromthe
sameproceeds.47OnNovember8,1817,thedecisionwas"affirmed
pro forma by consent" by SupremeCourtAssociateJusticeGabriel
Duvall (left), as the presiding judge for the Fourth Circuit and
DistrictJudgeJamesHouston.48

43

Id.
Id.at11.
45
Id.at14.
46
Id.at1415.
47
Id.at35.
48
Id.at1516.ThereisnoevidencethatJusticeDuvalleverwroteanopinionasaCircuitJudge.Duvallhasbeenthe
subjectofdebateamongscholarsarguingoverwhoshouldbeconsideredthemostinsignificantjustice.In23termson
theCourt,hewroteonlyeighteenopinions(fifteenfortheCourt,twoconcurrences,andonedissent).See,e.g.,David
P.Currie,TheMostInsignificantJustice:APreliminaryInquiry,50U.CHI.L.REV.466(1983)
FrankH.Easterbrook,TheMostInsignificantJustice:FurtherEvidence,50U.CHI.L.REV.481(1983).
44

Hollins and McCulloh appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted the appeal in both
cases.49 The Supreme Court received and filed the case records on February 3, 1818, and
assigned them docket numbers 911 (Ramsey libel) and 912 (Cockrill libel).50 Additionally, the
renowned Maryland lawyer and Supreme Court litigator William
Pinkney (right) took over the cause for Hollins and McCulloh.
Pinkney had just returned from a twoyearlong overseas
assignment and was presumably excited to get back to the
business of Supreme Court litigation.51 Oral argument wassetfor
Tuesday,March9,1819.52
What exactly WilliamPinkneyarguedbeforetheSupreme
Court that day regarding the general admiralty jurisdiction of the
federal courts isamatterofhistoricalcontroversytobediscussedinthenextsection.53Whatwas
reported, according to Supreme CourtreporterHenryWheatonsheadnotesto thecase,andwhat
seemsundisputed,isthatPinkney:
...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.Inthecase ofmaterialsfurnishedorrepairsdonetoaforeign
ship, the maritime law has given such a lien, which may be enforced by a suitin
the admiralty. But in the case of a domestic ship, itwaslongsincesettledbythe
most solemn adjudications of the common law (which is the law of Marylandon
this subject), that mechanics have no lien upon the ship itself for their demands,
butmustlooktothepersonalsecurityoftheowner.54
49

GeneralSmithCasePapers,supranote31,at16,37.
SupremeCourtDocket,FebruaryTerm1818,at98485,availableat
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m216_1/pdf/nara_m216_10504.pdfand
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m216_1/pdf/nara_m216_10505.pdf[hereinafterSupremeCourtDocket].
51
PinkneywastheMinisterPlenipotentiarytoRussia,withaspecialmissiontoNaplesfrom18161818and
presumablyunavailabletoarguecasesduringthattime.SeeBiographicalDirectoryoftheUnitedStatesCongress,
PINKNEY,William,(17641822),availableathttp://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000362.
52
SupremeCourtDocket,supranote50,at98485.
53
SeeinfraPartIV.
54
TheGeneralSmith,17U.S.438,44142(1819).
50


In support of Pinkneys argument, he cited a Circuit Court case from Georgia, Woodruff v. The
Levi Dearborne, which held that the admiralty lawoftheUnitedStates,is[not]thecivillawof
the Roman government. The admiralty law of Great Britain is the admiralty law here.55 In
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 lawprinciplemustgovern.Insuchcase,nolienonthevesseliscreated.56
PinkneyalsocitedEnglishcommonlaw,whichheldthat:
a shipwright who has once parted with the possession of the ship, or has worked
uponitwithouttakingpossession,andatradesman,whohasprovidedropes,sails,
provisions, orothernecessariesfor aship,arenotbythelawofEnglandpreferred
to other creditors, nor have anyparticularclaimorlienupontheshipitselfforthe
recoveryoftheirdemands.57

In response, William Winder argued that the universal maritimelaw,asadministeredin

the European courts of admiralty should apply, as opposed to the English common law.58 In
support, Winder cited Stevens v. The Sandwich, a DistrictCourtcasefromMarylandwhichheld
that a shipcarpenter, by the maritime law, has a lien on the ship for repairs in port.59 Winder
also cited JusticeStorysFirstCircuitopinioninDeLoviov.Boit,60widelyconsideredoneofthe
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 the
delegation of cognizance of "all civil cases of admiralty and maritime
55

4Hall'sL.Jour.97(6thCir.1811).
Id.
57
AbbottonShip.p.2,c.3,913(1829),inTheGeneralSmith,17U.S.at442.
58
TheGeneralSmith,17U.S.at442.
59
1Pet.Adm.233(D.Md.1801).
60
7F.Cas.418(No.3,776)(C.C.D.Mass.1815).
56

10

jurisdiction" to the courts of the United States comprehends all maritime

contracts, torts, and injuries. The latter branch is necessarilyboundedbylocality
theformerextendsoverallcontracts(wheresoevertheymaybe madeorexecuted,
or whatsoever may be the form ofthestipulations)whichrelatetothenavigation,
businessorcommerceofthesea.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..."62 Indeed, the reported opinion in De Lovio
v. Boit contains no facts about the circumstances that broughtthe
casetothecourts.63Rather,"withamanuscriptdissertationonthis
subject nearly finished,"Storyusedthecasetowritehisadmiralty
views into law with adissertationthathadbeenwrittenbeforethe
case ever made it to the court.64 Beginning with De Lovio, then,
Justice Story sought to break from the English common law and
enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.65 In citing
De Lovio, Winder must have felt confident that Storys expansiveviewofadmiraltyjurisdiction
wouldleanstronglyinfavorofRamseyandCockrillsclaims.

61

Id.
JohnGallison,ManuscriptDiary,July4,1815,MassachusettsHistoricalSociety,inGERALDT.DUNNE,JUSTICEJOSEPH
STORYANDTHERISEOFTHESUPREMECOURT129(1971).
63
Forafactualdescriptionofthecase,seeHEALY&SHARPE,supranote3,at12.
64
GERALDT.DUNNE,JUSTICEJOSEPHSTORYANDTHERISEOFTHESUPREMECOURT129(1971).
65
StoryprobablyexpectedtheSupremeCourttoreviewhiscase.Althoughhepresumablywouldhavepreferredthat
theCourtaffirmhisdecision,heseemedfullypreparedtobereversed.Heclosedhislengthyopinionbywriting:
In makingthis decree,Iamfully aware,thatfrom itsnoveltyitislikelytobeputtothequestionwith
more than usual zeal nor can I pretend to conjecture, howfar a superiortribunalmaydeemitfitto
entertain the principles, which I have felt it my solemndutytoavow andsupport.Whatevermay be
the event of this judgment, Ishallconsole myselfwiththememorablewordsofLordNottingham,in
the great case of the Duke of Norfolk, 3Ch.Cas.52:"Ihavemadeseveraldecrees,sinceIhave had
the honor to sit in this place, which have been reversed in another place and I was notashamed to
makethem,norsorrywhentheywerereversedbyothers."
7F.Cas.418(No.3,776)(C.C.D.Mass.1815).
62

11

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.66 OralargumentinTheGeneralSmith
was the first of three casesheardonthatTuesdaymorning,andthejudgmentwasannounced the
nextday.67TheSupremeCourtMinutesrecordedthefollowingjudgmentonMarch10,1819:
This cause came to be heard on the Transcript of the Record and was argued by
counsel on consideration whereof. It istheopinionofthisCourtthattheLibellant
has no lien upon the said Ship General Smith. It is thereforedecreedandordered
that the decree of the Circuit Court for the DistrictofMarylandinthisbeandthe
same is hereby reversedandannulled:Anditisfurtherorderedthatthesaidcause
be remanded to the said Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein
accordingtolaw.68

Two separate, but nearly identical judgments were recorded against both James Ramsey and
Rebecca Cockrill.69 The Supreme Court Docket indicates Mandate for Plaintiffs to Nathaniel
Williams Dist. Attorney.70 Although the United States was not a named party to The General
Smith, one can speculate thatthenotationoftheDistrictAttorneywasinreferencetotherightof

66

SupremeCourtMinutes,March9,1819,at73,availableat
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m215_1/pdf/nara_m215_10400.pdf.BythetimeTheGeneralSmithwas
argued,theCourthadalreadyheardanddecidedtwocasesthatwouldlatergodowninhistoryaslandmarkcasesin
constitutionallaw:McCullochv.Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.)316(1819)hadbeendecidedjustthreedaysearlieron
March6,1989andDartmouthCollegev.Woodward,17U.S.(4Wheat.)518(1819)onFebruary2,1819.
67
SupremeCourtDocket,supranote50,at98485.Giventheshortturnaround,onemightwonder,givenStorys
prewrittendissertationinDeLovio,ifmuchofhisopinionhadbeenwrittenaheadoftime.
68
SupremeCourtMinutes,FebruaryTerm1819JudgmentsandDecrees,at85,availableat
http://mdhistory.net/nara_supreme_court/m215_1/pdf/nara_m215_10406.pdf.
69
Id.
70
SupremeCourtDocket,supranote50,at98485.AlthoughtheDocketreferstoNathanielWilliamsbynameasthe
DistrictAttorney,archiverecordsshowthathedidntbecomeDistrictAttorneyofMarylanduntil1824(andserved
until1841).ArchivesofMaryland(BiographicalSeries),NathanielF.Williams(17821864),availableat
http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/001800/001824/html/01824bio.html.Marylands
DistrictAttorneyatthetimewasEliasGlenn,whoservedfrom18121824.OnecanspeculatethatWilliamsmight
havebeentheActingDistrictAttorneyperhapsduetoanillnessheservedastheActingAttorneyGeneralfrom
18201822whileLutherMartinwasillandmighthavedonethesameforGlenn.Id.

12

priority of the United States government to collect on George P. Stevensons debt, as John
PurviancehadarguedintheoriginalanswerattheDistrictCourtlevel.71
Justice Storys opinion was relatively short at only 350 words. He beganhisopinion by
declaring that [n]o doubt is entertained by this court, that the admiralty rightfully possesses a
general jurisdiction in cases of materialmen and if this had been a suit in personam, there
would not have beenanyhesitationinsustaining thejurisdictionofthedistrictcourt.72Thiswas
a startling admission, but because The General Smith was an in rem case,itisnotclearthatthis
opening dicta was fully appreciated at the time nonetheless, it is something worthy of its own
discussion.73 Story continued that becausethiscasewasfiledinrem,itisincumbentuponthose
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.75 But in respect to repairs
and necessaries in the port or state to which the ship belongs,thecaseisgovernedaltogetherby
the municipal law of that state and no lien is implied, unless it is recognised by that law.76
BecauseMarylandlawprovidedfornosuchlien,RamseyandCockrillhadnoclaim.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

71

GeneralSmithCasePapers,supranote31,at5,11.
TheGeneralSmith,17U.S.(4Wheat.)438,443(1819).
73
SeeinfraPartIV.
74
TheGeneralSmith,17U.S.(4Wheat.)at443.
75
Id.Foreigninthiscasereferstoanyshipawayfromitshomeportorstate,notnecessarilyonlyanonU.S.vessel.In
otherwords,ashipbasedinMassachusettswouldbeaforeignshipinBaltimore.
76
Id.
77
Indeed,thereisnoevidencethatanystateprovidedforsuchalienatthetimeofTheGeneralSmith.
72

13

Louisiana.78 Hollins and McCulloh, as the trustees of Stevensons property, intervened. The
District Court ruled for Ramsey, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. Writing for the
Court, presiding Judge George Mathews foundthatbecausethepropertyassignedtoHollinsand
McCulloh had not yet been actually delivered to them, it was thus subject to payment of
Ramseysdebts.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 Smith became the unlikely vessel for the expansion of the admiralty
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As demonstrated in thenextsection,themeansbywhichThe
GeneralSmithcarriedthisexpansionforwardwereallbutstraightforward.

PartIV:TheConspiracy
On March 2, 1827, nearly eight years after The General Smith, the Supreme Court
decided another admiralty case entitled Ramsay v. Allegre.80 In that case, one Ramsey outfitted
the schooner Dorothea and received apromissorynoteforpayment, whichwas neverreceived.81
Ramsey filed a libel against Allegre, the ship's owner.82 In a short opinion by Chief Justice

78

Ramseyv.Stevenson,5Mart.(o.s.)23(La.1817).TheCasePapersinRamseyv.Stevensonareavailableonlineat
http://libweb.uno.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/8747.Althoughitisnotclearfromtheopinion,presumablyRamsey
filedinLouisianabecauseStevensonownedsomepropertythere.
79
Id.at7778.Anumberofquestionsremainunresolvedregardingthiscase.Itisunclearwhetheranyoftheproperty
atissueinLouisianawasthesamepropertyatissueinMarylanditisunknownwhetherRamseyactuallyobtained
paymentforthejudgmentagainstStevensonanditisuncertainwhetherthejudgmentfromtheLouisianaSupreme
CourtremainedundisturbedbytheSupremeCourtsdecisioninTheGeneralSmith,orwhetherTheGeneralSmithhad
theimpactofoverturningthedecisionoftheLouisianaSupremeCourt.
80
25U.S.611(1827).AlthoughthecaseisstyledasRamsayv.Allegre,theCourtssyllabusindicatestheplaintiffas
Ramsey.CouldthisbeanothercasefiledbyJamesRamsey?Onlymoreresearchwilltell.
81
Id.
82
Id.

14

Marshall, the Court ruled that when theownerofashiphasgivenapromissorynoteforsupplies

furnished in her home port, a suitinpersonamundertheCourt'sadmiraltyjurisdictioncannotbe
maintained against him by a material man, if the local law gives no specific lien on the ship,
especiallyifthenotehasnotgivenuporofferedtobegivenup(inthiscase,itwasnot).83
Ramsay v. Allegre was not especially notable for its holding or majority opinion,butfor
Justice William Johnsons lengthy concurrence. Justice JohnsonwrotenotaboutRamseyscase,
but what he perceived to be an underhanded move to enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction of the
federalcourts.Hisopeningparagraphisillustrativeofhisobjective:
I concur with my brethren in sustaining the decree below, but cannot consent to
place 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 inacquiring
jurisdiction to which it has no pretensions. Unfounded doctrines oughtatonceto
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
interpolatingdoctrineswhichbelongnottothelaw.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 in De Lovio. To
understandJohnsonsclaims,though,requiressomeimportanthistoricalbackground.
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 in De

83

Id.at61314.
25U.S.at614(Johnson,J.,concurring)(emphasisadded).

84

15

Lovio v. Boit.85 Second, Supreme Court reporter (and Supreme Court practitioner) Henry
Wheaton also shared Justice Storys interest in admiralty jurisdiction.86 In the Appendix of his
first volume of the United States Reports, Wheaton included an essay entitled, On thePractice
inPrizeCauses.87
Third, as the first nonFederalist appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Johnson (left)
was an independentminded justicewhowasnotafraidtoquestion
his loyalties or his colleagues.88 For example, while riding circuit
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.89 The Collectorhadstopped
the ship, pursuant to Embargo Act, which the Secretary of the
Treasury (by direction of President Thomas Jefferson) interpreted

85

Seeinfranotes6065andaccompanyingtext.
SeegenerallyHENRYWHEATON,ADIGESTOFTHELAWOFMARITIMECAPTURESANDPRIZES(1815).InUnitedStatesv.
Bevans,16U.S.(3Wheat.)336(1818),WheatonandAttorneyGeneralWilliamWirtarguedonbehalfoftheUnited
StatesagainstDanielWebsterinWebstersfirstmajoradmiraltycase.
87
1Wheat.494(1816).Infact,OnthePracticeinPrizeCauseswaswrittenbyJusticeStory.Extractfroma
MemorandumBookofJudgeStory,inJOSEPHSTORY,NOTESONTHEPRINCIPLESANDPRACTICEOFPRIZECOURTS12
(FredericT.Pratted.1854)(June19.1819.Itisnotmydesireevertobeknownastheauthorofanyofthenotesin
Mr.WheatonsReportslest,however,thefactshouldtranspireanditshouldbesupposedthatheisunderobligations
tomefornoteswhicharehisown,IthinkitbesttoputdownthosenoteswhichIhavewritten.Imadeitanexpress
condition,thatthenotesfurnishedbymeshouldpassashisown,andIknowfullwellthatthereisnothinginanyof
themwhichhecouldnothavepreparedwithaverylittleexertionofhisowndiligenceandlearning.).
88
InhisdiaryentryforMarch27,1820,JohnQuincyAdamswouldlaterwriteofJohnson:ThisJudgeJohnsonisa
manofconsiderabletalentsandlawknowledge,butarestless,turbulent,hotheadedpoliticiancaballingJudge.JOHN
QUINCYADAMS,MEMOIRSOFJOHNQUINCYADAMS12(1875).
89
Gilchristv.CollectorofCharleston,10F.Cas.355(C.C.D.S.C.1808).ThiscaseissometimesstyledasExparte
Gilchrist.Foralongerdiscussionofthiscase,seeCHARLESWARREN,1THESUPREMECOURTINUNITEDSTATESHISTORY
316365(1999).
86

16

to stop all vessels.90 Rebuking both the President who appointed him and Attorney General
CaesarA.Rodney,JohnsonbelievedthattheExecutiveBranchhadexceededitsauthority:
We are of opinion that the act ofcongressdoesnotauthorizethedetentionofthis
vessel. That without the sanction of law, the collector is not justified by the
instructions of the executive, in increasing restraints upon commerce,even ifthis
case had been contemplated by the letter alluded to but that from a temperate
consideration of that letter, this casedoesnotappeartocomewithinthespiritand
meaningoftheinstructionswhichitcontains.91

Years later, JusticeJohnsonauthoredanotherCircuitCourtopinionthatreversedaDistrictCourt

decision. In the case of The Amanda,92 theDistrictCourthadrelieduponJusticeStorysopinion
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.93ReturningtoRamsayv.
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 inTheGeneralSmith,but
ratherwiththerationalethattheCourtusedtogetthere:
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 noparticularlienuponthe
ship itself fortherecoveryoftheirdemands. Butwhyhavetheynolienuponthe
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 Smith and Johnsons rationale in
Ramsay isdeceptive preciselybecausebothJusticeswouldhavecometothesameresult.But the

90

Gilchrist,10F.Cas.356.
Id.at357.
92
Unreported,butlaterprintedintheCITYGAZETTEANDCOMMERCIALDAILYADVERTISER(Charleston),Jan.18,1822.
93
G.EDWARDWHITE,IIIIVHISTORYOFTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES465(PaulA.Freund&StanleyN.
Katzeds.1988).
94
Ramsayv.Allegre,25U.S.611,61415(1827).
91

17

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 materialmen 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
jurisdictioniscasesofsuitsbymaterialmen,inpersonam,andinrem.96Ofcourse,becauseThe
General Smith was an in rem case, Storys opening line is dictum. Likewise, Wheatons
headnote wentbeyondthe scopeofthecase.Butmoreimportantly,Storydeniedthelienbecause
there was no state law that provided for such a lien. His opinion did not question the Courts
admiraltyjurisdictionandcertainlyprovideddictatoexpandit.
On the other hand, according to Johnson, the Court in The General Smith should have
deniedthelien:
...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 ofyears.Anditisafactof
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
theformerwasfirstsurrendered,andthatinthemostunequivocalterms.

Thus, the battle was joined. When the libel was filed in the Ramsay case, it was filed in
personam and relied expressly upon The General Smith. Looking back upon the reports of The
General Smith, which he admitted he had never read, Johnson realized that something sinister
mightbeafoot.97

95

TheGeneral.Smith,17U.S.(4Wheat.)438,443(1819).
17U.S.at441.
97
Ramsay,25U.S.at614.
96

18

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.PinkneyandMr.Winder."98Later,WheatonwroteanotetohimselfonhisnotesonRamsay:
Mem. Prepare a short argument in this case as it ought to have been
arguedgivingalltheauthorities.Theywillbefoundprincipallyin2Gallis.

N.B.PinkneyadmittheAdm.jurisdictiontoitsfullextent.99

According to White, Wheaton's memo to himself was, as far as can be determined,

unprecedented in his tenure as Reporter.100 Thereferenceto2GallisistoStorysopinioninDe
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'sargument.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
suchabroadconcessionofadmiraltyjurisdictioninTheGeneralSmith:
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,
echoestheminterms whicharenotonlynot calledforbythecase,butactually, as
Iconceive,contradictedbythedecisionwhichisrendered.NowIhave toohigh
an opinion of Mr. Pinkney's lawreading, and of his talents as an advocate, not to

98

WHITE,supranote93,at397.
Id.
100
Id.
101
Id.at398.
99

19

be well convinced that in this, as well as theresidueoftheargumentattributed to

him,hemusthavebeenmisunderstood.102

In other words, Johnson believed The General Smith was wrongly reported and did not support
the claim that material men could proceed in personam. Yet through Wheatons machinations,
the 'admission' by Pinkney in The General Smith had evolved into a dictum by Story and then
intoaprecedent.103
Johnson concluded his concurrence by returning once again to his central theme that
Storysexpansiveviewofadmiraltyjurisdictionhasnologicalstoppingpoint:
I am fortifying a weak point in the wall of the constitution. Everyadvanceofthe
Admiralty is a victory over the common law a conquest gained uponthetrialby
jury. The principles upon which alone this suit could have been maintained, are
equally applicable to one half the commercial contracts between citizen and
citizen. Once establish the rights here claimed, and it may bring back with it all
the Admiralty usurpations of the fifteenth century. In England there exists a
controllingpower,butherethereisnone.104

Henry Wheaton felt compelled to respond, and attached a note at the end of Ramsay.105
Wheaton claimed that Pinkneysbroadconcessionwasmadevoluntarily,andsoughttodefend
his reporting of the case.106 Unfortunately, Pinkney died in 1822 his position was left
undefended. Wheaton closed by indicating that he has certainly not been influenced by any
feelings of disrespect towards thelearnedjudge,107butmadehisthoughtsaboutJohnsonknown
toStoryandthenlatertoDanielWebster.108

102

Ramsay,25U.S.611,614,636.
WHITE,supranote93,at394.
104
Ramsay,25U.S.at640
105
25U.S.(12Wheat.)at640.
106
Id.at641.
107
25U.S.(12Wheat.)at642.
108
WHITE,supranote93,at396(ItwasanotherofhisperiodicclasheswithJohnson,whosecruditiesandbadtaste
WheatonhadpreviouslycomplainedoftoStory.InalettertoDanielWebster,writtenafterhehadcompletedhisfinal
volumeasReporter,Wheatonsaid,IleftJudgeJohnsonmycomplimentsattheendoftheReports.).
103

20

Justice Johnson may have only had enough evidence to demonstrate that this was a
misunderstanding. But when combinedwithWheatonsnotes,Whitemakeaconvincingcasefor
a potential, but ultimately unrealized, conspiracy.109 White says one cannot definitelyconclude
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 weretakingplaceatthetime.110What doesseemclear
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.111 Conspiracy ornot,theCourtsadmiraltyjurisdictionwouldexpandandlargelyvindicate
JusticeStorysview.112

PartV:TheAftermath
George P. Stevensons assignment of his property (including the General Smith)toJohn
HollinsandJamesW.McCullohmeantthatStevenson,eventhoughhewastheoriginalownerof
the ship when it was outfitted, was never a party to the case. Nonetheless, because Stevensons
merchant credit was largely supported byhisrelatives,hisfinancialtroublesreboundedonthem.
The larger merchant firms like Hollins & McBlair and Smith & Buchanan took significant hits
from Stevensons failures.113 The Panic of 1819, combined with stiff postwarcompetitionfrom

109

Id.at336.
Id.at400.
111
CraigJoyce,TheRiseoftheSupremeCourtReporter:AnInstitutionalPerspectiveonMarshallCourtAscendancy,
83MICH.L.REV.1291,13121313(1985).
112
Id.at480.
113
GARITEE,supranote21,at232.
110

21

British shipping, signaled the end foranumberofprominentBaltimoremerchantfirms.OnMay

24,1819,JohnQuincyAdamsreported:
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 many
others, this day failed.SmithandBuchananhavebeenformanyyearsthegreatest
commercial house in Baltimore the others have all been in immense business,
but bank speculation is what has broken them down. They will undoubtedly
drownnumberlessotherswiththem.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)inHavana.Heservedinthatcapacity
until he died of yellow fever on July 11, 1819.115 George P. Stevenson is buriedatWestminster
BurialGroundsinBaltimore,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.117 A second manifest from June2,1838,showsashipGeneralSmithcarryingpassengers
from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.118 The report indicates that
"Coleman is Master from Buenos Ayres, burthen 300 tons, and owned by William Howell &
Sons of Baltimore and bound to Philadelphia." 119 The best evidence that this is the same ship

114

JOHNQUINCYADAMS,supranote88,at370.
GeorgeP.Stevenson'sObituary,BALTIMOREPATRIOT,July13,1819,at2MajGeorgePittStevenson,FINDAGRAVE
(Oct.22,2010)http://www.findagrave.com/cgibin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=60499178.
116
MaryE.Hayward&R.KentLancaster,Baltimore'sWestminsterCemetery&WestminsterPresbyterianChurch,A
GuidetotheMarkersandBurials,17751943,at36(1984).TheGuidelistsStevensonsdateofdeathasJuly10,1818,
butmostothersourcesindicateJuly11,1819.
117
NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,FilmM596,Reel1transcribedbyRobertW.Grose,Immigrant
ShipsTranscribersGuild(4March2004)availableonlineat
http://www.immigrantships.net/v6/1800v6/generalsmith18200400.html.
118
NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,FilmM425,Reel53transcribedbyHarryGreen,ImmigrantShips
TranscribersGuild(20May2009)availableonlineat
http://www.immigrantships.net/v11/1800v11/generalsmith18380602.html.
119
Id.
115

22

(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 Smith to disallow a home port lien
unless provided for by state statute had the predictable impact of encouraging the passage of
state lien laws.121 According to Professors Gilmore and Black in their textbook The Law of
Admiralty, the construction of these statutes,withafewtodeterminingjusthowtheyfittedinto
the general maritime law, became the principal admiralty business of the Supreme Court overa
longperiod.122
The home port lien doctrine was at issue again in the case of Peyroux v. Howard.123 In
that case, two citizens of New Orleans filed a libel to recover for work andmaterialsperformed
on the steamboat Planter.124 Like The General Smith, inthis casetheserviceswereperformedin
thevessel'shomeport.125ButunlikeTheGeneralSmith,thecivilcodeofLouisianaprovidedthat
"workmen employed in the construction or repairs of ships or boats enjoy theprivilegeofalien
of such shipsorboats,withoutbeingboundtoreducetheir contractstowriting,whatevermaybe
their amount.126 The result in Peyroux, then, was that the workmen had a lien against the
Planter.127 Nonetheless, this holding was consistent with the Courts home port lien doctrine as

120

Seesupranote29andaccompanyingtext.
GILMORE&BLACK,supranote3,at642.
122
Id.
123
32U.S.(7Pet.)324(1833).
124
Id.
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Id.
121

23

originally described in The General Smith.JusticeStoryreaffirmedthisdoctrinelaterinthe case

ofTheOrleans.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.129 Because of
"embarrassing difficulties" by federal courts in interpreting the myriad of state lien laws, the
Court modified the rule in 1858.130 "The intention of the amendment being, to leave liens
depending upon state laws, to be enforced by the statecourts.131 AlthoughChiefJusticeTaney
argued that the rule change did not involve the scope of admiralty jurisdiction of the courts,132
the rulehadtheimpactofremovingthepowerfromthedistrictcourtstoenforcemaritimeclaims
against domestic vessels by process in rem.133 Indeed, the 1858 rule change "made the situation
of the domestic materialmen hopeless...they could not proceed in rem in the admiralty and
comparable relief in state courts was denied themonConstitutionalgrounds."134Inanycase, the
Court amended the rule yet again in 1872. That change largely reversed the impact of the 1858

128

36U.S.(11Pet.)175(1837).
TheoriginalRule12readasfollows:inallsuitsbymaterialmenforsupplies,repairsorothernecessariesfora
foreignship,orforashipinaforeignport,thelibellantmayproceedagainsttheshipandfreightinrem,oragainstthe
masterandowneraloneinpersonamandthelikeproceedinginremshallapplytocasesofdomesticships,where,by
thelocallaw,alienisgiventomaterialmenforsupplies,repairsandothernecessaries.44U.S.(3How.)ix(1844).
OnewriterhassaidthatTheGeneralSmithsetthestageforathornycomplexofproblemswithregardtothe
federalstateallocationofcompetenceovermaritimematters.ROBERTSON,supranote3,at127.
130
TheSt.Lawrence,66U.S.522(1861).The1858amendmentmodifiedthelastclauseofthe12thrulesoastoread
asfollows:"Andthelikeproceedinginpersonam,butnotinrem,shallapplytodomesticshipsforsupplies,repairsor
othernecessaries."62U.S.(21How.)iv(1858).
131
ERASTUSC.BENEDICT,THEAMERICANADMIRALTY160(1870).Benedictseemstohaverecognizedtheinherent
problemswiththe1858amendment:"Thesecasesdonotseemtobebasedonanyprincipleofthemaritimelaw,and
canhardlyfailtobereconsideredatsomefuturetime."Id.
132
TheSt.Lawrence,66U.S.522(1861).
133
TheAdele,1Ben.170(S.D.N.Y.1867).JusticeBradleywouldlaterwritethatthe1858rulechangewasdesignedto
avoidinconveniencesarisingfromtheoftenintricateandconflictingStatelawscreatingsuchliens.TheLottawanna,
88U.S.558,581(1874).
134
GILMORE&BLACK,supranote3,at647.SeeTheMosesTaylor71U.S.(4Wall.)411(1866)
TheHinev.Trevor71U.S.(4Wall.)555(1866).
129

24

rule change.135 This final rule change was simply intended to remove all obstructions and
embarrassments in the way of instituting proceedings in rem in all cases where liens exist by
law.136 Two authors have suggested that the 1858 rule change was not acceptable topowerful
interests,andthattheCourts1872amendmentwasdesignedtoremedythisproblem.137
Despite all of the controversy surrounding the Supreme Courts home port liendoctrine,
especially the difficultiesofthefederalcourtsininterpretingthepatchworkofstatelienlaws,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
becamefirmlysettled,anditisnowtoolatetoquestionitsvalidity.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
theStatestolegislateonthesubjectseems tobeconcededbytheuniformcourseofdecisions.140
In fact, Congress did act36 years later. In 1910, Congress passed the Federal Maritime Lien
Act.141 Section 1 oftheActoverruledTheGeneralSmithbyexpresslypermittingamaritimelien

135

The1872ruleread:"Inallsuitsbymaterialmenforsuppliesorrepairsorothernecessaries,thelibellantmay
proceedagainsttheshipandfreightinremagainstthemasterorowneraloneinpersonam."
136
TheLottawanna,88U.S.at579.
137
GILMORE&BLACK,supranote3,at647.
138
TheLottawanna,88U.S.at581.
139
Id.
140
TheLottawanna,88U.S.at581.
141
36Stat.604(June23,1910).

25

whether the vessel in question was foreign or domestic, and Section 5 provided for federal
preemptionoffederallawoverstatelienlaws.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
uncoversurprisinginsightsintotheinnerworkingsoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.

142

Id.

26

AppendixI:BiographyofGeorgePittStevenson
George Pitt Stevenson (Stephenson) was a merchant born on December 14, 1791 in
Baltimore, Maryland. He marriedElizabethElizaGoodwin(b.October 11, 1790 inBaltimore)
on January 9, 1812 (First Methodist Episcopal Church, Baltimore). The Stevensons had four
children: i. Esther Smith ii. ElizabethAugustaiii.Maria Louiseandiv.GeorgePitt.Stevenson
partnered with his brotherinlaw, Thomas Parkin Goodwin, to open a commission business.
During the War of 1812, Stevenson served intheMarylandMilitiaasaidedecamptoBrigadier
General John Stricker. He rose to the rank of Major and fought during theBattleofNorthPoint
(September 12, 1814), where he served with distinction. Stephenson held ownership interestsin
at least fourteen privateers, including Bordeaux Packet, Burrows, Cashier, Chasseur,Daedalus,
General Smith, Hollins, Lawrence, Patapsco, Racer (captured by the British and renamed the
HMS Shelburne), Sparrow, Tuckahoe, Wave, and Whig. At the same time,hewrotetoCongress
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 inexcessof
$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. Heis
buriedinBaltimoresWestminsterCemetery.

27

AppendixIIParticipantsandPersonalities
Cockrill,Rebecca.AdministratrixofThomasCockrill,libellant
Duvall,Gabriel.SupremeCourtjustice(18111835)
Glenn,Elias.DistrictAttorney(18121824),namesakeofGlenBurnie(Glennsburne)
Hollins,John.Claimant,Baltimoremerchant,privateer
Houston,James.MarylandDistrictCourtjudge(18061819)
Johnson,William.SupremeCourtjustice(18041834)
McCulloh,JamesW.claimant,merchant(cashierinMcCullochv.Maryland)
Moore,Philip.ClerkoftheDistrictCourt/ClerkoftheCircuitCourt
Pinkney,William.lawyerfortheappellantsandclaimants(SupremeCourt)
Purviance,John.lawyerforclaimants(lowercourts)
Ramsey,James.libellant
Rutter,Thomas.Marshal,DistrictCourt(18041817)
Stevenson,GeorgeP.formerowneroftheGeneralSmith
Story,Joseph.SupremeCourtjustice(18111845)
Veazey,Edward.Shipsmaster.
Wheaton,Henry.SupremeCourtreporter(18161827)
Williams,NathanielF.ActingAttorneyGeneral(18201822)DistrictAttorney(18241841)
Winder,WilliamH.LawyerforJamesRamsey

28

AppendixIII:CaseAbstractandTimeline
Abstract:RamseyandCockrillfiledlibelsagainsttheGeneralSmithforsuppliesprovidedto
equiptheshipforvoyage.TheGeneralSmithwasoriginallyownedbyGeorgeP.Stevenson,but
bythetimethelawsuitswerefiled,StevensonhadassignedtheshiptoJohnHollinsandJames
W.McCulloh,whoansweredthelawsuitasasclaimantstotheship.TheMarylanddistrictcourt
orderedtheshiptobesold,sothatRamseyandCockrillcouldbepaidfromtheproceedsforthe
suppliestheyfurnished.TheCircuitCourtaffirmed.InashortopinionwrittenbyJusticeStory,
theSupremeCourtreversed,findingthataninremlawsuitagainstashipreceivingsuppliesand
repairsinitshomeportwasgovernednotbygeneralmaritimelaw,butbythelawsofthe
homeport(Maryland).SinceMarylandlawdidnotprovideforsuchliens,theSupremeCourt
reversedthedecisionoftheCircuitCourtandruledinfavorofHollinsandMcCulloh.

October3,1816:GeorgeP.Stevensonassignspropertytocreditors
October4,1816:JamesRamsayfiledlibelagainstGeneralSmith
November11,1817:RebeccaCockrillfiledlibelagainstGeneralSmith
June3,1817:AnswerofpartownerEdwardVeazey
June3,1817:AnswertoRamsayofclaimantsJohnHollinsandJamesW.McCulloh
June3,1817:AnswertoCockrillofclaimantsJohnHollinsandJamesW.McCulloh
June6,1817:StatementfiledinRamseycase
June6,1817:StatementfiledinCockrillcase
JuneTerm,1817:DistrictCourtdecision(June6)
July1,1817:LouisianaSupremeCourtissuesrulinginRamseyv.Stevenson,5Mart.(o.s.)23
(1817).AfterStevensonassignedallofhispropertytovariouscreditors,Ramseyhadfileda
lawsuitagainstStevensoninLouisiana(presumablytryingtogoafterpropertythatStevenson
hadownedinNewOrleans?).TheLouisianacourtsruledforRamsey,findingthatthe
assignmentswerenotcompletedbecausethepropertyhadnotbeentransferred.
NovemberTerm,1817:CircuitCourtdecision(November8)
February3,1818:RecordsreceivedandfiledattheSupremeCourt
FebruaryTerm,1818:Continued
AugustTerm,1818:Continued
March9,1819:Argumentheardandconcluded
March10,1819:DecisionDecreeofCircuitCourtreversedandcauseremanded
March2,1827:SupremeCourtdecidesRamsayv.Allegre,25U.S.(12Wheat.)611(1827).
JusticeJohnsonwriteslongconcurrenceinwhichhequestionstheroleofJusticeStory,William
Pinkney,andHenryWheatoninenlargingtheCourt'sadmiraltyjurisdiction.Wheatonrepliesby
attachingacommentfollowingtheopinioninhisreports.
June23,1910:CongressenactstheFederalMaritimeLienAct,whichoverturnstheholdingof
TheGeneralSmith.
29