The American Blackstone

JUSTICE Joseph Story is a towering figure in American legal history. He was born into an aristocratic family in the state of Massachusetts. Largely self-educated, he graduated from Harvard in 1798 and was admitted to the Bar in 1801. He served as a state and federal legislator, a US District Court Judge, and was ultimately appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1811, at the age 32. Story served as a Supreme Court justice until his death in 1845.

Much of Justice Story’s judicial career focused on matters of US Supreme Court jurisdiction, and on constitutional and admiralty law. He is considered to be one of the foremost of American legal writers, having written twelve volumes of ‘Commentaries’ between 1835 and 1845 on a wide range of American legal subjects. He is often identified as the ‘American Blackstone’ and one of the top ten most important justices in the history of the US Supreme Court, with a unique position in our history as a shaper of American law, including the delicate relationship between the federal and state judiciaries.

A major issue debated at the US Constitutional Convention was the relationship between the newly formed US federal government and individual state governments. This included the respective powers of the federal and state courts. The framers of the US Constitution determined that admiralty and maritime cases should be heard before the federal judiciary and not at state level. There was a strong federal interest in all maritime affairs, and federal court jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime matters would help promote uniformity of law and an emerging US economy. The framers extended the judicial power of the US “to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” in Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

The US Congress subsequently conferred upon the newly created US District Courts “original cognisance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”. Of course, questions arose, and still arise, over what exactly is a civil cause within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of a US court.

Much of US maritime law has its roots in the maritime laws of England. This initially included the English limitation that, for admiralty and maritime jurisdictional purposes, the sea is defined as being limited to waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. In England, the general rule was that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to the high seas, and entirely excluded transactions arising on waters within the body of a country, such as rivers, inlets, and arms of the sea, as well as transactions arising on land although related to maritime affairs. With respect to contracts, this locality doctrine was carried so far that, with the exception of a seaman’s wages, and bottomry bonds, no contract dispute was to be resolved in an admiralty court unless it was made upon the sea and was to be executed on the sea.

The US Supreme Court has had numerous occasions to consider the nature and extent of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as it was intended to be conferred by the framers of the US Constitution. Justice Story played an early and significant role in defining this delegation of power and the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the US courts.

Whether or not a case is considered to be within admiralty or maritime jurisdiction has significant consequences. For example, under US law, certain procedures are only available if a case is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of a federal court. Maritime contract and tort cases may give rise to a maritime lien, which can be enforced against the offending property itself via the in rem process.

Similarly, the pre-judgment remedy of Rule B attachment is also available if the matter is maritime. Moreover, a dispute may very well be resolved differently depending upon whether substantive federal maritime law is to be applied as opposed to the law of an individual state. For instance, time bars set forth in state law statutes of frauds do not automatically govern maritime contracts. There are other differences. No doubt questions over the application of federal maritime law or state law can prove contentious.

Justice Story was appointed to the federal bench during the early years of the American republic, when America’s ‘manifest destiny’ compelled it to look west. The nation’s rivers and lakes were commercial arteries and promoted continental expansion and settlement in new regions. Emerging technologies resulted in larger and faster vessels, many now powered by steam. Disputes inevitably arose as steamboats, sailing ships, barges, and other craft plied the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and other western rivers, as well as the Great Lakes and other waters of America’s interior.

What body of law would these disputes be subject to? What was the meaning of the constitutional grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the federal level of government? Were we bound by legal principles espoused centuries before in England and the trading nations of Europe?

Justice Story set forth an early interpretation of this power in his 1815 federal district court decision in DeLovio v Boit. The case involved the question of whether a marine insurance policy was within the federal court’s admiralty jurisdiction. Justice Story first examined the evolution of admiralty jurisdiction in England. He noted that, under English law, a contract of marine insurance was not considered to be admiralty because it was executed on land. He rejected this view, nevertheless noting English legal heritage and the manner in which America had adopted English common law.

Story felt that American courts could choose what was appropriate, especially as it related to matters affecting the whole of US commerce. He invited a more liberal interpretation of the jurisdiction, rejecting “English statutes and judicial restraints as limits on admiralty jurisdiction in the United States”. American concepts of admiralty would be developed in accordance with the needs of the US, and not by strict adherence to English legal tradition.

Justice Story then established the general rule that contracts are maritime and subject to a US court’s maritime jurisdiction if they relate to navigation, business, or commerce of the sea. Locality, or the lack of it, will not be dispositive.

“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 jurisdiction to the courts of the United States comprehends all maritime contracts, torts, and injuries…”

Story later helped draft a statute that extended admiralty jurisdiction over federally licensed vessels operating in interstate commerce on the Great Lakes and their connecting waters. This statute was subsequently relied upon and used as a platform by the Supreme Court for decisions that further eroded the English ‘tidelands’ rule, and which confirmed application of federal admiralty law to collisions and other torts on US rivers and lakes. The Supreme Court became firm in its belief that there is nothing so special about the ebb and flow of the tide that makes only those waters suitable for admiralty jurisdiction.

Justice Story is also well-known for his writings outside of admiralty law. His decision to release slaves in the famous case involving the mutiny on board the sailing ship Amistad was a firm condemnation of the inhuman and repugnant aspects of slavery. According to Story, the Africans on board the Amistad enjoyed the “ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply the force against ruinous injustice”.

The US Constitution balances the interests of federal and state governments. The US Supreme Court continues to define and redefine that relationship, among other areas, within the context of admiralty and maritime claims. Justice Story was an early shaper of the US federal system. He recognised that the role of America’s rivers and the Great Lakes would become more pronounced as the country expanded westward. He foresaw the benefits to commerce and navigation arising out of a uniformity of rules and decisions in all maritime questions.

Story believed that national policy, as well as judicial logic, required the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the federal government to embrace a wide range of causes. Thus, Story began to shape admiralty jurisdiction to meet the needs of the US. It is through his early writings that US courts now recognise jurisdiction over maritime activity occurring on all waters, whether or not connected to the sea, so long as they are used, or capable of being used, in interstate or foreign commerce.