Vice admiralty court

Last updated

Vice admiralty courts were juryless courts located in British colonies that were granted jurisdiction over local legal matters related to maritime activities, such as disputes between merchants and seamen.

Contents

American Colonies

American maritime activity had been primarily self-regulated in the early to mid-17th century. Smaller maritime issues were settled at court in local jurisdictions, prior to the establishment of courts to specialize in admiralty. In the colony of Massachusetts Bay, for instance, a maritime code to specialize in maritime legislation was created and in 1674 the Court of Assistants was established to determine all cases of admiralty. Typically the courts were presided over by a judge, unless it was deemed more suitable to be presided over by a jury. This was similar in Maryland, where a so-called 'Court of Admiralty' heard cases of maritime issues including sailor's wages, the carriage of goods and piracy. [1] Originally these courts dealt primarily with commercial matters, and the judges which presided over them were appointed by the local population and were paid from the colonial treasuries. Their jurisdiction expanded, however, during the French and Indian War, to the condemnation of enemy ships including disposing of their possessions. It was not until the passage and the later stricter enforcement of the Navigation Acts by the British parliament from the 1650s through to the 1770s that the British government were granted more power over American maritime issues, as vice-admiralty courts began to enforce customs and hear criminal trials for smuggling.

In the 18th century, the British passed a variety of laws aimed at combating illegal smuggling in the American colonies. Americans had developed trade relationships with places such as southern Europe, the Netherlands and the West Indies, despite the fact that the Navigation Acts intended to give Great Britain a trade monopoly with its American colonies. The Molasses Act of 1733 had tried to tax molasses and non-British sugar, though it was largely unsuccessful. Shipowners who imported manufactured goods from the Netherlands smuggled these products in absolute secrecy, with Crown officials estimating that the annual value of manufactured goods smuggled equaled £500,000. [2] British admiralty prepared commissions to authorize governors to erect vice-admiralty courts throughout the American colonies. In 1701, William Atwood was dispatched to preside as judge of the Admiralty for New Hampshire and the Jerseys. Due to firm colonial opposition, however, the task was practically impossible so he retired only a few years later. Other vice-admiralty judges in Pennsylvania and southern colonies faced similar difficulties as locally elected authorities strongly opposed the work they were sent to do.

The courts became quickly unpopular. This was not only because of the express prohibition of jury trials or the fact that vice-admiralty judges tended to believe that common law courts did not have superior status. It was also because a whole range of technical issues confused the legal system. It was often not clear whether vice-admiralty courts had jurisdiction over creeks or bays, or whether the governor could create vice-admiralty courts through vice-regal powers, or whether or not there was a clear method of separating the jurisdictions and procedures of vice-admiralty and common law jurisdiction. [3] As a consequence of this, vice-admiralty courts became ineffective and, as many colonists perceived, unjust.

American Revolution

In the early years of the American Revolution, the British parliament increased the power of Vice-Admiralty Courts throughout the colonies to regulate maritime activities and combat smuggling. The 1764 Revenue Act, known also as the Sugar Act, established a so-called 'super' Vice-Admiralty Court in Halifax, Nova Scotia, presided over by a Crown-appointed judge, the first of which was British jurist and the later Governor of Barbados Dr. William Spry. The Court was to have jurisdiction over all of America, with the legislation empowering customs officials to take seizures in ships to either a common law court, ruled over by a jury, or the new vice-admiralty court. However, the court in Nova Scotia lost its utility fairly quickly not only because of its distance from the centers of commerce and trade in the colonies, but because the cold weather made it difficult to travel to. Therefore, in spring 1768, the court in Halifax was abolished and parliament authorized vice-admiralty courts in Boston, Charleston and Philadelphia. [4] These courts held sessions heard without juries, with the burden of proof being on the accused instead of on the officers who seized their property. Much of the time vessels were seized by the Crown on weak evidence. The Courts also generally only tried Americans, with British persons accused of violating trade legislation being heard by juries in common law courts.

The Vice-Admiralty Courts were met with extensive protest from the colonies, and it became an important factor in motivating colonists to sever the political ties with their mother country. Many felt as though their right to be tried by their peers, a right which was seen as being part of the privilege of being an English subject, was being denied to them. From 1764 to 1768, it was often complained that it was unjust for a merchant, whose ship may be seized in Georgia, to travel 1,500 miles from Georgia to the court in Halifax to defend his property. [5] Further criticisms was that the owner of the ship or maritime goods seized had to post a large bond before allowing to defend himself. Additionally, even if his trial ended in acquittal, he would still be required to pay costs. [6]

It was argued by American colonists that Vice-Admiralty judges were corrupt and often abused their power. In the proceedings of the Continental Congress held in Philadelphia on 5 September 1774, a complaint was drafted to King George III that the "judges of admiralty and vice-admiralty courts are empowered to receive their salaries and fees from the effects condemned by themselves" with officers of the customs being empowered to "break open and enter houses without the authority of any civil magistrate". [7] James Otis had further complained of the lack of justice in having juryless trials and the burden of proof on the accused. The complaint made in the Continental Congress is probably alluding to the payments made to the judge of the vice-admiralty court in Halifax, where they actually received their payment not through a Crown salary but through compensation through fees charged for condemning a ship, and through the sharing of the profits of the condemnation of that ship. [8] This was not the case in the Vice-Admiralty Courts established in Boston, Charleston and Philadelphia, where judges were paid only through salaries. [9] In fact, the British government replied to the Congress' complaints in their Address of the People of Great Britain to the Inhabitants of America, where they mentioned that "four great Vice-Admiralty Courts were ... erected in different stations in America" and that "large salaries were settled upon the Judges, to make them independent. These salaries were paid not from the fines and forfeitures, but in the common way". [10]

When the American Revolutionary War began, and the British court system effectively collapsed in America, the Continental Congress debated whether or not Admiralty jurisdiction should be returned to the regular court system or if each state should form its own admiralty court. State admiralty courts were established from 1776 onward in all the states, the first of which being in Connecticut, Boston, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia. However, only a handful of these courts actually allowed for jury trials and appeals to Congress. Eventually, the American Constitution formed in 1789 vested Admiralty jurisdiction in federal district courts. [11]

Australia

The first Vice-Admiralty Court established in Australia was in the colony of New South Wales in 1788. The first Vice-Admiral was Arthur Phillip and the first judge was Robert Ross. The court was abolished in 1911, when the Supreme Court of New South Wales was granted the Admiralty jurisdiction of the court.

Canada

A Vice Admiralty Court was formed in Nova Scotia to try smugglers and to enforce the Sugar Act of 1764 throughout British North America. From 17631765, when American smugglers were caught, they were tried by corrupt judges who received a percentage of the confiscated goods, if the defendants were found guilty; therefore, defendants were less than likely to be found innocent. References required for the assertion of corrupt judges.

Sierra Leone

The Sierra Leone Court of Vice Admiralty was founded by George Canning the British Foreign Secretary on 2 May 1807. Its role was to enforce the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the later Slave Trade Felony Act 1811. It provided the legal basis according to which the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron could operate. The letters patent indicated that the courts role was the confiscation of ships involved in the slave trade, the liberation of the enslaved Africans and the confiscation of any other goods found on board. [12] :1131 The Court functioned until 1817 when it was replaced by a Mixed Commission Court. [12] :1125

The first judge was Alexander Smith, a former shopkeeper, but he was replaced in 1808 by Robert Thorpe, a barrister with previous experience in Canada. [12] :1133 Upon taking up his post, Thorpe complained about his predecessor's way of running the court to Lord Liverpool, and asked for clarification as regards the remit of the court. In April 1812, he tried Samuel Samo in the first court case brought under the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811. [13]

Notes

  1. Mangone, G, 1997, US Admiralty Law, p.24-25
  2. Risjord, Norman K. (2002). Jefferson's America, 1760–1815. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002. p. 78. ISBN   0-7425-2173-7.
  3. Rabushka, A, 2008, Taxation, pp.315-317
  4. Jensen, Merrill (2004). The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1968. p. 228. ISBN   978-0-87220-705-9.
  5. Washburne, George Adrian (2006). Imperial Control of the Administration of Justice in the Thirteen American Colonies, 1684-1776. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1923. pp. 176–177. ISBN   1-58477-621-8.
  6. Reid, John Phillip (1995). Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority of Rights. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. p. 179. ISBN   978-0299146641.
  7. Journal of the Proceedings of Congress Held at Philadelphia, September 5th, 1774: Containing, the Bill of Rights, a List of Grievances, Occasional Resolves, the Association, an Address to the People of Great Britain, a Memorial to the Inhabitants of the British American Colonies, And, an Address to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec ... To which is Added, ... an Authentic Copy of the Petition to the King. J. Almon, opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1775. p. 58.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  8. Mangone, G, 1997, US Admiralty Law, p.26
  9. Rabushka, A, 2008, p.739
  10. Dalrymple, Sir John at the request of Lord North. Address of the People of Great Britain to the Inhabitants of America. American Archives: Fourth Series, containing a Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America, from The King's Message to Parliament, of March 7, 1774, to the Declaration of Independence by the United States (Vol. 1), M. St Clair Clarke and Peter Force, 1833. p. 1424.
  11. Dennis Szucs, Loretto; Hargreaves Luebking, Sandra (2006). The Source: A Guidebook to American Genealogy . Ancestry, 2006. pp.  296. ISBN   1593312776.
  12. 1 2 3 Helfman, Tara (2006). "The Court of Vice Admiralty at Sierra Leone and the Abolition of the West African Slave Trade". Yale Law Journal. 115 (5): 1122–1156. doi:10.2307/20455647. JSTOR   20455647 . Retrieved 27 February 2016.
  13. Haslam, Emily (2012). "Redemption, Colonialism and International Criminal Law". In Kirkby, Diane (ed.). Past law, present histories. Canberra, Acton, A.C.T.: ANU E Press. ISBN   9781922144034.

Related Research Articles

Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.

The Navigation Acts, or more broadly the Acts of Trade and Navigation, were a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies. The laws also regulated England's fisheries and restricted foreign—including Scottish and Irish—participation in its colonial trade. While based on earlier precedents, they were first enacted in 1651 under the Commonwealth.

Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, are courts exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Townshend Acts</span> Political precursor to the American Revolution

The Townshend Acts or Townshend Duties were a series of British acts of Parliament passed during 1767 and 1768 introducing a series of taxes and regulations to fund administration of the British colonies in America. They are named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the programme. Historians vary slightly as to which acts they include under the heading "Townshend Acts", but five are often listed:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar Act</span> British legislation imposing import duties on American colonies

The Sugar Act 1764 or Sugar Act 1763, also known as the American Revenue Act 1764 or the American Duties Act, was a revenue-raising act passed by the Parliament of Great Britain on 5 April 1764. The preamble to the act stated: "it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same." The earlier Molasses Act 1733, which had imposed a tax of six pence per gallon of molasses, had never been effectively collected due to colonial evasion. By reducing the rate by half and increasing measures to enforce the tax, Parliament hoped that the tax would actually be collected. These incidents increased the colonists' concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.

Prize money refers in particular to naval prize money, usually arising in naval warfare, but also in other circumstances. It was a monetary reward paid in accordance with the prize law of a belligerent state to the crew of a ship belonging to the state, either a warship of its navy or a privateer vessel commissioned by the state. Prize money was most frequently awarded for the capture of enemy ships or of cargoes belonging to an enemy in time of war, either arrested in port at the outbreak of war or captured during the war in international waters or other waters not the territorial waters of a neutral state. Goods carried in neutral ships that are classed as contraband, being shipped to enemy-controlled territory and liable to be useful to it for making war, were also liable to be taken as prizes, but non-contraband goods belonging to neutrals were not. Claims for the award of prize money were usually heard in a prize court, which had to adjudicate the claim and condemn the prize before any distribution of cash or goods could be made to the captors.

<i>Zong</i> massacre 1781 mass killing of enslaved Africans

The Zong massacre was a mass killing of more than 130 enslaved African people by the crew of the British slave ship Zong on and in the days following 29 November 1781. The William Gregson slave-trading syndicate, based in Liverpool, owned the ship as part of the Atlantic slave trade. As was common business practice, they had taken out insurance on the lives of the enslaved Africans as cargo. According to the crew, when the ship ran low on drinking water following navigational mistakes, the crew threw enslaved Africans overboard.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Molasses Act</span> 1733 British legislation

The Molasses Act 1733 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that imposed a tax of six pence per gallon on imports of molasses from non-British colonies. Parliament created the act largely at the insistence of large plantation owners in the British West Indies. The Act was passed not to raise revenue but to regulate trade by making British products cheaper than those from the French West Indies. The Act greatly affected the significant colonial molasses trade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alexander Croke</span> Canadian politician

Sir Alexander Croke was a British judge, colonial administrator and author influential in Nova Scotia of the early nineteenth century.

The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cape Mesurado</span> Headland in Liberia

Cape Mesurado, also called Cape Montserrado, is a headland on the coast of Liberia near the capital Monrovia and the mouth of the Saint Paul River. It was named Cape Mesurado by Portuguese sailors in the 1560s. It is the promontory on which African-American settlers established the city now called Monrovia on 25 April 1822.

The Braintree Instructions was a document sent on September 24, 1765 by the town meeting of Braintree, Massachusetts to the town's representative at the Massachusetts General Court, or legislature, which instructed the representative to oppose the Stamp Act, a tax regime which had recently been adopted by the British Parliament in London. The document is significant because, following the Virginia Resolves, it was among the earliest in British America to officially reject the authority of Parliament over the colonies in North America. The instructions were written by John Adams, who would ten years later become a key figure in the American Revolution and ultimately be elected the second President of the United States in 1796.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piracy in the Atlantic World</span>

The Atlantic World refers to the period between European colonisation of the Americas (1492-) and the early nineteenth century. Piracy became prevalent in this era because of the difficulty of policing this vast area, the limited state control over many parts of the coast and the competition between different European powers. The best known pirates of this era are the Golden Age pirates (c.1650-1730) who roamed the seas off the coast of North America, Africa and the Caribbean.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

William Spry was a jurist and governor of Barbados.

Donna Marianna was a vessel that left Liverpool in 1809. On 22 May 1810 HMS Crocodile seized Donna Marianna for breach of the Act for the abolition of the slave trade. The Vice admiralty court at Freetown, Sierra Leone, condemned Donna Mariana and her owners appealed the decision. The result of the appeal was a finding against the owners in a case that became an important milestone in the suppression of the slave trade.

Lieutenant-General Sir Charles William Maxwell was a British soldier and colonial administrator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence</span> 27 colonial grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence

The 27 grievances is a section from the United States Declaration of Independence. The Second Continental Congress's Committee of Five drafted the document listing their grievances with the actions and decisions of King George III with regard to the Colonies in North America. The Second Continental Congress voted unanimously to adopt and issue the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">King's Bench Division</span> Division of the English High Court of Justice

The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts.

References