Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy

Supreme Court of United States
2 Cranch 64 (1804)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An act of Congress must be construed, wherever possible, to be consistent with international law. A statute should never be interpreted to violate the law of nations if any other plausible construction remains.

Facts:

The vessel, originally the American-built 'Jane,' was owned by U.S. citizens and sailed from Baltimore in April 1800 for the purpose of being sold.
The vessel was sold in the Danish island of St. Thomas to Jared Shattuck, who renamed it the 'Charming Betsy' and registered it as a Danish vessel.
Jared Shattuck was born in the United States but had moved to St. Thomas as an infant, resided there since at least 1790, acquired property, married, and taken an oath of allegiance to the crown of Denmark in 1797.
Shattuck loaded the 'Charming Betsy' with American produce and cleared it for a voyage to the French-controlled island of Guadeloupe.
During its voyage, the vessel was first captured by a French privateer.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. frigate 'Constellation,' commanded by Captain Alexander Murray, recaptured the vessel from the French.
Captain Murray then seized the 'Charming Betsy,' believing Shattuck was an American citizen violating the U.S. Non-Intercourse Act, which forbade trade with France and its dependencies.

Procedural Posture:

Captain Murray libelled the Schooner Charming Betsy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, seeking forfeiture of the vessel.
The Danish consul filed a claim for the vessel and cargo on behalf of its owner, Jared Shattuck.
The District Court, a trial court, declared the seizure illegal, ordered restitution of the vessel and cargo proceeds, and awarded damages against Captain Murray.
Captain Murray, the libellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court.
The Circuit Court, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the decree as to restitution but reversed the award of damages.
Both parties appealed the Circuit Court's mixed ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Non-Intercourse Act, which prohibits commercial intercourse by U.S. citizens with France, apply to a U.S.-born individual who has become a domiciled and naturalized subject of a neutral nation, thereby making the seizure of his vessel lawful?

Opinions:

Majority - Marshall, Chief Justice

No. The Non-Intercourse Act does not apply to Shattuck, and therefore the seizure was not lawful. A U.S. statute must be construed so as not to violate the law of nations, which protects the rights of neutral commerce. Although Shattuck was born in the U.S., he had established his domicile in a Danish territory and became a Danish subject by taking an oath of allegiance. By making himself the subject of a foreign power, he was no longer a person 'under the protection of the United States' as described by the Act, and for commercial purposes, he acquired the character of a Danish burgher. The seizure was therefore improper as it was an action against the property of a neutral party not covered by the statute.

Analysis:

This case establishes one of the most significant and enduring canons of statutory construction in American law, now known as the 'Charming Betsy canon.' This principle creates a judicial presumption that Congress does not intend to legislate in violation of international law. It serves as a crucial tool for harmonizing domestic statutes with U.S. obligations under international law, affecting judicial interpretation in areas such as human rights, treaty law, and admiralty. The decision reinforces the idea that an individual's commercial character is determined by their domicile, not necessarily their place of birth, a key concept in prize and trade law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy (1804)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature