Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy

Supreme Court of the United States · 1804 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawstatutory interpretationlaw of nationsneutral commerceCharming Betsy canonlaw of nationsinternational lawneutral rights

Facts

The vessel was American built and originally owned by citizens of the United States, but at St. Thomas it was sold bona fide to Jared Shattuck, who traded as a Danish subject, had taken an oath of allegiance to Denmark, and held property and family ties there. After Shattuck renamed the vessel the Charming Betsy and loaded it with American produce, it sailed as a Danish vessel for Guadeloupe, was captured by a French privateer, and then recaptured by Captain Murray of the Constellation. Believing Shattuck to be an American citizen violating the non-intercourse law, or the sale to be a cover for evasion, Murray sold the cargo in Martinique and brought the vessel into Philadelphia, where it was libelled. The Danish consul claimed vessel and cargo as the bona fide property of a Danish subject.

Issue

Whether the Charming Betsy and its cargo were forfeitable under the 1800 non-intercourse act after a bona fide sale to Shattuck; whether the recaptors were entitled to salvage; and whether probable cause existed to justify sending the vessel in for adjudication so as to excuse damages.

Rule

A federal statute should not be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. Under the non-intercourse act, forfeiture applies only when the vessel is within the statutory description at the time of the act producing forfeiture, and a person who has made himself the subject of a foreign power is not within the act's description as a person under the protection of the United States while within that sovereign's territory. Salvage requires circumstances like those in Amelia, including that the vessel be in a condition to annoy American commerce or be in imminent hazard of condemnation, and damages for wrongful seizure should be limited to actual loss rather than vindictive or speculative amounts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute suspending commerce with a hostile nation and authorizing forfeiture of vessels "owned, hired, or employed" by persons resident in the United States or by U.S. citizens residing elsewhere. A cargo ship built in Maine is sold in San Juan to Elena Voss, who has long lived in Puerto Plata, sworn allegiance to the Dominican Republic, and trades there as a Dominican subject. The ship later sails to a port controlled by the hostile nation.

If the statute can reasonably be read either to reach all formerly American-owned vessels or only vessels falling within the statutory description at the time of the prohibited voyage, which interpretation should a court adopt?

Explanation. The majority adopted the canon that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. Thus, where the text reasonably permits a narrower interpretation that avoids infringing neutral rights, the court should choose that reading rather than extend forfeiture to neutral commerce by implication.