The Navy of the American Revolution : $b Its administration, its policy, and its achievementsPaullin, Charles Oscar
History
The Navy of the American Revolution : $b Its administration, its policy, and its achievements
Paullin, Charles Oscar
United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783 -- Naval operations; United States. Navy -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
The Board of Admiralty and Congress were inclined to disagree as
to the proper construction to be placed upon the ninth article of
the Articles of Confederation, which gave Congress “the sole and
exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war.” In a
report which it made to Congress under date of May 29, 1781, after
referring to the commissions which Massachusetts had issued to
the “Protector” and “Mars,” two ships of the navy of that state,
it said that “the Board humbly conceives that Commissions issuing
from different Fountains of Power, is a matter which may merit the
attention of the United States in Congress assembled who are the
supreme power in Peace and War.” The Board was inclined to take the
view that Massachusetts had no right to issue these commissions. The
committee of Congress to whom the report was referred interpreted
more narrowly the war powers of Congress than did the Board of
Admiralty. It conceived that each state had the right to issue
commissions to ships of war under the regulations established by
Congress, and that the only step necessary to be taken for the
present was for the Board to transmit to each state a copy of the
present regulations governing the issuing of commissions.[253] This
incident is noteworthy in its indicating the existence of “strict”
and “loose” constructionists within three months after the Articles
of Confederation were adopted.
If another illustration is needed to show the dependence of the
makers of the American navy upon British models, some words of
the Board of Admiralty are in point. For a long time it had under
consideration a revision of the rules and regulations of the
Continental navy. Concerning its intention to inspect the British
rules and incorporate into its new code such of them as were adapted
to the American navy, it observed that it did not “think it unlawful
to be taught by an enemy whose naval skill and power, until the reign
of the present illustrious King of France, were superior to that of
any kingdom or state on earth.”[254] It is believed that the work of
the Board in this particular was not brought before Congress.
On January 15, 1780, Congress created a permanent Court of Appeals
for the trial of prize cases appealed from state admiralty courts.
Since January 30, 1777, such cases had been heard and determined
by a standing committee composed of five members of Congress. Such
a committee naturally lacked permanency, expertness, and technical
and legal knowledge. The Court established in January, 1780, was
to consist of three judges, who were to try, in accordance with
the law of nations, questions of fact as well as law. On January
22, 1780, Congress chose as the three judges of the Court, George
Wythe of Virginia, William Paca of Maryland, and Titus Hosmer of
Connecticut.[255]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account