The Settlewent of Army Maritime Claims

AuthorBy Captain Thomas J. Whalen
Pages04

In 1962 Congress passed an act authorizing the Depavtment of the Army to settle certain maritime elnims. This article discusses the scope of the Army Maritime Claims statute and compares it ie;th the scopes of the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Vessels Act.

  1. ISTRODUCTION

    The Army Xaritime Claims statute v-as enacted by Congress in 1961 to enable the Secretary of the .4rmy to compromise and settle certain claims arising out of the maritime activities of the Army.2 Congress had concluded that many maritime claims in*The opinions and coneludonêxpressed herem are those of the author and do not necessarily reprebent the vmv6 of The Judge Advocate General'@ School 01 any other governmental agency.

    * * S A W USAR, HQ, 126 Transportatm Command (Terminal .4); A.B., 1960, Sr Peter's College' LL.B. 1963 Georgetarn Unwersits Law Center; member of the bars of ;he St& of ier Jersey, the Distmt of Columbia, and the U.S. Coun of Military Appeals.

    '10 U.S.C. Sf 4801-04, 4806 (19641, 8s amended, 10 U.SC. 6 4802(c)

    (Supp. I, 1963)

    'The normal maritime activities of the Army include the transportation bs water of personnel. storee, equipment and supplies to and from Army i=StBllatmS throughout this country and ovenese: the handling ID pelt the loading on board and the dischargmg of cargo; the operatlan of v&ious kinds of harbor craft and dredger' and the operstmn of part terminals docking and pier faehtles. See S. R&. KO.

    634. 82d Cang., 1st Sem, 2 (i961) ;

    U.S. DEP'T OF Anar, FIELO MALU.AL 55-58 Tn~rsm~r~rroh-

    BOAT OPER.~.

    ASD

    TUIIIIAI SERI?CE cohr~asr ( i s m . U.S. DEPT OF ARMY FIEL~ MAXU*L

    'OF O~m~moh.8

    (19671. See also chapter XI. "Government Actirity in Shipping," of Gir~om & BLACK, LAW OF ADMIRLLTI 749 (1967)

    In addition, the Army Carps of Engineers hsJ etatvtory responaibilitles inVolYing navigable asters. It lnveatlgatea and approve8 the constmetionof bridges, causew~~ss,dams and dikes on navigable rater8 (60 Stat 817(19461, 81 amended, 33 U.S.C. $ 626 (19641; 30 Stat. 1161 (1899), 33 U.S.C.I401 (1964)) :it inYeStigate6 shore erosion (46 Stat. 945 (1930) 88 amended33 U.S.C. $6 426, 426% (1964) 1 : it clears channels and mmoves) obatructlon;on navigable waters (60 Stat. 871 (19371, m amended 33 U.S.C. g 10ig (1964): 69 Stat. 23 (1946) 33 U.S.C. I803a (1964))' and it participates in the investigation and imdravement of dyers and isrbars (32 Stat 372 (1902), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 5 541 (1964)). The Army Corps of Engineem also PPPrOVel Certain dvil aorks projffts aRectlng navigable waters. See 79

    Stat. 1073, 1088 (196~4, 42 u.9.c. %P i m d ~ , a142& (SUPP. I. 1965).

    OF ARMY. FIELD EAWDAL

    56-52 TRA~SPORTAIION

    TERMIYAL B I ~ U O N

    65-51, TR*SSP(IRT*TIOU TERMI~IL

    'COMMANDS THEATER

    volving the Amy were being litigated for want of authority in the Department of the Amy to settle themAlaim which otherwise could have been settled without litigation and at a great saving to the government.*

    The Army Maritime Claims statute, which Congress enacted, was. and IS, only an authority to settle. It neither affects the substantive law governing the disposition of maritime claims, nor creates new claims in favor of or against the United States. It is simply an additionai. often mandatory,' remedy available to claimants under the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Ves-84s Act.' 11. BACKGROUND A. THESCITSISADiMIRALTPACTASD THE PL'ELIC VESSELS ACT

    To reverse the decline of the United States merchant marine (private United States vessel owners), Congress had enacted the Shipping Act of 1916,: which, in part. created a government agency (the predecejsor of the present Federal Xaritime Commission) and authorized it ta form corporations to construct and operate vessels as government merchant vessels. Under section 9 of the Act, these vessels, "iuhile employed as merchant ressels," were to be subject to "all laws, regulations, and liabilities governingmerchant vessels."

    When the Supreme Court held that this provision extended to in rems suits in admiralty,lo the arrest and seizure of several gov- B S. REI. XI. 651, 82d Cang., 1st Sess. 2-3 (1961).

    d See notes 246-60 inha and ~ecompanying

    text.

    5 41 Stat. 525 (18201, as amended, 43 U.'43 Stat. 1112 (19261. m amended, 46'39 Stat. 728 (1816). m amendpd, 46 C.:38 Stat. 730 (1916), 46 U S.C.

    B 808 (1864).

    In admiralty, there m e generally two kinds of actions. in rem and in personam. The in persanam suit IS moat akin to a claim under the Army Maritime Claims statute. It is a aunt against a named natural or corpmate peraan asserting a. personal liability and seeking P money judgment. An in rem suit in admiralty IP me baaed on B maritime hen. "Upan the oeturrenee of certain mishape arising out of contract or status, the maritme law g m s to the party aggrieved a right eoneeived of 88 a property interest ~n the tsngibie thing involved iusually but not always B shlp) in the (often 8s yet unaaceltained) smavnt of the aeerved liabiiity. Thls right 18 called B marl-time lien . . .I' GILMORE I BUCX. LAW OF ADMIRALTY 31-32 (1957). SBO Benring & Friedman, Low of Admiralty-A Primer, 10 W. RES. L. RN. 21, 2631 (1960). Incident to an in ?em proceeding, the vessel or cargo uponwhich the lien IS said to exist is aemd and bmught into the custody of the court. See New York Dock Co. Y. Steamship Pasman, 274 U.S. 117 (1927) : Knam Stout & Ca. Y. McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638 (1900).

    "See The Lake Monroe. 250 U.S.

    246 (1919) (government vesael held aub. ject to ~elmreby admiralty in rem pmceaa to aatiafy elsim for damages).

    136 *co 68068

    ARMY MARITIME CLAIMS

    ernment merchant vessels followed. To remedy this embarrassing and burdensome situation," Congress in 1920 enacted the Suits in Admiralty Act which supplanted section 9 of the Shipping Act in most respects" and specifially prohibited the arrest and seizure of government merchant vessels through the in rem process." Like the Shipping Act of 1916, the Suits in Admiralty Act dealt solely with claim arising out of the activities of vessels employed as "merchant vessel(s)." In section 2 it provided:

    In eases where If such vessel were privately owned or operated, 01 if such cargo were privately Owned and piaaessed, a proceeding in admiralty muld be maintained , . ., a lihl in personam [I3' may be brought againat the United Shm 01 against any cwwration [government corporation BB defined in section 1 of the Aetl. 8 s the ease may be. orovided that such

    . .

    vessel is employed 8s a merchant vessel ,, .?

    At the time Congress WBS considering the Suits in Admiralty Act, it was proposed that the Act include "public vessels'' as well as merchant vessels of the United States. Apparently fearing that such an extension would delay passage, the Suits in Admiralty Act was adopted with its provisions confined to "merchant vessels."

    In 1925, however, Congress reached "public vessels" through the passage of the Public Vessels Act.'B In section 1, this Act provided that:

    B libel I" personam in admiralty may be bmught againat the United States or a petition impleading the United States, for damages caused bya public vessel of the Cnited States, and for eompennation for towage and salvage services, including contract dvage, rendered to a public vead of the Cnited States: , . .I*

    While both the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Vessels Act dealt with the consent of the United States to be sued in admiralty, the applicability of one Act rather than the other turned an whether the particular government vessel was B public

    li See Canadian Aviator Ltd v. United States 324 2,s. 215 219-20 (1945) i

    Prudential S. S. Corp. V. United Stated, 220 F.2b 555 (2d Ci;. 1855).

    "41 Stat. 525 (1920) asamended 46U.S.C. 05 141.51 (1864). 'acornpare 38 Stat. $30 (19161, i

    U.S.C. 5 808 (1964) wilh Snits in Admiralty Act. eh. 25, 9 2, 41 Stat. 525 (amended by 74 Sht. 912 (1960). 46 U.S.C.

    5 742 (1964)).

    "See 41 Stat. 526 (18W). 46 U.S.C.

    0 741 (1864). usee note 9 SUVlT".

    81; S l " g S " O ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ i C " ' ~ 7 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ 5 2, 41 Stat 526 (amended by 74 Stat

    a180 American Stevedore4 Ine. V. Porelio, 330 U.S.'446 (1847).

    "See Canadian Aviator Ltd. v. United Statca 324 U.S. 215 (1845). See "43 Stat. 1112 (1925). sd amended, 46 U.S.C. 05 781-90 (1864).

    "43 Stat. 1112 (1826), 46 U.S.C. 8 781 (1864).

    *M 61088

    vessel or one employed as a merchant vessel.20 This traditional diehatomy of vessels in admiralty suits against the United States was wakened in 1960 when Congress amended section 2 of the Suits in Admiralty Act and removed from its provisions the troublesome restriction that the vessel be employed ''as a merchant ~ B S S I I . ' ' ~ ~ The effect of this amendment on the operation of the two Acts is not clear and has not been finally decided. It may be that the Suits in Admiralty Act alone will now be held to be a comprehensive waiver of sovereign immunity from sults in

    far tauage and selva~e services, Congress considered within the Act only torts (eipeeially ~dliaionr) by publie veseli. See S REF. KO.

    941, 68th Cong., 2d Sers 11-16 (1925) (letters of .Attorney General H. F. Stone and the See-retary of War). The Ninth Circuit has taken the position that other contract claim8 am wthm Ita purview See Thomasan \ United Stares, 184 F 2d 105 (9th Clr. 1960) i Pmted States Y Layola. 161 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1947). See slso Jentry /' Unired Stares. 73 F. Supp. 899 (S.D. Cal 1947); Aliatti Y

    1965) Ho~,ever, the broad ~ i e w

    of the

    th Circuit has not been universally BC-United States, 129 Ct. C1. 174, 124 F. SVPP 628 (1954). See also P. S. DEPT Or XA>T, COITRACT LAW 5 132 (2d ed 1969). Ilthough the question appears open (see Calmar S. S. Carp. V.

    United Statel, 346 T.S 446, 456 n 8 11953) 1, the congrerslonsl view WBQ that maritime contract claims (except for salvage and towage) nwolving pubhc ve%sels aere not within the beope of the Pubhe Vessels Act. See S. REP.

    NO.

    1894, 86th Cong., 2d Sesa (19601. See PISO Eastern 8. S Lines Y. United Stoke, 187 F.2d 956. 969 (1st Cir. 1951).

    "L The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT