< Previous Page *
*** Quote ***
Hamilton argued this case on behalf of Joshua Waddington, a New York Tory who occupied a brewery owned by Elizabeth Rutgers during the British occupation. Rutgers, who had fled the city when it fell to the British, sued Waddington upon her return for punitive damages of eight thousand pounds.
Hamilton's basic argument ran that, by granting damages to the plaintiff, the state of New York would be in violation of the Treaty of Paris, which should take precedence over any other concerns as it has the possibility for more far-reaching repercussions. Further, the law of nations allowed clemency for illegal actions taken under military orders in a time of war. Hamilton's argument presupposed that the law of nations could apply in a state court. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the United States government had no authority to interfere with internal state matters.
In the judgment, Hamilton was moderately successful. His client was made to pay relatively minor damages (791 pounds) for the two years he operated under civilian auspices, and nothing for the balance of his occupation which occurred under military orders. The Mayor's Court conceded in part that provisions of international treaties could figure in state law, but was miles shy of Hamilton's ultimate objective of declaring the Trespass Act null and void under the Treaty of Paris. The case did much to polarize public opinion in New York and throughout the country. Opponents claimed that the case severely endangered individual liberties by placing federal law over that of the states. It was a blow to supporters of state sovereignty, which must have given Hamilton much satisfaction. However those who wrote in opposition to the Mayor's Court verdict soon became some of Hamilton's staunchest enemies in the struggle for the ratification of the constitution.
As Hamilton had expected, the Rutgers vs. Waddington verdict had international implications. Eight years later, when both were occupying positions in the cabinet, Jefferson asked Hamilton elucidate the judgment for the benefit of the British minister, George Hammond, who was claiming that the verdict had violated the treaty of peace. Hamilton explained to Jefferson that the judgment had validated orders issued by military commanders during wartime, thus indicating the force of international over state law.
< Previous Page *