No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“No Quixotry in Redress of Grievances”: How Community Abatement of Public Nuisances Disappeared from American Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 February 2023
Abstract
Before 1859, the right of any member of the public to abate a public nuisance existed unchallenged in American law as a judicially recognized form of popular justice. In that year, the decision in Brown v. Perkins, authored by Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, restricted the right to those who had suffered particular injury. The decision grew out of a suit for damages by the owner of an illegal saloon, which had been sacked by a local mob. Reversing what Shaw himself had said in his charge to the jury in the same suit in the preceding year, it had little grounding in earlier American case law. Shaw's prestige and the apparent demands of public policy, however, helped win courts over to the new doctrine in relatively short order. The change was most enthusiastically promoted by judges and scholars of conservative leanings disturbed by the threat of popular excess and most resisted by those of more radical inclinations. It paralleled American law's broader shift in the same period toward centralized regulation and the constitutionalization of rights and powers.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society for Legal History
References
1 Prosser, William L., Handbook of the Law of Torts (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1941), 591–92Google Scholar.
2 Brown v. Perkins, 78 Mass. (12 Gray) 89 (1861).
3 Parsons, Eleanor C., Hannah and the Hatchet Gang: Rockport's Revolt against Rum (Canaan, NH: Phoenix Publishing, 1975)Google Scholar.
4 Dale, Elizabeth, “The Role of Popular Justice in U.S. History,” in Oxford Handbook of the History of Crime and Criminal Justice, ed. Knepper, Paul and Johansen, Anja (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 539–54Google Scholar.
5 Novak, William J., The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996)Google Scholar.
6 Ibid., 301 n53; see also 59, 141, 155–56, 217, 226–28; 306 n 138.
7 Ibid., 278 n92.
8 Kohl, Lawrence Frederick, The Politics of Individualism: Parties and the American Character in the Jacksonian Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; see also Howe, Daniel Walker, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Gerring, John, Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 3:216Google Scholar; 4:167.
10 Ibid., 3:5, 220.
11 Ibid., 3:219–20.
12 American courts recognized among distinctively public nuisances ones affecting rights held by all residents, or injuring many: McBride, Michael S., “Critical Legal History and Private Actions against Public Nuisances, 1800-1865,” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 22 (1989): 307–22Google Scholar.
13 Brown v. Perkins, 98.
14 Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 9 Wend. [N.Y.] 571 (1832); Gates v. Blincoe, 32 Ky. 158 (1834); Wetmore v. Tracy, 14 Wend. [N.Y.] 250 (1835); Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15 Wend. [N.Y.] 397 (1836); Burnham v. Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 311 (1841); Renwick v. Morris, 3 Hill [N.Y.] 621 (1842); Stump v. McNairy, 24 Tenn. 363 (1844); Lancaster Turnpike Co. v. Rogers, 2 Pa. St. 114 (1846); Low v. Knowlton, 26 Me. 128 (1846); Gunter v. Geary, 1 Cal 462 (1851); Brown v. Carpenter, 26 Vt. 638 (1854); State v. Dibble, 49 N.C. 107 (1856); Graves v. Shattuck, 35 N.H. 257 (1857); and Harvey v. DeWoody, 18 Ark. 255 (1857).
15 Emphasized in Day v. Day, 4 Md. 262, 270 (1853).
16 Emphasized in Gray v. Ayres, 37 Ky. 375, 377-378 (1838); and Welch v. Stowell, 2 Mich. 332, 341-43 (1846).
17 Bishop, Joel Prentiss, Commentaries on the Criminal Law, vol. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), 577–78Google Scholar.
18 Congressional Globe, 24th Congress, 1st session, June 8, 1836, Appendix, 457; “Legislature of New-York,” Evening Journal [Albany, NY], February 4, 1848, 2.
19 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company, 54 U.S. 518, 566 (1851). See also Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Company, 59 U.S. 272, 283 (1856), citing “the abatement of a public nuisance” as a recognized “instance of extrajudicial redress … of a public wrong, by a private person.”
20 “Law Courts,” New-York Daily Tribune, April 3, 1846, 2.
21 Hilliard, Francis, The Law of Torts, or Private Wrongs, vol. 2 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859), 94Google Scholar.
22 Kielbowicz, Richard B., “The Law and Mob Law in Attacks on Antislavery Newspapers, 1833-1860,” Law and History Review 24 (2006): 559–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 “Kensington Meeting,” Public Ledger [Philadelphia, PA]., August 6, 1840, 1; Michael Feldberg, “Urbanization as a Cause of Violence: Philadelphia as a Test Case,” in The Peoples of Philadelphia: A History of Ethnic Groups and Lower-Class Life, ed. Allen F. Davis and Mark H. Haller (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973), 58–61.
24 “Injunction Granted,” Erie [PA] Weekly Observer, December 31, 1853, 3; “Memorial,” Erie [PA] Weekly Observer, January 14, 1854, 3; and “Railroad Mass Meeting,” Erie [PA] Weekly Observer, January 13, 1855, 2.
25 “Great Railroad Meeting,” Syracuse [NY] Daily Star, April 16, 1850, 2. For other examples, see Southern Telegraph [Rodney, MS], July 15, 1836, 2; “River Meeting,” Des Moines [IA] Courier, June 9, 1853, 2; and “Public Meeting,” Nebraska News [Nebraska Territory], February 27, 1858, 2. Dams were also an early target of self-help abatement until mill acts in many states did away with the common-law nuisance remedies: Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cumbler, John, Reasonable Use: The People, the Environment, and the State: New England 1790-1930 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The attackers were usually persons especially injured (other millers on the same stream or farmers whose lands had been flooded), but community concerns about loss of fisheries sometimes played a role—Gary Kulik, “Dams, Fish, and Farmers: Defense of Public Rights in Eighteenth-Century New England,” in The Countryside in the Age of Capitalist Transformation, ed. Steven Hahn and Jonathan Prude (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 25–50—as did the public health hazards of stagnant waters: Gates v. Blincoe, 32 Ky. 158 (1834). Some of those who attempted to destroy a large water-power storage dam in 1859 in New Hampshire, which lacked a mill act, may have been members of the general public rather than aggrieved landholders: Steinberg, Theodore, Nature Incorporated: Industrialization and the Waters of New England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), ch. 4Google Scholar.
26 Dannenbaum, Jed, “The Origins of Temperance Activism and Militancy among American Women, 1830-1860,” Journal of Social History 15 (1981): 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Shaw's charge is printed in “Important Decision in a Liquor Case,” Daily Herald [Newburyport, MA], May 6, 1858, 2.
28 New-York Daily Tribune, May 27, 1858, 4; New-York Daily Tribune, June 7, 1858, 4.
29 Wendell Phillips, “Speech of Wendell Phillips,” The Liberator 28 (1858): 94; and Smith, Gerrit, “Peace Better than War,” The Advocate of Peace, July-August 1858, 97, 105. See also “Calumny and Falsehood,” The Liberator 28 (1858): 78Google Scholar.
30 “The Death Blow to the Groggeries,” Springfield [MA] Daily Republican, May 6, 1858, 2; “Is Liquor-Selling a Nuisance?” Aegis and Transcript [Worcester, MA], May 8, 1858, 2; “Letter from Boston,” Aegis and Transcript [Worcester, MA], May 8, 1858, 2; “The Liquor Decision,” Massachusetts Spy [Worcester, MA], May 12, 1858, 2; Hartford [CT] Daily Courant, May 10, 1858, 2; “Judge Shaw on Liquor Nuisances,” New-York Reformer [Watertown, NY], June 3, 1858, 2; and “Public Nuisances,” Boston Evening Transcript, July 15, 1858, 2.
31 Untitled editorial, New-York Daily Tribune, May 27, 1858, 4.
32 Untitled editorial, Boston Post, May 7, 1858, 2; “The Sequence of Prohibitory Legislation,” Boston Post, May 18, 1858, 2; “Is This Law?” Providence [RI] Daily Post, May 12, 1858, 2; “The Nuisance Law,” Providence [RI] Daily Post, May 18, 1858, 2; “Important Liquor Decision,” New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette, May 12, 1858, 2; untitled editorial, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 12, 1858, 2; and “The ‘Nuisance’ Decision in Massachusetts,” Atlas & Argus [Albany, NY], May 27, 1858, 2.
33 Tuchinsky, Adam, Horace Greeley's New-York Tribune: Civil War-Era Socialism and the Crisis of Free Labor (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009), 155–56Google Scholar.
34 Untitled editorial, Boston Evening Courier, May 5, 1858, 2; untitled editorial, Boston Daily Herald, May 5, 4; “Massachusetts: The Legalization of Anarchy,” New York Times, May 22, 1858, 2; and “The Power of Mobs to Abate Nuisances,” Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, September 4, 1858, 2.
35 “Judge Shaw's Liquor Decision,” The Evening Post [New York, NY], May 25, 1858, 2. For the paper's stance on prohibition, see “The Temperance Bill,” The Evening Post [New York, NY], April 7, 1854, 2.
36 [Horace Greeley], “Editor's Preface,” in The Writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay: Including Speeches and Addresses, ed., Horace Greeley (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1848), v–viii.
37 “Lynch Law in Kentucky,” The Liberator 15 (1845), 189.
38 Richards, Leonard L., “Gentlemen of Property and Standing”: Anti-Abolition Mobs in Jacksonian America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.
39 “Rioting Legalized,” Public Ledger [Philadelphia, PA], May 8, 1858, 1.
40 Untitled editorial, Boston Daily Herald, May 5, 1858, 4.
41 “Judge Shaw's Liquor Decision,” The Evening Post [New York, NY], May 25, 1858, 2.
42 “Wholesale Destruction of Liquors.—First Fruits of Chief-Justice Shaw's Decision in Springfield,” Springfield [MA] Daily Republican, May 6, 1858, 4; “Milford,” Aegis and Transcript [Worcester, MA], May 15, 1858, 2; and “Our Chief of Police and the Nuisance Law,” Cambridge [MA] Chronicle, May 15, 1858, n.p.
43 Fisher v. McGirr, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 1 (1854); Leonard W. Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 262–63; Novak, The People's Welfare, 181–83.
44 “The Meadow Lands of the Concord River Valley,” New England Farmer [Boston, MA], January 1, 1859, 2.
45 “Warren Correspondence,” Cleveland [OH] Morning Leader, July 12, 1858, 1.
46 Stephenson, Kathryn, “The Quarantine War: The Burning of the New York Marine Hospital in 1858,” Public Health Reports 119 (2004): 79–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and McCarthy, Andy, “Salutary and Well-Intentioned Violence: The 1858 Quarantine Fires in Staten Island,” New York History 103 (2022): 123–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 “Law for the Destruction of the Quarantine by Individuals,” New York Herald, September 27, 1858, 8.
48 Anthon, William Henry, Argument of William Henry Anthon, Esq., in Behalf of the Defendants, Messrs. Ray Tompkins and John C. Thompson (New York: Wm. C. Bryant, 1858), 25, 30Google Scholar.
49 “The Quarantine Imbroglio,” New York Herald, November 12, 1858, 1. The New York Supreme Court, however, held the county liable for losses suffered in the attack: Wolfe v. Supervisors of Richmond County, 19 How. Pr. [NY] 370 (1860).
50 See, for example, “The Staten Island Outrages!,” Evening Journal [Albany, NY], September 4, 1858, 2; “The Staten Island Mob,” Boston Evening Transcript, September 4, 1858, 2; “The New York Quarantine Mob,” Public Ledger [Philadelphia, PA], September 4, 1858, 1; “The New York Mob,” Boston Post, September 6, 1858, 2; untitled editorial, Hartford [CT] Daily Courant, September 6, 1858, 2;“The Spirit of Lawlessness,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], September 7, 1858, 3; untitled editorial, The Daily Exchange [Baltimore, MD], September 8, 1858, 2; “The Staten Island Sepoys,” Detroit [MI] Free Press, September 9, 1858, 2; “The Mob Spirit,” Daily Picayune [New Orleans, LA], September 15, 1858, 2; and “Supremacy of Law,” Memphis [TN] Daily Appeal, October 23, 1858, 1.
51 “The Power of Mobs to Abate Nuisances,” Buffalo [NY] Commercial Advertiser, September 4, 1858, 2; “The Nuisance Law and Its Practical and Judicial Interpretation,” The Atlas & Argus [Albany, NY], September 6, 1858, 2; and “The Riots at Quarantine,” New York Times, November 13, 1858, 4.
52 “Gerrit Smith at Association Hall,” The Atlas & Argus [Albany, NY], October 6, 1858, 2; “Political: Speech of Gerrit Smith,” New-York Daily Tribune, October 7, 1858, 5; and “Gerrit Smith,” Troy [NY] Weekly Times, October 16, 1858, 1.
53 Untitled editorial, New-York Daily Tribune, November 12, 1858, 4.
54 “Lex,” “The Quarantine Controversy: The Legal Question,” The Evening Post [New York, NY], September 17, 1858, 1; see also “Lex,” “The Quarantine Controversy: Was the Hospital Nuisance Legally Abated?,” The Evening Post [New York, NY], October 6, 1858, 2; “The Destruction of the Quarantine Buildings in New York: The Law for Abatement of a Public Nuisance,” Boston Post, September 25, 1858, 1.
55 “Court Record: The Rockport Liquor Case,” Boston Post, April 27, 1859, 4.
56 The published opinion ended: “This statement of the decision was drawn up by the chief justice to guide the new trial. His death prevented the writing out of a fuller opinion.” Brown v. Perkins, 102.
57 Brown v. Perkins, 100–102.
58 Earl of Lonsdale v. Nelson, 7 B. & C. 302 (1823); and Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339 (1847).
59 State v. Paul, 5 R.I. 185 (1858); and Gray v. Ayres, 7 Dana [Ky.] 375 (1838).
60 State v. Paul, 194–95.
61 State v. Keeran, 5 R.I. 497, 509, 510 (1858).
62 He relied chiefly on Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, which Shaw had cited, and the similar conclusions reached in Dimes v. Petley, 15 Q. B. 276 (1850): State v. Keeran, 510–12.
63 Magrath, C. Peter, “Samuel Ames: The Great Chief Justice of Rhode Island,” Rhode Island History 24 (1965): 65–76Google Scholar.
64 Levy, Law of the Commonwealth, ch. 13.
65 Ibid. Ames, whose legal practice had emphasized corporation issues, would likely have shared these concerns: Magrath, “Samuel Ames.”
66 Gilje, Paul A., Rioting in America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), ch. 3Google Scholar; Grimsted, David, American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), chs. 8–9Google Scholar.
67 Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975); and Karsten, Peter, “Revisiting the Critiques of Those Who Upheld the Fugitive Slave Acts in the 1840s and 1850s,” American Journal of Legal History 58 (2018): 291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Conlin, Michael F., “The Dangerous Isms and the Fanatical Ists: Antebellum Conservatives in the South and the North Confront the Modernity Conspiracy,” Journal of the Civil War Era 4 (2014): 205–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 Chittenden, L.E., A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention, for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1864), 610–13Google Scholar.
69 Harrower v. Ritson, 37 Barb. [N.Y.] 301, 304 (1861); affirmed, Griffith v. McCullum, 46 Barb. [N.Y.] 561 (1866).
70 Harrower v. Ritson, 310.
71 McCurdy, Charles W., The Anti-Rent Era in New York Law and Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 135–41Google Scholar, 358 n16.
72 Brummer, Sidney David, Political History of New York State during the Period of the Civil War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911), 79, 84–85Google Scholar, 343–44.
73 People ex rel. Brooks v. Brooks, 35 Barb. 85, 87, 90, 91 (1861).
74 Hamilton v. Goding, 55 Me 419, 426 (1867).
75 Ibid., 428.
76 David M. Gold, “A Republican on the Bench,”in An Exemplary Whig: Edward Kent and the Whig Disposition in American Politics and Law (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012), ch. 13.
77 Earp v. Lee, 71 Ill. 193 (1873). See also Phifer v. Cox, 21 Ohio St. 248 (1871); Clark v. Lake St. Clair and New Up-River Ice Company, 24 Mich. 508 (1872); State v. Flannagan, 67 Ind. 140 (1879); Larson v. Furlong, 50 Wis. 681 (1881); Corthell v. Holmes, 87 Me 24 (1894); Watts v. Norfolk & W. R., 39 W. Va. 196 (1894); State v. Stark, 63 Kan. 529, 536, 537 (1901); and Nation v. District of Columbia, 34 App. D.C. 453 (1910).
78 Earp v. Lee, 19–97.
79 Miller v. Forman, 37 N.J.L. 55, 57 (1874).
80 Fields v. Stokley, 99 Pa. 306, 309 (1882).
81 Civil Code of the State of California, 1872, §3495.
82 Dwight H. Bruce, ed., Onondaga's Centennial: Gleanings of a Century, vol. 2 (Boston: The Boston History Company, 1896), 177–78.
83 Manhattan Manufacturing and Fertilizing Company v. Van Keuren, 23 N.J. Eq. 251, 255 (1872).
84 Willian Nelson, ed., Nelson's Biographical Cyclopedia of New Jersey, vol. 2 (New York: Eastern Historical Publishing Society, 1913), 649–54; and Francis Bazley Lee, ed., Genealogical and Memorial History of the State of New Jersey, vol. 1 (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1910), 67.
85 Novak, The People's Welfare, 186–87.
86 Reports of the Majority and Minority of the Select Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Albany, NY: C. Van Benthuysen, 1855); and Metropolitan Society for the Protection of Private and Constitutional Rights, The Unconstitutionality of the Prohibitory Liquor Law Confirmed (New York: M'Intire & Parsons, 1855), 47, 62–63, 77–78.
87 Wynehamer v. The People, 13 N.Y. 378, 402 (1856).
88 Renda, Lex, “Slavery, Law, Liquor, and Politics: The Case of Wynehamer v. The People,” Mid-America 80 (1998): 35–53Google Scholar.
89 Pegram, Thomas R., Battling Demon Rum: The Struggle for a Dry America, 1800-1933 (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998), 45–52Google Scholar.
90 Compton, John W., The Evangelical Origins of the Living Constitution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
91 Wood, H.G., A Practical Treatise on the Law of Nuisances in Their Various Forms; Including Remedies Therefor at Law and in Equity (Albany, NY: John D. Parsons, 1875)Google Scholar.
92 Ibid., 747 n1.
93 Ibid., 747, 748.
94 Ibid., 754, discussing Harvey v. DeWoody, 18 Ark. 252 (1856).
95 Ibid., 749 n1, 755–56, discussing Arundel v. McCulloch, 10 Mass. 70 (1813), Renwick v. Morris, 7 Hill [N.Y.] 575 (1844), and State v. Parrott, 71 N.C. 311 (1874).
96 Moffett v. Brewer, 1 Greene [Iowa] 348 (1848).
97 Pierce v. Dart, 7 Cow. [N.Y.] 608 (1827).
98 Wood, Practical Treatise, 751–52.
99 Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, 15 Wend. [N.Y.] 397 (1836).
100 Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 3 Paige Ch. [N.Y.] 213, 214-215 (1832).
101 Hart v. Mayor of Albany, 9 Wend. [N.Y.] 571, 589–90, 594–95, 607–11 (1832).
102 Wetmore v. Tracy, 14 Wend. [N.Y.] 250 (1835).
103 Wood, Practical Treatise, 747 n1, 748 n1.
104 Ibid., 757.
105 Ibid., 759.
106 Ibid., 761–62.
107 English courts might have been influenced by their country's earlier industrialization; their doctrines might, on the other hand, have reflected a greater reluctance to accept an informal and extrajudicial system of law enforcement.
108 Wood, Practical Treatise, 750; see also 767: “our business and manufacturing interests.”
109 Ibid., 768.
110 Siegel, Stephen, “Joel Bishop's Orthodoxy,” Law and History Review 13 (1995): 215–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
111 Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law, vol. 1, 577.
112 Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law, 2nd edition, vol. 1 (1858), 718–19; 3rd edition, vol. 1 (1865), 393; 4th edition, vol. 1 (1868), 404; 5th edition, vol. 1 (1872), 491.
113 Bishop, Joel Prentiss, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1873), 664Google Scholar n1.
114 Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law, 6th edition, vol. 1, 609, 611, 612.
115 Bishop, Joel Prentiss, New Commentaries on the Criminal Law; Upon a New System of Legal Exposition (Chicago: T. H. Flood and Company, 1892), 651–52Google Scholar.
116 Cooley, Thomas M., A Treatise on the Law of Torts; or the Wrongs which Arise Independent of Contract (Chicago: Callaghan and Company, 1879), 46Google Scholar.
117 VanderVelde, Leah, “The Anti-Republican Origins of the At-Will Doctrine,” American Journal of Legal History 60 (2020): 397–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
118 Siegel, “Joel Bishop's Orthodoxy,” 218; Bishop, Joel Prentiss, Thoughts for the Times (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1863)Google Scholar; and Bishop, Joel Prentiss, Secession and Slavery (Boston: A. Williams and Company, 1864)Google Scholar.
119 Siegel, “Joel Bishop's Orthodoxy”; Howe, Political Culture of the American Whigs.
120 The suppression of unpopular newspapers by mobs took on a new political coloration during the war, when Northern journals suspected of sympathy with the South were its usual targets: Holzer, Harold, Lincoln and the Power of the Press (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 334–75Google Scholar.
121 Compton, Evangelical Origins.