Hi Tracey,
You actually did a fine job of describing the procedures used in implementation of Admiralty Law to the salvaging of Titanic. Actually, RMS Titanic, Inc. (RMSTI), the salvor in possession, could have gone to any court in the world to claim salvage rights and Admiralty Law would have theoretically dictated the same procedure wherever RMSTI would have gone. It is an internationally recognized body of law used by many countries which has evolved in the several hundred years man has used the sea for commerce and travel. In this case, RMSTI took their claim to Norfolk, if I have my history correct, because the Norfolk court had previous experiences with implementation of Admiralty Law in salvage cases and had acquired a reputation of being a fair court in its views of salvage.
Dr. Ballard did not lay claim to Titanic for several reasons. Firstly, he was utilizing U.S. Government equipment in his expedition and it's my understanding that salvage cannot be accomplished with use of governmental equipment. It's against our country's military and governmental policies to allow this. Ballard could have remounted a private expedition to go back and lay claim by retrieval of an artifact, but did not. His trip back to Titanic in 1986, the year after discovery, was a photographic and exploration mission that made no attempt to claim the wreck.
RMSTI really did not lay the first claim as such. It was not formally in existance as a company when the first artifacts were recovered. Titanic Ventures and other financial forces joined to mount the 1987 expedition, during which over a thousand artifacts were retrieved. Titanic Ventures eventually reorganized and grew into RMSTI. In any event, a wine decanter was brought to the Federal District Court and the wreck was "arrested" by the court, as was the presented artifact. That's a technical procedure used by the court to establish its legal control over the wreck. It then appoints a salvor (RMSTI) to act on its behalf in managing the wrecksite. The court retains jurisdiction and can implement guidelines and policies a salvor must legally follow while acting as the agent of the court.
The court still mandates that certain guidelines are followed in the salvage practices of today. RMSTI must have a physical presence at the wrecksite periodically to maintain active salvor status. This period has generally been agreed to be one time every two years, though longer periods have taken place between expeditions. Also, the salvage company (RMSTI) must make periodic report to the court of their activities in order for the court to extend salvor status. The last periodic report made to the court by RMSTI took place September 8, 2000, following the 2000 expedition. At that time, a report was given to the court and an artifact was presented for arrest to maintain the RMSTI salvor claim to the wreck.
As for Stuart's comments concerning statements made about the economics of salvage status, to be truthful, every situation has a practical side and it is true that the court seeks to maintain a salvor who has the financial stability to continue to be the steward of the wrecksite. The court does not profit from a decision on salvor status. There are no kickbacks made. For instance, when you look at the history of the fight for Titanic, Marex and Jack Grimm presented the main challenge to RMSTI's salvor status in 1993 and had almost endless money backing. Yet the court did its job in determining right from wrong and awarded continued salvor status because RMSTI had shown they could, at that time, comply with the court's wishes and conduct salvage within the guidelines laid out by the court. Money was not the determining factor...or Marex and Jack Grimm would have been appointed salvor, not RMSTI.
I would be remiss if I did not make the bold statement that the best friend Titanic has had since her discovery has been the Third District Federal Court in Norfolk, Virginia. Judge J. Calvitt Clarke has meticulously followed established Admiralty Law to protect the wreck and her artifacts. When special situations have arisen, Judge Clarke has broken new ground and developed stances that consistently have sought to protect the wreck and artifacts for the education and historical legacy for mankind to come. He has always acted with great wisdom. Judge Clarke is now nearing retirement and his colleague Judge Rebecca Beach Smith is sitting together with Judge Clarke as a sort of apprentice to understand how the court has approached its cases before she takes over for an eventually retired Judge Clarke. We, of the Titanic community, have every reason to be optimistic that the Court's wisdom will continue under the reign of Judge Smith.
I hope this clears up some of the questions concerning Admiralty Law and how it has applied to Titanic. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to know the law intimately. I have spent the past several years closely aligned with the Tullochs and have had all this explained to me as I asked many of the same quesitons. To that extent, I have a layman's knowledge at best. Feel free to contact me at
[email protected] if you have any further questions.
Dave Shuttle