Martin vs. Waddell

MARTIN VS. WADDELL was a court case that helped to establish in the United States the lawful ownership of environmental resources, including living things. Martin held lands alongside the River Raritan in New Jersey and he claimed ownership of these lands back to a grant made by King Charles II during the second half of the 17th century. He brought a court case with a view to developing an oyster industry based on those that were present in the river, and he desired to have exclusive use of them and their economic exploitation.

The presiding judge, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Taney, ruled that this claim was not valid because King Charles II's ability to make such a grant should have been curtailed by the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta—the Great Charter—was a treaty forced upon King John by rebellious barons, signed first in 1215, and reissued several times subsequently. The Magna Carta makes a few concessions to the barons and to the people of the land, but subsequently it was employed to increase rights of individuals that were not contained in the original. In the United States, the Magna Carta has been used to justify many innovations, not always contained within its remit. Justice Taney's decision rather followed this precedent.

The result has become a central part of environmental law in the United States by establishing a principle that no one can own wild animals or creatures. Originally applying only to the 13 states, its provisions were subsequently adopted by later signatories. A consequence is that wild animals and fish are considered to be held as part of the “public trust” by the greater public, through the arm of the state, and so individuals are empowered among other things to access them as they see fit, within the framework of other regulations. The alternative, in which private interests are believed to hold exclusive rights to wildlife on their land and in streams on their property, would have considerably restricted the ability of the state to regulate many forms of resource use. Subsequent court decisions and the Tenth Amendment of the constitution have strengthened these rights. The Tenth Amendment states that rights revert to the federal government when they are not explicitly controlled by the states. The federal government has the power to control interstate commerce and, consequently, acts as the protector of the interests of wildlife.

The provisions of the Martin vs. Waddell settlement have been challenged by what has been called the Wise Use movement, which instead favors the [Page 1108]economic exploitation of nature by private interests, in a context in which the environment has become overprotected and is not working to efficient market means. However, many people identify followers of the Wise Use argument as people bent on recklessly endangering the environment as a whole.