In the summer of 1916, the well-known “Charlestown Booze Boat” made waves in Penns Grove, New Jersey, becoming the talk of the dry town. Anchored just off the New Jersey shore in the Delaware River, this floating speakeasy from Maryland quickly became a popular destination for those seeking to tipple the forbidden indulgence. Dinghies and small boats ferried eager patrons from Penns Grove, providing them with access to beer and whiskey.
The lucrative market for a booze boat opened in 1915 when temperance crusaders in Salem County spearheaded a fight to keep the borough dry.((“To Keep Pennsgrove Dry,” Penns Grove Record, Nov 20. 1915, 1.)) Local churches rallied alongside organizations such as the Salem County Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the Penns Grove Camp Meeting Association. Even the Mother’s Club of Carney Point, the home to Du Pont Powdermakers, opposed the opening of barrooms. They feared the degradation of their “pretty little model village,” a newspaper reported.((Evening Journal Sept. 25, 1916)),((Dry’s Strategy Beats Wets, Daily Local News, February 25, 1916.)) Speculation also circulated regarding the involvement of the Du Pont Company in this anti-alcohol campaign, as too many workers showed up drunk.
Penns Grove, a Dry Town
After the borough went dry, the “floating beer ark” from Cecil County, MD, anchored in the river, dispensing drinks to the thirsty “who were sober enough to walk the gangplanks,” the Penns Grove Record remarked. The craft’s captain claimed he operated beyond New Jersey jurisdiction as he did business on the river beyond the low water mark with cables and anchors cast loose every time they sold a drink.((“Illegal Sale of Liquors,” Penns Grove Record, May 4, 1917, 1.))
The captain’s assertion was based on land claims going back to 1682 when The Duke of York leased land—that would eventually become Delaware– to William Penn. Years of simmering, argumentative negotiations involving complex legal concepts followed as Delaware claimed the boundary line went right up to the shoreline on the New Jersey side. However, a compact hammered out in 1905 helped calm the litigation as the states affirmed the boundary at the low tide on the Jersey shore while also granting the Garden State riparian rights on the river.((Cornell Law School, “Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,” Supreme Court of the United States.)),((Harvard Law Review, “The Supreme Court – Leading Cases,” 505-506)),((Roger E. Nathan, East of the Mason-Dixon Line, A History of the Delaware Boundaries (Wilmington: Delaware Heritage Press, 2000), 53-59))
Nevertheless, this operation did not evade the watchful eyes of Penns Grove dry advocates—a vigilant group determined to keep the town legally and literally dry by stamping out speakeasies. Pushed by this growing public outcry, Deputy Sheriff J. O. Banks, along with Constables William S. Ray and Arthur Racher, responded to the disgruntled citizens’ chorus.
Undercover as thirsty customers, the officers boarded the vessel, successfully purchasing beer and witnessing whiskey transactions. Armed with this incriminating evidence, they arrested the two-man crew, charging them with the unlawful trade of alcohol. The authorities were determined to put an end to this profitable venture.
Jurisdiction Debate
As the case unfolded in the Salem County Court, the crew admitted to selling spirits but argued that transactions occurred while the anchor was hoisted, suggesting they were outside local jurisdiction in the Delaware River. However, their plea was promptly dismissed. The prosecutor reminded the court that New Jersey law mandated licensing for liquor sales, and the state’s authority extended to the river’s midpoint. To support his argument, he pointed to the accord between state officials, granting them the power to pursue and detain culprits until they reached the shores of Delaware.
The Verdict: The jury delivered a guilty verdict following a thorough trial. Judge Edward C. Waddington imposed a fine of $1,000 and costs on each of the two Maryland men. Their attorney, however, served notice of an appeal, challenging the court’s jurisdiction over selling booze in the Delaware River. Additionally, they argued that Baltimore customs authorities licensed the boat, and no sales occurred while the boat was at anchor. The outcome of their appeal remains a mystery, as nothing more was heard of the case in the Salem County newspapers.
The “Charlestown Booze Boat” case reignited age-old boundary disputes between Delaware and New Jersey, underscoring the complexities of territorial jurisdiction amidst the nation’s growing prohibition movement.