Salmon P. Chase: Chief Justice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Abraham Lincoln Papers
Abraham Lincoln papers 1 From Britton A. Hill to Abraham Lincoln , October 3, 1864 1 Britton A. Hill practiced law in Washington with Orville Hickman Browning after the latter had been unseated in the Senate in 1863 by a Democratic Illinois General Assembly. Confidential Washington Oct 3d, 1864 Mr President; 2 It gives me great pleasure to state, that Mr Browning has been misrepresented as to his speech 3 4 in Quincy— “He merely said, that if Genl. Fremont or Genl McClellan were elected he would not commit suicide; but would endeavor to support the govt faithfully, as he had done under your 5 administration”. He has spoken always in favor of yr administration & reelection. 2 Orville H. Browning 3 At the end of May 1864 a convention primarily composed of Radical Republicans and German-Americans met at Cleveland and nominated General John C. Fremont for the presidency. Fremont withdrew from the campaign in September. 4 General George B. McClellan was the 1864 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. 5 Republicans were eager to obtain Browning's endorsement, but his support for Lincoln's reelection was lukewarm at best. In an October 3, 1864 letter to William D. Henderson, Browning stated his desire to see the rebellion crushed, however he refused to endorse either Lincoln or McClellan. While Browning admired McClellan's patriotism, he could not support the platform of the party that had nominated him. This refusal to support the so-called “peace plank” of the Democratic platform was the closest Browning came to an endorsement of Lincoln. Browning's letter to Henderson was published in the newspapers and Republican wags spun it as an endorsement. -
Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court
YALE LAW JO URNAL. REMINISCENCES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. On motion of Reverdy Johnson, at one time Attorney-General and afterward Senator in Congress from Maryland, I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1865. Salmon P. Chase was then Chief Justice, and the associates were James M. Wayne, Robert C. Grier, Noah H. Swayne, David Davis, Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field. All of these, ex- cepting Justice Field,* are now dead. I was in Washington at the inauguration of Franklin Pierce in 1853 and attended some of the sessions of the Supreme Court at that time. That court then con- sisted of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice; John McLean, James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, Benjamin R. Curtis and John A. Campbell, associates, none of whom are now living. I never saw Taney, Catron or Daniel afterward, and have no very distinct impressions as to Catron or Daniel, but Chief Justice Taney was a noticeable man and his ap- pearance is still daguerreotyped upon my memory. He was a tall, angular and exceedingly slim man. Apparently there was little or no flesh upon his bones and his face was deeply furrowed by the ravages of time. His eyes surmounted by shaggy eyebrows were deeply set under a remarkably low forehead. There was a rough and rugged distinctness about all his features. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1836 and died in office when he was 88 years old. He was 8o years of age when he delivered the opinion of the court in the celebrated Dred Scott case. -
The Allegheny County Bar in the Eighties Frank C
The Allegheny County Bar in the Eighties Frank C. McGirk That Iwas admitted to the Bar of Allegheny County in 1880, and am still in the practice of my profession, is most likely the reason Iwas chosen to deliver this address. Iknew the great lawyers of that decade, —many of them intimately, —and frequently tried cases with and against them, and while Ithen knew their peculiarities and abilities, and the many stories then current about them, lapse of time and a failing memory willprevent the repetition of a great many matters of much interest, and jovial happen- ings of those old days. From the earliest days of this County, it has been noted for its great lawyers. Such men as Alexander Ad- dison, James Ross, Hugh Henry Brackenridge, John Woods, Thomas Collins, William Wilkins, Henry Baldwin, James Mountain, Samuel Roberts, Walter Forward, John H. Chap- lin,Neville B. Craig, Charles Shaler, Richard Biddle, John Henry Hopkins, and James Hall, of the early Pittsburgh Bar, and concerning whom, the late Judge Daniel Agnew delivered a most interesting address before the Allegheny County Bar Association on December 1, 1888, made our Bar famous throughout the land and shed great glory on the Pittsburgh lawyer. But the lawyers of the Eighties were just as great. The limits of time allowed me for this address willpermit me to refer only to a small number of those who were fam- ous in the Eighties, and no doubt Imay overlook some whom my brethren at the Bar will think well deserve remem- brance. As Judge Agnew said in his address : "The life of an upright, honorable and learned lawyer is full of instruction. -
Film 2466 Guide the Papers in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division the Papers of Henry Clay 1770 – 1852 in 34 Volumes Reel 1
Film 2466 Guide The Papers in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division The Papers of Henry Clay 1770 – 1852 in 34 volumes Reel 1 v.1-5 1770:Nov.30-1825:Oct.12 Reel 2 v.6-10 1825:Oct.13-1827:Oct.21 Reel 3: v.11-15 1827:Oct.22-1829:Nov.11 Reel 4 v.16-19 1829:Nov.13-1832:Aug.24 Reel 5 v.20-23 1832:Aug.26-1844:Oct.4 Reel 6 v.24-26, v.27 1844:Oct.9-1852:Nov.4, Undated papers Reel 7 v.1-4 1825:Mar.10-1826:Nov.8 1 Reel 8 v.5-7 1826:Nov.11-1829:Feb.28 Reel 9 Papers of Henry Clay And Miscellaneous Papers 1808-1853 1. Henry Clay Papers (Unbound) 2. Personal Miscellany 3. Photostat Miscellany 4. Slave Papers 5. United States: Executive (Treaty of Ghent) 6. United States: Executive (North East Boundary) 7. Finance (Unarranged) 8. Finance (United States Bank) 9. United States Miscellany Reel 10 v.3: Selected Documents Nov. 6, 1797- Aug. 11, 1801 v.4: Selected Documents Aug. 18, 1801-Apr. 10, 1807 2 Reel 10 (continued) The Papers of Thomas J. Clay 1737-1927 In 33 volumes v.5: July 14, 1807 – Nov.26, 1817 v.6 Dec.23, 1817-June 3, 1824 There does not appear to be anything to this volume. v.7 June 25, 1824 – Aug. 20, 1830 v.8 Aug. 27, 1830 – July 20, 1837: The Papers of Thomas J. Clay v.9:Aug. 14, 1837-Jan. 21, 1844: The Papers of Thomas J. -
Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations. -
Charles Ingersoll: the ^Aristocrat As Copperhead
Charles Ingersoll: The ^Aristocrat as Copperhead HE INGERSOLL FAMILY is one of America's oldest. The first Ingersoll came to America in 1629, just nine years after the T^Mayflower. The first Philadelphia Ingersoll was Jared Inger- soll, who came to the city in 1771 as presiding judge of the King's vice-admiralty court. Previously, he had been the King's colonial agent and stamp master in Connecticut. During the Revolution, Jared remained loyal to the Crown. He stayed in Philadelphia for the first two years of the war, but in 1777, when he and other Tories were forced to leave, he returned to Connecticut, where he lived quietly until his death in 1781.1 Jared's son, Jared, Jr., was the first prominent Philadelphia Inger- soll. He came to Philadelphia with his father in 1771, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1778. Unlike his father, Jared, Jr., wholeheartedly supported the Revolution. Subsequently, he was a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a member of the city council, city solicitor, attorney general of Pennsylvania, and United States District Attorney. Politically, he was an ardent Fed- eralist, but politics and affairs of state were never his prime interest; his real interest was the law, and most of his time and energy was devoted to his legal practice.2 Jared, Jr.'s, son, Charles Jared Ingersoll, was probably the most interesting of the Philadelphia Ingersolls. Like his father, grand- father, and most of the succeeding generations of Ingersolls, Charles Jared was a lawyer. He began a practice in Philadelphia in 1802, but devoted much of his time to politics. -
Episode 113: a Place Worse Than Hell Week of December 2 – 8, 1862
Episode 113: A Place Worse Than Hell Week of December 2 – 8, 1862 http://civilwar150.longwood.edu “If there is a worse place than hell,” Lincoln told a visitor in December 1862, “I am in it.” The fall state and congressional elections had not gone well. Radical Republicans, angered that the President had remained loyal to McClellan so long, failed to campaign wholeheartedly, leaving the field to the Democrats, who accused the administration of incompetence on the battlefield and of unconstitutional abuse of its power, both in curbing dissent and in daring to speak of freeing slaves. Asked for his reaction to all this bad news, Lincoln said he felt like the boy who stubbed his toe – he was too big to cry, and it hurt too much to laugh. “The fact is that the country is done for unless something is done at once…..” said Senator Zachariah Chandler. “The President is a weak man, too weak for the occasion, and those fool or traitor generals are wasting time and yet more precious blood in indecisive battles and delays.” Rumors circulated that Lincoln would resign in favor of Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, and that McClellan would somehow be recalled to Washington to assume dictatorial power. This attack on his leadership by men of his own party at such a critical time deeply distressed Lincoln: “We are now on the brink of destruction,” he told an aide. “It appears to me that the Almighty is against us.” Generally the public press supported the President. The Washington Chronicle saw “a perfect balance of thoroughly sound faculties, great calmness of temper, firmness of purpose, supreme moral principle and intense patriotism”. -
“Sunset” Cox and the Etheridge Conspiracy of 1863
Power Grab: “Sunset” Cox and the Etheridge Conspiracy of 1863 By Fergus M. Bordewich The National Capital Washington DC, winter 1863-64, just after "Freedom" had been installed Shortly after noon on the afternoon of December 2, 1863 workmen hoisted the classical head of a goddess over the scree of construction detritus, blocks of marble, and thousands of expectant, freezing citizens three hundred feet to the top of the Capitol’s dome, and lowered it onto the shoulders of the cast-iron effigy of Freedom. Her figure, it was hoped, would gaze forever over the Federal City with its multitudes of battle-worn soldiers, ragged contrabands, government clerks, and harried politicians, and beyond them toward a nation soon to be triumphantly reunited by the armies of the Union. Cannon boomed and onlookers huzzahed as the head settled into place. Beneath the magnificent new dome, however, all was not well. In the marble halls below, a parliamentary coup was afoot that threatened to unravel the coalition that had steered the nation through almost three stormy years of war. Wrote an anxious Rep. Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, “I can think of nothing but a Bull Run so disastrous to our cause as that they might hear in Richmond and abroad that our own House of Representatives was in a state of revolution.” In keeping with the laws of the time, the new Thirty-Eighth Congress that had been elected in 1862 was only now, more than a year later, being seated. Anti-administration House Democrats had made substantial and worrisome gains, gaining twenty-seven seats in the House of Representatives. -
The Crime Against Kansas. the Apologies for The
THE CHIME AGAINST KANSAS. THE APOLOGIES FOR THE CRIME, THE TRUE REMEDY. SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES SUMNER, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 19th and 20th May, 1856. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY JOHN P. JEWETT & COMPANY. CLEYELAND, OHIO: . JEWETT, PROCTOR & WORTHINGTON. NEW YOKE: SHELDON, BLAEEMAN & CO. 1856. /? (^ /Lo.^-, - ^'^<^'^^ THE CRIME AGAIKST KANSAS. THE APOLOaiES FOK THE CRIME. THE TRUE REMEDY. SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES SUMNEE, IN T H S SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 19th and 20th May, 1856. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY JOHN P. JEWETT & COMPANY. CLEVELAND, OHIO: JEWETT, PROCTOR, & WORTHINGTON. NEW YORK : SHELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO 1856. In the Senate, 13th March, 1856, Mr, Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, presented and read a very long Report on affairs in Kansas. Mr. CoLLAMER also presented and read a Minority Report. As soon as the reading was completed, Mr. Sumner took the floor, and made the following remarks : ]Mr. Somner. In those two reports, the whole subject is presented character- istically on both sides. In the report of the majority, the true issue is smoth- ered ; in that of the minority, the true issue stands forth as a pillar of fire to guide the country. The first report proceeds from four senators ; but against it I put, fearlessly, the report signed by a single senator [Mr. Collamer], to whom I offer my thanks for this service. Let the two go abroad together. Error is harmless, while reason is left free to combat it. I have no desire to precipitate the debate on this important question, under which the country already shakes from side to side, and which threatens to scatter from its folds civil war. -
Lincoln and Habeas: of Merryman and Milligan and Mccardle
Lincoln and Habeas: Of Merryman and Milligan and McCardle John Yoo* Three cases define the Supreme Court's encounter with the Civil War: Ex parte Merryman,' Ex parte Milligan,2 and Ex parte McCardle.3 All three case names bear the styling "ex parte" because all three were brought on behalf of citizens detained by the armed forces of the Union. All three detainees sought release under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which requires the government to demonstrate to a federal judge the factual and legal grounds for detention.4 I will explain why the cases of the Civil War did not assume the landmark importance, despite their circumstances and language, as a Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, or Brown v. Board of Education, but instead showed the deferential attitude of the Supreme Court to the other branches of the government during wartime. Merryman was a Maryland militia officer who had blown up railroad bridges between Washington, D.C. and the North, and was training secessionist troops in the earliest days of the Civil War.5 Milligan was an alleged member of an insurgent force in Indiana that was sympathetic to the Confederacy.6 He was tried and sentenced by a military commission-an old form of ad hoc military court established by commanders for the trial of violations of the laws of war and the administration of justice in occupied territory.7 * Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Chapman Law School (2008-09); Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. The author thanks Ben Petersen and Janet Galeria for outstanding research assistance. -
Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v. -
And Justice for All: Indiana’S Federal Courts
And Justice for All: Indiana’s Federal Courts Teacher’s Guide Made possible with the support of The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Inc. Indiana Historical Society Heritage Support Grants are provided by the Indiana Historical Society and made possible by Lilly Endowment, Inc. The R. B. Annis Educational Foundation Indiana Bar Association This is a publication of Gudaitis Production 2707 S. Melissa Court 812-360-9011 Bloomington, IN 47401 Copyright 2017 The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Inc. All rights reserved The text of this publication may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the written permission of the copyright owner. All inquiries should be addressed to Gudaitis Production. Printed in the United States of America Contents Credits ............................................................................................................................iv Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Curriculum Connection ..................................................................................................1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................3 Video Program Summary ...............................................................................................3