DOCSLIB.ORG

Telling the Story of the Hughes Court Richard D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Telling the Story of the Hughes Court Richard D University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 1996 Telling the Story of the Hughes Court Richard D. Friedman University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/640 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Judges Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Friedman, Richard D. "Telling the Story of the Hughes Court." Law Quad. Notes 39, no. 1 (1996): 32-9. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PHOTO COURTESY OF HARRIS AND EWING. COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES This article is based on a paper delivered u at the annual meeting of the American* Society for Legal History in Houston in October 1995. For a copy of the complete version, with footntws, please contact LQN or Professor Friedrnan at Court (3 13) 747- 1078, [email protected] ,/ or the Court, as for society at large, this was era of enormous turmoil and nsformation. Indeed, I believe it was "The Crucible of the Modem Constitution." When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, I feel fortunate to be part of the Devise So I have a story to tell and a mysten Jr., died in 1935, he left the bulk of his History not only because it places me in to solve. The story is of how this transfor- estate to the United States Government. a wonderful neighborhood of authors, mation was achieved. And at the heart of This gift, known as the Oliver Wendell but also because it is a tremendously the ston lies this myster).: In the spring Hnlmes Devise, sat in the Treasury for important prosect; its period of gestation of 1937, shortly after Roosevelt's land- about twenty years, until Congress set up has been very long. but so will be its slide re-election victory and during the a Presidential Commission to determine shelf-life. And I feel particularly fortunate height of the Court-packing battle, the what to do with it. The principal use of to have the Hughes Court assignment not Court seemed suddenly to become more the money has been to fund a multi- only because 1 have already spent liberal. To what extent, if any, did these volume History of the United States considerable time studying the Hughes political factors account for this apparent Supreme Court. The history of the Court - In what seems like a prior life. suitch? But implicit in this question, as project itself has not always been a happy I \note a dissertation on Hughes as Chief I have phrased it, is another: To what one, for some of the authors have been Justice - but also because of the extent was there actually a suitch? unable to complete their volumes. importance of the period. For the Court, At the broadest level, of course there Among them was one of my teachers, as for society at large, this was an era of was: Constitutional law was far different the late Paul Freund, who was the first enormous turmoil and transformation. in 1941 from what it was in 1930. general editor of the project and also Indeed, I believe it was "The Crucible of Indeed, the old constitutionalism \\.as planned to write the volume on the the Modem Constitution." That, at any effectively dead as soon as Roo~e\~elt's period in which Charles Evans Hughes rate, will be the subtitle of my ~~olume. appointees began to replace the consera- was Chief Justice, from 1930 to 1941. The period began with what has been tive Four Horsemen in the fall of 1937. 1 have had the good fortune to receive the called the old constitutionalism still Liberal decisions resulting from these succeeding assignment to write this apparently dominant, continued through personnel changes do not represent a volume. the crisis that culminated in the struggle response by the Court to political over Franklin Roosevelt's plan to pack pressure; the new Justices were part of the Court in 1937, and ended as the the victorious side of 1936, not its Justices appointed by Roosevelt consoli- cowered foes. But because these person- dated their hold on the Court and on the dramatically new constitutionalism that still prevails. 7-" . '. -,.; ' ? and then tail&three time .ixgawn<2. I. m c ., . J i .c.- , ., might decide a of:c&&.+C5:2.. , .. nto1on'the other side. - ' X, nel changes occufred so soon after the -- fipheld a fir armore mveepIng zqyiatioa of If there ivai a strategic decision&, Court-packing battle concluded, they labor relations, ahunder the cmmerae therefore, it would have had to be one elf may make it harder to discern what the power. these two Justices*-me hve thought Court's reaction to political pressure was. These developments were draznaic, that this was a role played by.Hughrs. He Certainly, in the spring of 1937, while but we must be mti s in concluding was, after all, Ee Chief Justice, he was a the battle was hot, the Court issued a whether, or to whn &t, the 1937 commanding figure, ahd he itood flurry of significant decisions reaching decisions represented a &den adoption ideologically near the center of the Court. liberal results, far different from the of a new ideology. I belie that.to But there is no basis for concluding that results of an earlier flurry of significant answer these questions quires a great he had strategic control over the Court, decisions in 1936. The most important deal of attention to the grubby details of and there is sound reasdn for concluding cases break down into three sets, which individual Justices and individual cases. that he did not. Indeed, Justice Brandeis we may refer to as the minimum wage, It is tempting to think of the Court - told Felix Frankurter at a crucial moment general welfare, and commerce clause organically, as an institution that moves ' that Hughes was depressed becauqe he cases. In 1936, in Morehead v. New York and makes strategic decisions like an had no control over the Court. Before the ex rel. Tipaldo, the Court held a state army. Perhaps this model is an qppropri- crisis, Hughes was in the dissent in too minimum wage law invalid; but the next ate portrayal of the Court when John many cases of political sigmf&nce to year, in West Coast Hate2 Co. v. Panish, Marshall dominated it. But it does not suppose that he had any real measure of the Court upheld such a law in overturn- come close to reflecting the Court of early control. Hughes.did not solicit his ing the precedent on which Morehead 1937. Obviously, the Court as a whole, colleagues for votes, and he seems to was based. In 1936, in United States v. acting in conference, could not have been have taken an austere view of his role and Butler, the Court held that the Agricul- a strategic decisionmaker; it was too the decisionmaking process of the Court: tural Adjustment Act had exceeded the badly divided; There were blocs on the The Justices each had their say in confer- federal government's ~oweito tax and court, four Justices on the right and three ence, they voted, and they moved on to spend, but in the Social Security Cases of an the left, that held informal caucuses at the next case. 1937 the Court upheld the exercise of which they presumably discussed tactics Then how about Justice Roberts? He those powers in the Social Securiry Act. for conference>.Buteven assurmng each was not in strategic control of the Court; In 1936, in Carter v. Carter coal Co., bloc remained cohesive (which was not he controlled no one's vate but own, the Court held invaw a Congressional always so) neither could prdin any ' and he does not seem to have had attempt under the commerce clause to case without support tram the middle; significant persuasive power over his regulate labor relations in a basic produc- the conservative Four Horsemen needed colleaeues. But certainly Roberts had a tive industry, but in 1937, in NLRB v. the vote of either Chief Justice Hugha ar Jars & hughlin Steel Corp., the Court Owen Roberts, and the liberals needed both their votes. great degree of control over the Court's Hughes and Roberts, rrspmded to certain issues. That is, if we know that A is decisions, kcaw on many significaw pblitical presmm than it would be to more conservative h,Bon issue 1, we issues he was the man in the-middle, the draw such generalizations from the may dbe able to predict how they will Justice most likely to join the conserva- propositian that the Court responded to stand in relation to one another on issue 2. tive fou~to-make a majority. such pressure. TZle trouble is that neither of these The then, should not be In understanding what happened, premises is inevitably true - or any- phrased as whether, or to what extent, phrasing the question in terms of the where close. Each Justice is subject to his 1 the ~iurtwas affected by political CO~rather than of Junice Roberts and own set of influences, and they may pressure. The key question ishvhether Chief Justice Hughes probably would differ, in a multivariate way, from one ' Justice Roberts was affected by political make little difference if we could reliably Justice to another.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: the Rp Esident, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal James F
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Books 2012 FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The rP esident, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal James F. Simon New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Simon, James F., "FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The rP esident, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal" (2012). Books. 44. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books/44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. FDR and Chief Justice Hughes JAMES F. SIMON Simon & Schuster 12l0 Avenue uf the Americas New York, NY 10020 Copyright il') 2012 by James F. Simon All rights lTscrvcd, including the right to rcpmduce this hook or portions thereof in any f(mn whatsrwvcr. Fm inf(mnation address Simon & Schuster Subsidiary Rights Dep<lrtment, 1210 Avenue of the Americ1s, New York, NY I 0020. First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition February 2012 SIMON & SC :HUSTER and colophon arc registered trademarh of Simon & Schuster, Inc. For information about special discounts fm hulk purchases, please etmract Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-1:\66-'506-1949 '>r [email protected]. The Simon & Schuster Speakers Rureau can bring authors to your live event. Fm more int(mnation or to hook an event omtact the Simon & Schusrer Speakers Bureau at 1-1:\66-241:\-3049 or visit our website at www.simompeakers.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    T a b l e C o n T e n T s I s s u e 9 s u mm e r 2 0 1 3 o f pg 4 pg 18 pg 26 pg 43 Featured articles Pg 4 abraham lincoln and Freedom of the Press A Reappraisal by Harold Holzer Pg 18 interbranch tangling Separating Our Constitutional Powers by Judith s. Kaye Pg 26 rutgers v. Waddington Alexander Hamilton and the Birth Pangs of Judicial Review by David a. Weinstein Pg 43 People v. sanger and the Birth of Family Planning clinics in america by Maria T. Vullo dePartments Pg 2 From the executive director Pg 58 the david a. Garfinkel essay contest Pg 59 a look Back...and Forward Pg 66 society Officers and trustees Pg 66 society membership Pg 70 Become a member Back inside cover Hon. theodore t. Jones, Jr. In Memoriam Judicial Notice l 1 From the executive director udicial Notice is moving forward! We have a newly expanded board of editors Dearwho volunteer Members their time to solicit and review submissions, work with authors, and develop topics of legal history to explore. The board of editors is composed J of Henry M. Greenberg, Editor-in-Chief, John D. Gordan, III, albert M. rosenblatt, and David a. Weinstein. We are also fortunate to have David l. Goodwin, Assistant Editor, who edits the articles and footnotes with great care and knowledge. our own Michael W. benowitz, my able assistant, coordinates the layout and, most importantly, searches far and wide to find interesting and often little-known images that greatly compliment and enhance the articles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 28 Number 2 Symposium on Civility and Judicial Ethics in the 1990s: Professionalism in the pp.583-646 Practice of Law Symposium on Civility and Judicial Ethics in the 1990s: Professionalism in the Practice of Law The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility Edward McGlynn Gaffney Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward McGlynn Gaffney Jr., The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility, 28 Val. U. L. Rev. 583 (1994). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol28/iss2/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Gaffney: The Importance of Dissent and the Imperative of Judicial Civility THE IMPORTANCE OF DISSENT AND THE IMPERATIVE OF JUDICIAL CIVILITY EDWARD McGLYNN GAFFNEY, JR.* A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the errorinto which the dissentingjudge believes the court to have been betrayed... Independence does not mean cantankerousness and ajudge may be a strongjudge without being an impossibleperson. Nothing is more distressing on any bench than the exhibition of a captious, impatient, querulous spirit.' Charles Evans Hughes I. INTRODUCTION Charles Evans Hughes served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1910 to 1916 and as Chief Justice of the United States from 1930 to 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Imperial Presidency and the Framework for Executive Power, 1933-1960
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 4-2013 Building A House of Peace: The Origins of the Imperial Presidency and the Framework for Executive Power, 1933-1960 Katherine Elizabeth Ellison Western Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ellison, Katherine Elizabeth, "Building A House of Peace: The Origins of the Imperial Presidency and the Framework for Executive Power, 1933-1960" (2013). Dissertations. 138. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/138 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUILDING A HOUSE OF PEACE: THE ORIGINS OF THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR EXECUTIVE POWER, 1933-1960 by Katherine Elizabeth Ellison A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History Western Michigan University April 2013 Doctoral Committee: Edwin A. Martini, Ph.D., Chair Sally E. Hadden, Ph.D. Mark S. Hurwitz, Ph.D. Kathleen G. Donohue, Ph.D. BUILDING A HOUSE OF PEACE: THE ORIGINS OF THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR EXECUTIVE POWER, 1933-1960 Katherine Elizabeth Ellison, Ph.D. Western Michigan University, 2013 This project offers a fundamental rethinking of the origins of the imperial presidency, taking an interdisciplinary approach as perceived through the interactions of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.
    [Show full text]
  • How a U.S. Supreme Court Decision Impacted a 1939 Newark Labor Strike. Gordon Bond
    ew Jersey’s nickname as the Garden State reflects a deep agricultural heritage going back to the colonial era. NFollowing the industrial revolution, however, the state evolved an equally robust manufacturing base that would sustain its growth until the deindustrialization of the late 20th century. How a U.S. Urban centers across the Hudson River from Manhattan and the Supreme Court Delaware River from Philadelphia were especially packed with factories of all sorts. Places such as Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, decision impacted and Camden became reflections of the best and worst of American capitalism. Perhaps the best-known New Jersey a 1939 Newark example of the sometimes adversarial relationship between labor strike. capital and labor is the five-month long 1913 strikes and work stoppages by Peterson’s silk mill workers. Less recalled, however, was a smaller Newark labor conflict shortly before World War II Gordon Bond that came as a consequence of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. J. E. MERGOTT CO. I learned about this strike in a roundabout way, because of my interest in collecting antique cameras. Since I moved to Newark six years ago, I became particularly interested in cameras manufactured here by the J. E. Mergott Company in the 1940s. The pressed-metal box camera was just one of a wide range of various metal products the company was making by that time. It all began more humbly when Prussian immigrant and machinist (born March 14, 1850) Julius Eugene Mergott opened his one-man shop at 19 Green Street, Newark, in 1878. By 1889 the enterprise had grown large enough to be incorporated and moved to larger quarters at 10–12 Ward Street, where it further grew until an even The Mergott Sit-Down | Gordon Bond | www.GardenStateLegacy.com Issue 44 June 2019 Illustration of the J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hughes Court Docket Books: the Late Terms, 1937–1940, 55 Am
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2015 The uH ghes Court Docket Books: The Late Terms, 1937–1940 Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Hughes Court Docket Books: The Late Terms, 1937–1940, 55 Am. J. Legal Hist. 361 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1300 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Hughes Court Docket Books: The Late Terms, 1937-1940 by BARRY CUSHMAN* ABSTRACT For many years, the docket books kept by a number of the justices of the Hughes Court have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Yet the existence of these docket books was not widely known, and access to them was highly restricted. Recently, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers the first-ever examination of the available docket book entries relevant to what scholars commonly regard as the major decisions of rendered during the late years of the Hughes Court, from the 1937 through the 1940 Terms. The decisions examined concern the Commerce Clause, the dormant Commerce Clause, substantive due process, equal protection, the general law, anti- trust, labor relations, intergovernmental tax immunities, criminal procedure, civil rights, and civil liberties.
    [Show full text]
  • Of an Equally Divided Supreme Court
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 6 2005 Recusals and the "Problem" of an Equally Divided Supreme Court Ryan Black Lee Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons Recommended Citation Ryan Black and Lee Epstein, Recusals and the "Problem" of an Equally Divided Supreme Court, 7 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 75 (2005). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol7/iss1/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECUSALS AND THE "PROBLEM" OF AN EQUALLY DIVIDED SUPREME COURT Ryan Black and Lee Epstein* INTRODUCTION For over five decades now we political scientists have been systematically studying the United States Supreme Court. We have examined how the justices attain their seats 1 what factors explain the Court's decision to grant certiorari, what impact oral arguments have, 3 whether the Chief Justice self-assigns particularly important cases, 4 why the justices vote the way they do,5 what rationales they invoke to justify their decisions,6 and in what ways those decisions affect social, legal, and economic policy. 7 In short, it seems as though no feature of the Court has * Ryan Black ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. student in Political Science at Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernizing the Law of Open-Air Speech: the Hughes Court and the Birth of Content-Neutral Balancing
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 13 (2004-2005) Issue 4 Article 5 April 2005 Modernizing the Law of Open-Air Speech: The Hughes Court and the Birth of Content-Neutral Balancing William E. Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Repository Citation William E. Lee, Modernizing the Law of Open-Air Speech: The Hughes Court and the Birth of Content-Neutral Balancing, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1219 (2005), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol13/iss4/5 Copyright c 2005 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj MODERNIZING THE LAW OF OPEN-AIR SPEECH: THE HUGHES COURT AND THE BIRTH OF CONTENT-NEUTRAL BALANCING William E. Lee* INTRODUCTION On February 15, 2003, a massive crowd, perhaps as large as 400,000 people,' gathered in the streets of New York City to protest the impending war with Iraq. 2 Protest organizers had requested a permit for a march in front of the United Nations building, but city officials, concerned about security, refused to allow a parade. A federal district court upheld the city's decision to limit the protest to a stationary rally.4 Drawing upon Supreme Court precedents from the 1930s, the district court declared that while citizens have a right to use streets for public assembly, the * Professor, Grady College of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Georgia. ©William E. Lee, 2004. ' See Robert D. McFadden, Threats and Responses: Overview; From New York to Melbourne, Cries for Peace, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate But
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1992 The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine A.Leon Higginbotham Jr. William C. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Higginbotham, A.Leon Jr. and Smith, William C., "The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine" (1992). Minnesota Law Review. 793. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/793 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The William B. Lockhart Lecture* The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the "Separate But Equal" Doctrine A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.**and William C. Smith***/**** A century ago, the distinguished abolitionist, statesman and former slave, Frederick Douglass, pondered whether blacks would ever be full and equal participants in the American dream. He asked: [Can] American justice, American liberty, American civilization, American law, and American Christianity ... be made to include and protect alike and forever all American citizens in the rights which have been guaranteed to them by the organic and fundamental laws of the land?1 * This Essay is an expanded and annotated version of the William B. Lockhart Lecture Judge Higginbotham delivered at the University of Minnesota Law School on November 28, 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Supreme Court History Index
    INDEX TO THE JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY VOLUMES 1-44 (1976-2019) By JOEL FISHMAN, Ph.D., M.L.S. Associate Director for Lawyer Services, Emeritus Duquesne University Center for Legal Information/ Allegheny County Law Library Pittsburgh, PA Washington: The Supreme Court Historical Society, 2020 Copyright: The Supreme Court Historical Society, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents I. CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX .......................................................................................................................... 1 II. AUTHOR INDEX.......................................................................................................................................... 39 III. TITLE INDEX ............................................................................................................................................. 73 IV. SUBJECT INDEX ...................................................................................................................................... 108 1. Introductions ................................................................................................................................................. 108 2. Articles. .......................................................................................................................................................... 111 Administrative Law ......................................................................................................................................... 111 Admiralty Law ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Waite Court at the Bar of History
    Denver Law Review Volume 81 Issue 2 Article 8 December 2020 The Waite Court at the Bar of History Donald Grier Stephenson Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Donald Grier Stephenson, The Waite Court at the Bar of History, 81 Denv. U. L. Rev. 449 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THE WAITE COURT AT THE BAR OF HISTORY DONALD GRIER STEPHENSON, JR.t INTRODUCTION "I have at last finished the opinion," Chief Justice Waite wrote to Bancroft Davis, the Court's Reporter of Decisions, on March 5, 1888. One suspects that Waite audibly exhaled as he penned that sentence.2 His reference was to the Telephone Cases,3 arguably the most significant patent litigation in the late nineteenth century, at least in terms of its ef- fects on the development of the telecommunications industry in the United States. Waite had been at work on his opinion for months, and understandably so. 4 Arguments in the cases had been heard over twelve days in January and February 1887. 5 The bench had split four to three over these eight challenges in circuit courts to Alexander Graham Bell's 1876 patent for the telephone. 6 A description of each of the patent dis- putes, Waite's opinion sustaining the patent, and Justice Bradley's much shorter dissent, all consumed more than five hundred pages-the entirety of volume 126 of the United States Reports.7 Waite's effort had been a burden, even for a Chief Justice accustomed to overwork.
    [Show full text]