The Chief Justice As Leader: the Case of Morrison Remick Waite
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
William & Mary Law Review Volume 14 (1972-1973) Issue 4 Article 6 May 1973 The Chief Justice as Leader: The Case of Morrison Remick Waite D. Grier Stephenson Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation D. Grier Stephenson Jr., The Chief Justice as Leader: The Case of Morrison Remick Waite, 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 899 (1973), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol14/iss4/6 Copyright c 1973 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS LEADER: THE CASE OF MORRISON REMICK WAITE D. GRIER STEPHENSON, JR.* What does all this mean? I suppose I shallrealize it all bye and bye. But it seems strangenow.' In recent years, social scientists have found the role of the Chief Justice of the United States to offer an intriguing example of leadership in small groups. Moreover, as political scientists become increasingly concerned with the influence which court conferences and intra-court social rela- tions have on judicial decision-making, it is necessary that the concept of judicial leadership be supplied a firmer empirical underpinning. Based in part on the earlier work of Professor Robert F. Bales,2 Profes- sor David Danelski in 1960 applied the concept of dual leadership func- tions-"task" and "social" leadership-to the judicial behavior of the Chief Justice.3 According to Danelski, a task leader presents his views with force and clarity; defends those views successfully in debate and discussion with his colleagues; provides guidance for perplexing ques- tions; and assumes substantial responsibility for making suggestions, orienting discussions, and writing opinions. A social leader relieves ten- sion, encourages solidarity and agreement, attends to the emotional needs of his colleagues (especially when their views are rejected by the majority), and is often the best-liked member of the Court.4 Character- *AB., Davidson College; MA., PhD., Princeton University. Associate Professor, Franklin and Marshall College. 1. Letter from Morrison R. Waite to Amelia Waite, March 13, 1874, on file in Mor- rison R. Waite Papers, Library of Congress [hereinafter cited as Waite Papers]. Standardized spelling and punctuation have been supplied in material reproduced from the Waite papers. 2. See generally R. Balms, IN-zaAcnoN Paocss AxALvsis: A MEmToD Foa THF STUDY OF SMALL GROUPS (1950). 3. D. Danelski, The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court, 1960 (unpublished paper delivered at the 1960 meeting of the American Political Science Association). A shorter version of this paper was first reprinted in W. MuRarr & C. PRiTcHELr, COURTS, Juimns AND PoLtscs 497-508 (1961). More recently, the same version has appeared in J. KEssEL, G. CoLE & R. REMDIG, Micaopornrcs 266-74 (1970). 4. W. MuRnY & C. PRITcHl=r, supra note 3, at 497-98. [ 899] WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:899" izing leadership in terms of these task and social functions confirms "the common sense observation that a man who wishes to exert influence over his fellows can do so most effectually if he is both intellectually disci- plined and tactful in interpersonal relations." I Professor Walter Murphy has employed the same dichotomy, but has outlined the task and social functions in slightly different detail. The task leader, he says, is concerned with getting the job done. "He tends to ignore personal relations and instead to rivet his attention on the effi- cient solution of problems which confront the group." The social lead- er, maintains Murphy, "provides the warmth and friendliness which make interpersonal relations pleasant or even possible. He tends to raise the self-esteem of other members of the group, to accept suggestions readily, to be quick to relieve tensions with a laugh or a friendly joke." I One shortcoming in the descriptions of task leadership utilized by Danelski and Murphy is the combination of the roles of the Chief Justice as manager and as persuasive thinker. It is submitted that a division of the concept of task leadership into concepts of managerialand intellectual leadership can serve to produce additional insight into what a Chief Jus- tice must do in order to be considered a leader both by his colleagues and by the scholars of a later day.7 A Chief Justice as a managerial leader must stay abreast of the docket, maintain a maximum degree of court unity, provide expeditious direc- tion of the judicial conference, and assign opinions thoughtfully and with deliberation. Intellectual leadership may be found in a Chief Justice who presents his views forcefully and persuasively, is a principal source of ideas and doctrine, and provides tactical and strategic guidance in political dilemmas. As noted, these functions comprising managerial and intellectual lead- ership seem to lie within the broader concept of task leadership. The advantage of applying a trichotomy of managerial, intellectual, and so- cial leadership instead of a dichotomy of task and social leadership is especially apparent when the individual being studied appears to perform certain task functions better than others. This situation can arise when 5. Murphy, Marshaling the Court: Leadership, Bargaining, and the judicial Process, 29 U. Cm. L. Rzv. 640, 642 (1962). 6. Id. at 641. 7. As scholars make greater use of the papers of Justices of the Supreme Court, living Justices may wish to protect the privacy of their tombs by destroying certain docu- ments when they retire. See Mason, Charles Evans Hughes: An Appeal to the Bar of History, 6 VAND. L. REv. 1 (1952). J19731 CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE a Chief Justice reaches a bench already populated by at least one intel- lectual giant whose doctrinal and policy persuasions are shared by a majority of the sitting Justices. Under such circumstances, the new Chief Justice may never become an intellectuall'eader, even if he shares the same persuasions, but may nonetheless exhibit managerial talents of a high order. The trichotomy proposed here is thus intended as a refine- ment of the Danelski dichotomy, highlighting leadership in sharper detail by focusing on the Chief Justice in his managerial, intellectual, and so- cial functions. This trichotomy is especially appropriate for an exam- ination of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite. After a description of the functioning of the Court prior to Waite's appointment as Chief Justice and the political and personal consequences of that appointment, the discussion will focus upon the personalities of the Justices with whom Waite served. Next, Waite's social leadership, as manifested by Court harmony, will be examined. The inquiry then will focus upon the managerial leadership of the Chief Justice, with par- ticular emphasis on his assignment of opinions. Finally, Waite's intel- lectual leadership will be analyzed in the context of his opinion in the celebrated Munn v. Illinoiscase. THE WAITE ERA While first impressions are not necessarily lasting ones and the cir- cumstances surrounding the advent of a political or judicial chieftain do not necessarily control the development of his career, still it is entirely possible that conditions prevailing at the time of one's arrival in office can affect that environment out of which leadership arises. With these caveats in mind, an examination may be made of the position and prestige of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justiceship at the time of Waite's appointment, the circumstances of his appointment, and the Court per- sonnel during his tenure. A summary of these materials prepared for Mr. Waite in 1874 would have been something less than auspicious. The Supreme Court under Salmon P. Chase Although studies on the attitudes of the population toward Supreme Court Justices were unknown in Waite's day,8 there are indications that the Court by 1874 had not recovered fully from the diminished prestige 8. For a discussion -of attitudes toward today's Supreme Court see Kessel, The Su- preme Court and the American People, 10 MmwEsr J. PoL. Sci. 167 (1966). Note the discussion of other literature in G. ScautBET, TiR CoNsnTrioNAL PoLrrY 143-51 (1970). WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:899 suffered during the last years of Chief Justice Taney's tenure. Lincoln and Taney were great antagonists, in large part because Taney and sev- eral of the Justices had absented themselves from the "dominant national alliance." 9 Indeed, when Salmon P. Chase became Chief Justice in 1864, the Court appeared to some observers to be, at best, a "fossilized circle of venerable antiquities" 10 and to others, at worst, a group tainted by disloyal or even treasonous attitudes. The prestige of the Court "was at its lowest ebb. From Dred Scott through the Civil War, the Court suf- fered from acute public and official distrust. In case of another disaster, it had a very small inventory of public confidence to fall back on." 11 Several factors hindered the Court's recovery from the despondency of the war and immediate post-war years. Besides the obviously limiting factor of time-Chase's relatively short tenure was overshadowed by the six and a half decades during which Marshall and Taney had served- Chase manifested ambitions to be President. 12 Moreover, a stroke in 1870 left Chase with physical infirmities which probably reduced his personal influence over his colleagues, some of whom were strong-willed and had political and judicial aspirations of their own. Justice Miller (who, to- gether with Justices Swayne and Strong, had eagerly sought to be Taney's successor) remarked that Swayne "artfully beslobbered the President" when Chase became ill, in the event that the Chief Justiceship should become vacant.'" Finally, Chase lost control of his Court when a majority made a sudden reversal on the legal tender question, 14 marking another "self-inflicted Wound" 15 for the institution still suffering from the reverberations of its Dred Scott decision.'6 On this and other major policy questions, Chase led the way only part of the time.17 Chase's 9.