Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (164 page)

69
. John Marshal to Samuel Chase, 23 Jan. 1805,
Papers of Marshall
, 6: 347–48.

70
. Presser,
Original Misunderstanding
, 157; Ellis,“Impeachment of Chase,” in Belknap, ed.,
American Political Trials
, 72–73; Andrew Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy: The Struggle to Fuse Egalitarianism and Capitalism in Jeffersonian Pennsylvania
(Lawrence, KS, 2004), 85.

71
. In England in the Eighteenth Century judges could be removed upon a simple address by both houses of Parliament to the crown. the Act of Settlement giving tenure to judges during good Behavior Applied Only to the Crown. See Saikrishna Prakash and Steven d. Smith,“how to Remove a Federal Judge,”
Yale Law Journal
, 116 (2006), 72–137.

72
. TJ to Giles, 20 April 1807, in L and B, eds.,
Writings of Jefferson
, 9: 191; Dumas Malone,
Jefferson the President: Second Term, 1805–1809
(Boston, 1974), 367–68; Gouverneur Morris to John Marshall, 26 June 1807,
Papers of Marshall
, 7: 54.

73
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis,
229.

74
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 234.

75
. Governor to the Assembly, 21 Nov. 1800,“Papers of the Governors, 1785–1817,” ed. George Edward Reed and W. W. Griest,
Pennsylvania Archives
, 4th Ser. (Harrisburg, 1900) 4: 460–461.

76
. Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 80.

77
. Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 99, 141, 142.

78
. Elizabeth K. Henderson,“the Attack on the Judiciary in Pennsylvania, 1800–1810,”
Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog
., 61 (1937), 113–36; Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 88.

79
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 157–70, quotation at 165.

80
. Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 133.

81
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 173, 163–64; James Headley Peeling,“Governor McKean and the Pennsylvanian Jacobins (1799–1808),”
Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog
., 54 (1930), 320–54; Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 153.

82
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 174–81.

83
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 179; Michael Les Benedict,“Laissez-Faire and Liberty: A Re-Evaluation of the Meaning and Origins of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism,”
Law and History Review
, 3 (1985), 323–26; Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 145.

84
. Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 175, 178.

85
. John R. Commons et al., eds.,
A Documentary History of American Industrial Society
(Cleveland, 1919–1911), 3: 231–32; Christopher L. Tomlins,
Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic
(Cambridge, UK, 1993), 133.

86
. Shankman,
Crucible of American Democracy
, 195.

87
. Morton J. Horwitz,
The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860
(Cambridge, ma, 1977), 21, 22.

88
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 221.

89
. Ellis,
Jeffersonian Crisis
, 246.

90
. William T. Utter,“Ohio and the English Common Law,”
Mississippi Valley Historical Review
, 16 (1929–1930), 328–31.

91
. Although Justice Louise D. Brandeis Declared in the Erie Railroad Co. decision (1938) that “there is no federal general common law,” there still remains at present a specialized federal common law.

1
. Albert J. Beveridge,
The Life of John Marshall
(Boston, 1919), 4: 81.

2
. Jean Edward Smith,
John Marshall: Definer of a Nation
(New York, 1996), 5.

3
. Charles F. Hobson,
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law
(Lawrence, KS, 1996), 15; R. Kent Newmyer,
John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court
(Baton Rouge, 2001), 80;
Diary and Letters of Rutherford B. Hayes
, ed. Charles R. Williams (Columbus, OH, 1922–1926), 1: 116.

4
. Hobson,
The Great Chief Justice: Marshall
, 20.

5
. TJ to Monroe, 13 Apr. 1800, in L and B, eds.,
Writings of Jefferson
, 19: 120.

6
. Kathryn Turner, “The Appointment of Chief Justice Marshall,”
WMQ
, 17 (1960), 145, 155, 157.

7
. Marshall to AH, 1 Jan 1801,
Papers of Marshall
, 6: 46–47; Editorial Note, ibid., 379.

8
. AH,
Federalist
No. 78.

9
. John Jay to JA, 2 Jan. 1801, in Maeva Marcus et al., eds.,
The Documentary History of the United States Supreme Court
(New York, 1992) 4:664; R. Kent Newmyer,
The Supreme Court Under Marshall and Taney
(Arlington Heights, IL, 1968), 26, 37.

10
. Jefferson Came to believe that this practice of justices issuing a single opinion instead of seriatim opinions was wrong-headed and the result of Lord Mansfield’s influence on Marshall. TJ to Johnson, 27 Oct. 1822, in Paul L. Ford, ed.,
The Works of Thomas Jefferson: Federal Edition
(New York, 1905), 12: 250.

11
. Smith,
John Marshall
, 403.

12
. George L. Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson,
Foundations of Power: John Marshall, 1801–1815
, vol. 2 of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York, 1981), 652.

13
. Smith,
John Marshall
, 285–86.

14
. Haskins and Johnson,
Foundations of Power: Marshall
, 74.

15
. Editorial Note, United States Circuit Court for North Carolina (1803),
Papers of Marshall
, 6: 144.

16
. Marshall to St. George Tucker, 27 Nov. 1800,
Papers of Marshall
, 6: 23.

17
. Smith,
John Marshall
, 284 n.

18
. Stephen B. Presser,
“The Original Misunderstanding”: The English, the Americans, and the Dialectic of Federalist Jurisprudence
(Durham, 1991), 81, 97.

19
. Marshall to Richard Peters, 23 Nov. 1807,
Papers of Marshall
, 7: 165.

20
. Thomas P. Slaughter, “‘The King of Crimes’: Early American Treason Law, 1787–1860,” in Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds.,
Launching the “Extended Republic”: The Federalist Era
(Charlottesville, 1996), 110–18; Joseph Wheelan,
Jefferson’s Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary
(New York, 2005), 10.

21
. Editorial Note,
United States v. Burr
(1807),
Papers of Marshall
, 7: 3–11, quotations at 9, 10; TJ to Eppes, 28 May 1807, in Ford, ed.,
Writings of Jefferson
, 9: 67–68.

22
. Smith,
John Marshall
, 313; Newmyer,
Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court
, 157–75.

23
. Despite Marshall’s Statement, the Congress, according to a distinguished constitutional scholar, had not added to the Court’s original jurisdiction. See Akhil Reed Amar,
The American Constitution: A Biography
(New York, 2005), 232–33.

24
. Dumas Malone,
Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801–1805
(Boston, 1970), 149.

25
.
Marbury v. Madison
(1803), in William Cranch, ed.,
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
(Washington, DC, 1804), 177.

26
. Malone,
Jefferson the President: First Term
, 155.

27
. AH,
Federalist
No. 78.

28
. Some historians have claimed that the origins of the modern practice of judicial review can best be found, not in the Court of john marshall, but in the history of the last century or so. Indeed, the term itself was apparently only coined by constitutional scholar Edward Corwin in 1910. For these revisionist studies, see Christopher Wolfe,
The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law
(New York, 1986); J. M. Sosin,
The Aristocracy of the Long Robe: The Origins of Judicial Review in America
(Westport, CT, 1989); Robert Lowry Clinton,
Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
(Lawrence, KS, 1989). William E. Nelson,
Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review
(Lawrence, KS, 2000) is a sensible account.

29
.
Commonwealth of Va. v. Caton and Others
(Nov. 1782), in Peter Call, ed.,
Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia
(Richmond, 1833), 4: 8. Philip Hamburger,
Law and Judicial Duty
(Cambridge, MA, 2008), emphasizes the degree to which English and colonial judges already exercised a broad judicial review based on their conventional assumptions about the hierarchal character of law and about the duty of judges to decide in accord with law. Hence, he contends, the American state judges who challenged legislative acts in the aftermath of the Revolution were doing nothing new. But, of course, many people thought the courts were doing something new and protested vehemently.

30
.
Commonwealth of Va. v. Caton
, in Call, ed.,
Reports
, 4: 17–18.

31
. Richard Spaight to James Iredell, 12 Aug. 1787, in Griffith J. McRee,
Life and Correspondence of James Iredell
(New York, 1857–1858), 2: 169–70.

32
. Madison’s Observations on Jefferson’s Draft of a Constitution for Virginia, 1788,
Papers of Jefferson
, 6: 315.

33
. J. W. Gough,
Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History
(Oxford, 1955, 1961), 186–90, 206, 214.

34
. James Iredell to Richard Spaight, 26 Aug. 1787, McRee,
Life of James Iredell
, 2: 172–76.

35
.
Commonwealth of Va. v. Caton
, in Call, ed.,
Reports
, 4: 17.

36
. Iredell, “To the Public,” 17 Aug. 1786, in McRee,
Life of Iredell
, 2: 147.

37
. Max Farrand, ed.,
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(New Haven, 1911, 1937), 2: 430; JM, quoted in Maeva Marcus, “Judicial Review in the Early Republic,” in Hoffman and Albert, eds.,
Launching the “Extended Republic
,” 31; JM, “Helvidius No. II,” 1793, in Guillard Hunt, ed.,
The Writings of James Madison
(New York, 1900–1910), 6: 155; TJ to Spencer Roane, 6 Sept. 1819,
Jefferson: Writings
, 1425–28.

38
.
Federalist
No. 49.

39
. Sylvia Snowiss,
Judicial Review and the law of the Constitution
(New Haven, 1990), 74.

40
. Jeff Roedel, “Stoking the Doctrinal Furnace: Judicial Review and the New York Council of Revision,”
New York History
, 69 (1988), 261–83.

41
. Farrand, ed.,
Records of the Federal Convention
, 1: 97, 73.

42
.
Annals of Congress
, 2nd Congress, 1st Session (April, 1792), 3: 557.

43
. Marcus, “Judicial Review,” in Hoffman and Albert, eds.,
Launching the “Extended Republic
,” 36–37.

44
. G. S. Rowe, “Judicial Tyrant and Vox Populi: Pennsylvanians View Their State Supreme Court, 1777–1799,”
Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog
., 118 (1994), 55.

45
.
Hylton v. United States
, 3
Dallas
171 (1796).

46
.
Cooper v. Telfair
, 4
Dallas
18 (1800).

47
. On the common law courts’ traditional authority and duty to distinguish between superior and inferior laws, see Mary Sarah Bilder, “The Corporate Origins of Judicial Review,”
Yale Law Journal
, 116 (2006), 502–66; Philip Hamburger,
Law and Judicial Duty
(Cambridge, MA, 2008); and Gordon S. Wood, “The Origins of Judicial Review,”
Suffolk Law Review
, 22 (1988), 1293–1307.

48
. David Lieberman,
The Province of Legislation Determined: Legal Theory in Eighteenth-Century Britain
(Cambridge, UK, 1989), 16–20.