University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Inception of the federal judiciary

(USC Thesis Other)

Inception of the federal judiciary

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content I CEPTI
OF THE
FEDER JUDICI Y
Thesis
Presented to the College of Ii•
Univeraity ot outhern California.
In partial ~~lfillment
of the
Requirements for the
Degree of Juris Doctor
I·
..
By
F. Paul Hornaday
ay 15. 1925
. .. . . . . . . . •··
I 7
L
BIE ,IOGR HY
I. Bancrort.
George., His~ory
of United t n.te s .
I
D. Appel ton Co.,
e '
York , 1 ,95.
II. Casson, Hampton L •• History of the ~upreme Court of the
United
P.
1
Ziegler Co., h ilad elphi 1 0
•
,
•
III. Cooley, Thomas
• •
General inc i:eals of Consti t ut ion-
al Law in ·the United ,t · 1.t es of
Boston, 1880
the Constitution.
Prine·ton University Pre s . rins t cn, 1~14.
V. Dougherty• J otJ.n H. , .. Th ......... e ...... _________ o _ f ___ t_h_e....,.. F ...... ed __ e __ r __ a ..... 1 ____ ........, _______ ___._
OTer Lesisl tion.
G. P. Tulnam & on, e York , 191 : .
ventione on the doption of the •eder 1 Con-
stitution. Vol. II •
ashington, 18 36.
VII. Federalist, The. Reprint of . lex nder H3.I?lilton , dited
by H. C. odge.
c. P. l?Utnam & one, l e York , 1888.
VIII. Haines, Charles . •• The America n Doctrine of Judici 1
Supremacy.
llacM illa.n Co., ew York, l 14.
IX. Hall, James ., C es on Constitution - 1
·· .est Publi shing Co., t. ul, 1 1 "' .
X. Hallam, Henry, Constitutional istory of ngl nd.
5th c ition, Harp r roa., e York, n.d.
XI. Journ ls of Crngress, Vol. I to XI, 17?4-1789.
~ dited in T Jibr ry of C ngre s by · .c. ord,
.ashingt on Gov rnment Press, 1907
XII. Kent, Jame c.-•, C entarie on
•
Vol. I,
ittle, ro n ~ Co., 1867
XIII. Lowry, . T., yllabue in ,,weric n Constitutional
History n d Ideals.
University of ' outhern C if or i· Press, . ... o -
geles, 1924.
I. Introduction.
II. Colonial Court.
1. \dmiralty CLurta.
a. e established by the in of gl nd.
b. As est blish by colonist s .
c. Jurisc iction of Ccngreas.
III. Court of ~ppeals in Cases of Ca ture.
1. stabli shment by Continent 1 C ngrees (1780).
2. Influence of this court.
IV. Ar·tfcles of C nf c er :- tio •
1. Problems of r tific ; tion.
~. Powers gr nte.
3. Judiciary under rtic so C nfedera.tion.
a. Prescribe means for haring federal questi ons.
b. Interst - te isputes.
c. .-:stablishment of court c omposed of six judges.
4. Failure of A rticles of C nf der r tion.
a. eed for n · ti on· 1 supr macy in judicial depart
ment.
b. Opinion of prominent leaders.
c. Proposed )1 ns for ju iciary.
l. Virginia Plan--one upreI ~ e Court an , Inf er
ior court s .
New Jersey Pl --One upreme Court.
V. Judiciary under C Jnatitution.
l. Ratification.
~. Juriodicti~n ct of 1?89.
a. Est~blishment of circuit and district courts.
b. Congress to provide inferior courts.
c. Appointment of 11 judges by ~ashington.
3. First Supreme Court.
a. John Ja,'B opinion of Federal Judi ciary vs.
Judge Cooley.
The Federal Judiciary a s tin lly 1ncorpor t in the
American Con~titution, evolve to coneider le extent
from the experience of the Continental Congre a tits sev
eral sessions and the C ngreas un er the rticles of Confed
eration preliminary to the fin l organiz tion n atablieh
ment of the present Congr a •
Uthough tbe colonies h ~ local court for the tri -1
of local cases, all miralty ca ea ere tried by n dmir
alty court under the control of the rown. ~a a r sult,
the judges of this court --.ere mere pupp ts of ing G orge,
before whom the rights of the Colonial erchant rine ere
either ignored or abused.
The first act of hostility on t h e p rt of t he Colon
ies against the other country 'ro ~ e from ti s cau •
Shipping as of prime i m portance to the col nist.
It meant their very existence. ngla.n bein en din
war continuously ith the oth r .uropean countries, cap
tured many of the ships belon in to the American colon
ists. This gaTe ri e to the absolute necessity of h ving
Colonial courts of dmiralty hich should mete out imp r
tial justice. The gro iing hostility of the Colonists in-
stead of proving a ,arnin,
of injustice ag inst them.
rove the Kin to further ·.1.ct o
·~in c ontrol of the dmir'lty
courts, he proc eded to use them for purpo es entirely ior
eign to their legitimate field of activity. ~or instance,
the functions of the Admiralty courtr- ere exten ed an us ed
as a mean, to c llect revenues ere ted by the obnoxious
stamp act. The a miralty jud e received hie ( l ry rom
tees estim~ ted u on the prop rty condemned by him lf, ith
the n tural result • Thus in the e · rly p·1rt of the ye ·1.r
1??5, continue outr ~ge , upon tunerican commerce committed
by the British s r1ipe of ar. spurred h e colon i st s to a.ct
of reprisal by fore at a rms. assa.chusetta 1 d the ay
during this a.me year by passing an act providing for the
fitting out of a rm ~ d ve eels n the establishment of a
court for the tria nd c ndemn tion of prize.
ederal jurisdiction came by necessity. The Contin-
ental Congress, follo in the ex:-unple of asaac usett.
soon equipped shi s to fight the .. ritie • hip were cap
tured and ·ashin ton, ho as Comman er-in-Chief of e ar
mies, 1aa made the sole jud e s to the iapo ition of the
prizes. ·· ashington a s not l a yer, but neceaai ty seemed
to thrust upon him the uty of being the acministrator of
justice. This ·u ioial acdition to his milit·· ry duties
aoon became too heavy for on m n t bear and soon ~fter
the outbre k of t h e Revolution, he re u sted the Continen
tal Congress to er ~ te courts to di pose of prize cs s .
Instead of the Continental Con ress cre·:.ting Fe eral
courts of ori inal jurisdiction, it looked for th easi st
tay out of a difficult situ tion. -tate courte for the
trying of loc 1 causes ere alrea yin e ~ist n e. h y not
have these court em owered ith original jurisdiction to
-2-
try ad iralty c· <. es? It , s o a cided nd .ngress there
upon requested each colony top a legi sl tion giving the
local superior an upreme courts :t iralty jurisdiction,
Congress re rvin to it elf appell te jurisdiction. Thus
the first step to rd the stablishment of t i on l judic-
1 ry ·· s taken.
-3-
t ccordin ly u on the re ue~t of Con res, the colo -
iats enacted las creating admir lty courts. Procedure ,as
different in each of thee courts, nd the scope of author
ity as like ise very ·1rrerent. The only p rticul r in
which all th court s greed a that trial should be by jury.
Congress he itated to create a eder 1 court. The
members thought th t if they create a court they ·old be
going beyond the po rs of the ederal gov mm .nt. ther
members of Congress b .lieve th· t c ommittee shculd al ay s
decide a case on ap eal. Undoubtedly this belief as due
to the influence of the l on existing English system; ad
miralty a pp , le un er the .. n lish system al aye being made
to a stan ing committee of th privy council. Congress fi
nally decided that it dio not have uthority to ere te a a
court, but th· ta committee hould ppoihte out of its
on members to deci e all c e appealed f tom the dmiralty
courts.
The appe late jur1 diction of the committee a pointed
by Congress ,as soon overthro n. An a ard a m:ule in the
state admiralty court of Pennsyl Tania an a. pe l ta.ken to
the C rassion 1 committee hich reverse the decision of
the state court. he s t te court refused t abide by the de
( l )
cision of the Con reaeional committee. The st ndin commit-
tee fraid to institute summary roceed · n s bee use of
the poaeibil ity of en angering eace ith the colonies. Thus
ended the first ederal judici ~ry.
The Continent 1 Congress, not to be dismayed in estab
lishing a :F'eder 1 judiciary, t o years later declared that
appellate jurisdiction for eci ing the legality of captures
( 2 )
on the high seas ·aa ve ted in itself. It est ablished the
first court in 1?80. It a composed of three judges select
ed by c·n ress. The court :1. a c lled "The court of appe le
in cases of capture.
0
This court .;;, not int r usted ,1th a
great deal of po er, but sin tructed to call upon Congress
·to enact fitting legislation in case an extelldion of its po -
er became necessary.
The influence of the "Court of appeal s in cases of
capture" laid the round tion for the ederal judiciary. The
decisions of this court re favorable consi ered by the
State courts. The idea of superior judic , ture in ·ederal
m tters exerci e by Federal courts as inst -lled in the
Americ; n mind.
The need of a more centralized form of government · s
known to all of the leaders of early f\meric. and in the
------------------
(1)
U •• vs. Judge . eters, 5 Cranch 115
(2)
Journals of Con ress, Vol. VI, • 10
year l??? ~ticles of Confederati ere iven to the et tee
to ratity. The et tea ere very slo in ratific tion oft
Articles of Conf eder·ition because they ere reluctant in re-
linquishing their po era ; the fer their o ers oul be
abuoed in the bans of other ; mall st te ere fraid of
-5-
the l rge; it as hard to select and define the r o er of
government .. d the .' stern lands prev nted the early form t ion
·of a national over· nment. The Articles i re finally r '1.tif ied
in the ye- ar l '7 •l, but duriri the long delay the State c, ourte
assumed great po er. This po er s very difficult to over-
come in the years th t follo ed, lead~ng up to our pre ent
(1)
Constitution.
The rticlea of Confederation gave Congress appellate
jurie iction in .. all isputes and cifferences now existing
or which may hereafter arise bet ·een to or more st - te con
cerning boundary, jurisdiction or ) ny ther cause ~h t .soever."
It prescribed the means of he ring all cases by Congress.
'
It failed to empo er Con > resa to establish c ,urts. Besides
the admiralty court before referred to, other courts ~hould
ha.Ye been est~bliahed. The Articles of Confeder tion evi-
' t
dently intended that Congress should constitute this appel-
late court~ but the issention, uepicion and politic 1 am
bition were so prevalent at the clo e of the Revolutionary
ar. that Congre sme ere not fit persons to be juoges of
.
any ·controversies. Letters of even the ea teemed ohn a.r-
'
shall eho th t even he aa not infallible d rin this per-
--- ------------
(1)
Lowry, .T., Ph •• ~yllabu
& Ideals. Pg. 79
in Am. Const . i tutional istory
(1)
iod. I olitici ns in Congress ere d termined th · t their lo-
c a l constituency ·~ t home should etermin t l1eir a.ct ion.·
Laws p sed by Congres s ere ritten 1th but one aim--
to avoi local i f ferences. Cle- rly Congre s
being nJu ici 1 Timber.
f a r from
" t , te r i . ts , t h one issue th ·· t h · a lasted f r - o the
beginning of th United ~t te s , ~ n tur 11 p ramount.
Congress '« afrai to usurp any power, nd it might be s a id
that it as even fr a i d to av 11 itself of the powers granted
it by the - rticles of Confeder· tion.
oon · fter th e ~ ~ticles of Confederation ere r atified.
Congress ., call ed upo- n to e ~ <:e cise its judici al po ers.
Actual rf re had existed bet een Pe :rmsylva.nia and Connecti-
cut for eight year s . The "', a r s out in the tar est in the
~,•yoming territory. -n !PlBYlV ni ~ cl '..!med cert , in l nd by a
( !: )
-6-
grant to ill1am enn~ Connecticut cl imed it- under the caa.r-
.
ter of 1?5 ~ r Connecticut . verv aggres ive n ·sent men
to settle the \.·eetern territory. Towns .. ere la.id out; laws
made and courts eat bli shed. L te in 1782 Pennsylv ni sent
troops ell equipped 1th munitions an su pplies itn orders
to ipe out the Connecticut squ tters ; Congress having
gained ne po er, a immedi~ tely petitioned by the t tea.
~ann ylvan1a a. Conn cticut, to org ~nize a court to deter-
mine the ispute~ oth at te ere instructed to appoint by
----------------
(1)
(:?)
Ba.ncrott, George--"H1atory of Constitution of U ••
0
--Pg. 61
Journtla of Congres --Vol. I. g. 299
joint consent judges to cr netitute a court. Th court con-
sisted of ix member. i\fter lon rgument the court
found unanimously th t the lan belon ed to ennsylvini •
Congress rove the judgment. ennsylv:mi immedi t ly
passed t tel gisl tion to i the settlers.
.
Thie a s the first court th t resemble our re oent
Supreme Court. It as the f~.r ' t decree of a court estab
lished by Con ress wh ·ch settled
It is iven by our leading historiano as the :reatest exam
ple, in e rly American history, of the b nefits of the sover
eignty of a union in que_lin w r between subor in te sover-
(1)
eignties.
Controversy aro · .. e bet reen Vir inia an Pennsylv:1ni
over the aeon Dix' n .. ,ine. Cr1 ngreas recommended a peaceful
solution. The states abided by this recommen ation. e
eraey and Virginia iffered over erritory known as Indian,
but before a court could be convened this dispute w s also
settle. aas chusetts and ew York petitioned Congress to
appoint a Federal court to determine the o mershi p of land
( 2) .
along the errimac ad Ch rles Rivera. A court ppoint-
ed by joint cons nt. Years rolled by before the court at
tempted to determine the case. an in th meantime the st tes
fin lly ·agreed bet een themselves.
The same thing h , ppened in the cs of outh Carolin.
-----------------
(1)
Bancroft, George-- istory of the U nited t · tea. Pg.2 5
(2)
Journals ot ngrese. Vol. IX. Pg. 21
and Geor 1. They had a di pute ~ to the u per t rs of ··
the ·av nn iver. The t . tea titione Congress, nd
Congress thereupon re ueuted the t - te to collect by joint
consent, a court to try the c se. The et· tea could not agree
upon judges, an · Con rees, for the first a only time, used
the method of selecting , court given them by the rticlee
of Confeder tion; that is. s lecting three persona from
each State of the Confederation· nd each p rty altern. tely
striking out one until the number was thirteen. Out of the
thirteen. nine ere r n by lot in the resenc of Congress.
The court never convened, states settling the dispute by
(1)
contract • .
The personnel of Congress un er the rticles of Con
federation waa of an inferior type. • any of the gre '1t men
of the states woul not consent to be members; but they ere
very iilling to take an active p tin s isting the new
government. They chose to take p· rt. not as politicians,
but as private citizens of the ne · republic. The fallacie
of the Articles of Confederation ere soon pointed out by
these grer1.t le :-J.dera, and ;i th the calling of the general
convention in 1?83. resolutions ere soon drawn by such men
as Alexander _ Hamilton, ich:u-d Dobbs " ;pa.ight, James adison
and • R. Davies. These resolutions ere given n tion 1 e
publicity through the ederaliat. Uex der H;Jl!lilton led
the ay i n opposition to the , ticles of Confe er tion, and
-----------------
(1)
Journals of Con ress. Vol~ II. Pg. 157-15.
-9-
the need for ne constitution. He speci ally emph ized
the r owit nece ity of ,,deral courts. He rote 'L a
are a dead letter ithout courts t expound and efine their
true meaning n oper tion. The tre-tiee of the United
tatee, to h ~ve any force t a.11 must be c nsidered as part
of the la of th l nd. Their true importance, far it
r apect in ividuale mu t like ell othe las be ecert#ined
by judici 1 etennfn ,. tion. T ., pro uce uniformity in these
etermina tion. t ey ought to b ubmitte in the last resort
to one supr me tribunal, nu this tribun l ou ht to be in
stituted und e the same -uth rity which forms the treaties
themselves. The tre r ties of he United tatea un er the res
ent constitution are li ble to the inf ractions oft irteen
different legisl t ures n m. :my i fferent courts of fin-
al juriedic.tion; acting un er the mthority of the .. e l.egis
latures. The faith, the reputation, the oeace of the hole
union are thus continually at th m rcy of h pre u ieea.
the passions. n the inter ate of every memb r of which
(l}
these ar cam osed. t,
Jamee ~-ison w a of simil r opinion, He believed that
the National supremacy should be extended to the ju icia.ry
department; that the courts f the Union sh0ul be uniform;
that the udgee rendering deci ions of matters p rtaining
to the Union hould be require
1
to take an ath to uphold
--------------------
( l) .
The Feder list-- 2
-10-
not only th local constitution, but th Federal conatitution.
Th, ta court a1oul stab iahe in ~ 1 cases to .hich for-
eigners or inhabitant of another et t m:s e moile arties;
that Admiral t uri ict·on should fall ·!thin the purview
tional ov nment. ichard obb claim d ot the
that a tional ove1nmcnt ooul not much loner en ure or
be pre erved unleee the tyrannical ~n unjust proce ings
of the State government s ,ere checke ~ in their o er. and
that the only remedy
government.
a strong and efficient national
Before the cneral convention of 1?83, there ere t ,o
plans for a eder 1 ju iciary present
•
•
One C lled the
Virginia l r n. the other the e Jersey lan. The Virginia
~lan c: lle for a ~tion 1 upreme court ith inferior courts
distri butec thr rughout the Union. Th Ne Jersey Plan c · .. lled
for ut one court, th · t court to be the ~ upreme court. The
idea of the ev1 Jere y 1 n " - e soon efe· te • I t ··ae shown
upon argument. that h· ving but one court to determine the
n tioni l issues , d as ume i pell~te ·urie iction in 11
caua s th t court 1ould soon be eo overburdene ·1th c ees
th9.t the ju ici · ry .. ,ould fail because f inefficienc~r. l.J1.d-
iaon led the fight for ·nrerior court • He eaid, l ess
inferior tribunals ere dispersed throughout the R public
.1th final jurisdiction in man ca es. , ... peals ould be m ul
tiplied to a most oppressive egree; nd that. besides, an ·
appeal ·~ ld not in many c ses be remedy. h· t as to be
dorie in cases of improper ver"icts, in t·:1.te tribunals, ob-
-11-
tained under the biased directionu of epen ent judge, or
the local rejudice of an un irected jury? To remand the
cau e for a ne ~ trial woul ns er no pur pose. To order a
new trial at the l upreme r oul obli ge the parties to
bring up th ir itnesaes, though ever so istant from the
seat of the Curt. etfective judiciary establishment.
commensurate to th le isl tiv uthority, ,,as essential . A
government ~ ithout - roper e~ecutive and judiciary ould be
a mere trunk of ody ~ ithout arms or legs to act or move."
There were many questions of gre t importance to be
determined by the framers of our Constitution. To many the
judici ry as provided by the .rtic -es of Confeder~tion had
failed. There ere others ho believed that the so.me system
should be incorpor ted into the ne Constitut ·on. The first
question that came up a as to the establishment of inferior
Federal courts. A strong rgument - put for ard that the
State tribunals might and ought to be left in all cases to
decide in first instance, an th· t the ri ght of a p eal to
the uupreme Court ould secure :lti nal r ights nd uniform-
1 ty of judgment.
Pierce Butler, one of the greatest opponents of the
establishment of the inferior courts, argued tha t the st . tea
would revolt t such encroachments.
The Check system of government seemed to be firmly
fixed in the minds of the proponents of the ne Constitution.
However a majority b lieved thnt the ne Federal Court judge
should be under the control of the executive, and that the
executive ah ul form a council com o ed of 1 of th ,up-
reme Court judge ~ to a.et rmin .h he r or not th · Conereos
in its lcgial ::on a going L end the po· .. ere iven it by
the Conatitut ioh.
The rgument a c, - van ced that tl1e e · erain ent ju ees
~ere the p r eone m o ~t c mpetent to give opin i ons on such
questions. Cthera argue d th' t t e executive cul c a 1 on
hie c binet to determine thee . questi ons hich 1 ere likely
to be .olitical in their n : ture. but that the ju ge of the
courts ehoul .1 hich include The duty to
a minister ju tice :ithout r e pect to person, ;it1 e uaJ. right
to the poor and to the rich. .. The O " th al o st ·pul ~ted t hat
they should perform 11 of the uties to the best of their
ability, agreeable to the Constitution and the la s of the
United ~t tes . The . ct further provi ded th ~it the upreme
Court should h ave e elusive jurisdiction of all cor.troveraies
of a civil n ture ·here the State was a p rty, exce t et een
a tate and . its citizens, a nd t h, tin all trials of issue in
fact in all actions at l g ~in ta citizen of the Uni ted
States, the trial should be by jury.
The upreme Court is • ls iven ppe l l te jurisdiction
from the circuit courts d the courts of t he sep:u- ~te st~tes.
The ct further provide th ~t the United St te shoul d be di
vided into thirt een districts, an thre, e circuits; o. district
court should be established in each istrict. The circuit
court ,' a to consist of t o ·ustices of the upreme Court
and the judges of the district. The juri jdiction of the
district rid circuit courts as defin d .
The judiciary act further provi ed for an ttorney
General for the Unite t tea, hose duty it shoul be to
prosecute nd conduct all suit in the upreme Court in
hich the interests of the pe pleat l ge ere involved,
and to give hia advice an opinion upon uestions of la
hen re uired by the President or hen re ueste by the
head.a of any departments touching nny matters 'hich might
concern their depJ.rtment s . This loc · ting nd definin of
the advisory functions of the \ttorney General ettled a
vexed uestion hich had been the subject of extended ar
gument by the members of the convention.
-15-
vigorous minority c ntended that tis advi ory func
tion should res t in the upreme Court. By thi s st tute all
ossibility of that court being called upon to ive opinions
and advice on uestione of la other than those regul arly
brought bef re it for judicial decision as eliminated.
\n attorney f r the United t te ..., as to be appointed
in each district to prosecute c sea for the United t ~tes
government . . Immediately upon the passing of the Judici .u-y
Act, , a.hing on proceeded to p o1nt judgea of the upreme
Court, an : ttorney Gener l n United States istrict t-
torney. The follo in n es rere ccordingly sent to the
enate for confirm t i on: For Chief Justice, ohn Jay; for
..
-16-
saociate ~uetice.), John Rutledge, Jaines . · .11son, illiam
Cushing, obert Harrison, nd ~ohA lair.
pointments 1 ere confirme by the Senate.
1 of these ap
hington used
the higheat udgment in selecting the ju ges of the . upr m e
Court. He av ided politic l tiea for the purpo e at only
of selectin the best en in then tion. but to avoid ol1t-
1c 1 favoritism.
Thirteen district courts ere eatablished; one in each
State of the ne Union.
1
ashington . ate no time in making
appointments of thirteen judges to reside over these c urts.
_d.mund Randolph. one of the .gre test leaders of the
South. s appointed ttorney General.
The first United St tes u reme Court convened in le
'
York City on the first ond y of ebruaey, 1?90. There was
not a orum resent and so the court adjourned until the
following ay. I ts initi ~l ctivitiea ere some ht pri i-
tive. few candidates vere dmitted to practice before the
court. , se l as a opted as as; also a seal for the cir
cuit court , . The u reme Court a no, re y for b siness,
but business was not ready for the Court. ot a. single lit-
igant ape re and there as nothin left to be one but to
adjourn until the next te~m.
The ju gee then divided themselves into three p irs
and tr veled the three circuit for the hearing of cases in
the circuit court.
If there ere no litigants at the regular se ion,
there were plenty t the sessions of the circuit c urts.
-1?-
such, h ever, re the vici itudea of travel ~t that early
day, n so long ere the journeys that the u ges r turned
from their fir t circuit quite diehe rtene . They ere i-
oneers in the est· blishment of a ne nd untried iudici*l
system, and sue ere the ob tacle a an
countered, th t lie at the end of f 1 ve year~ ... of s rvice, the
Chief Justice resigned, he e pres ed himself a foll01s:
I left the bench perfectly convince th't under a sys
tems defective it ould not obtain the energy, eight, and
dignity hich aa es e tial to its affording due sup ort to
the national government, nor acquire the public confidence
and respect ~
1
hich, as a l st resort of the justice of the na-
( l)
tion, it ahou.1 p asess.
But the hief Justice a.nd his colleagues h d built bet
ter than they kne or uepect
1
• The importance of their
work is ell auim'lled u by Judge Coale, hos ys of it:
1
The real im ortance of the "' upreme Court was never
greater than at first. nd the ju gee who o- ccupied the Bench
before the tim a o arsh 11 are entitle to h ave it said of
them that hat they did as of incalcul ble value to repres-
entative institutions, not in erica alone, but throughout
the ~ orld., They vindicated the national char cter of the
C ,nsti tut ion; they anserted a m intained the upremacy of
the nati n 1 (uthority; they made plain for the st teamen as
ell as the jurists ho shoul come atter them, the true
path of c,,natitutional interpretation; and hile d ing so,
---------------
(1)
Lory, . i., h. D. ~yllabua in Conotit tional Hi tory
I eals. Pg. ?9.
-1 --
thel also justifi d
.
the t te a regards urely ~tate
n
•
u ations ,
the same ri ht of fin
•
gm .. nt
hich they JU
s-
a rtec. for the Union in r spect t
( 1 )
' U tion hioh
ere
.t -t-
ional."
o more C 'mprehensive cha.rac eriz tin of the United
tateo ~,upreme Court c
be iven than th t of Iorace inney ,
Tiz: hat,
ir, is the upreme Court of the
It is the uguat r present .. t1ve of the isdom and justice
an conscience of thi s " hole peopl • in the exposit ion of
their co stitution an lais. It is the peaceful
d ve:ner-
. ble rbitr tor bet een the citizens in
l que tions touch-
ing the e .,,-tent ,. n · s, ay of C nstitution 1 power. It is th
gre t moral oub -:•ti tute for fore i n controverei e bet 1 een
the eo 1 le, th . tates • the Union. r•
{ )
Cooley, Thom .. ('.'! . ens ti tut i n 1 •1 ,~ tory o t h e U • .' . • s
seen in the evelopm nt of ric La ,. · he edert l ,up-
reme Court-- I t pl ~ce in the • \m ,r·can onstitution 1 " "'ys-
tem.
f l g 52
• •

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The permanent court of international justice

PDF

Counterclaim and cross-complaint under the codes and advantages of consolidating the two

PDF

Opinion evidence and its moral aspect

PDF

The historical development of municipal corporations

PDF

The doctrine of spendthrift trusts in the United States and in the state of California

PDF

The law of charitable trusts in California

PDF

Trust estates

PDF

The legality of exclusive agency contracts

PDF

Domestic infelicity in Los Angeles county as exemplified in the records filed in the office of the county clerk from January 1, 1923 to July 1, 1923

PDF

Why the railroad commission's control of privately owned and operated public utilities corporations differs from its control of municipally owned and operated public utilities

PDF

The doctrine of equitable estoppel

PDF

The freedom of speech and of the press in the United States: extent and limitations

PDF

The law of aerial navigation

PDF

Eminent domain

PDF

The judicial settlement of labor-capital disputes

PDF

The privilege of a corporation against self-incrimination

PDF

Criminal conspiracy

PDF

Watered stock: liability of innocent transfees in California

PDF

The Code and the common law

PDF

Building restrictions in California

Asset Metadata

Creator Hornaday, Francis Paul (author)

Core Title Inception of the federal judiciary

Contributor Digitized in 2022 (provenance)

School School of Law

Degree Juris Doctor

Degree Program Law

Degree Conferral Date 1925-05

Publication Date 05/15/1925

Defense Date 05/15/1925

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112719534

Unique identifier UC112719534

Identifier Law J.D. '25 H813 (call number),etd-HornadayFrancis-1925.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HornadayFrancis-1925

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Hornaday, Francis Paul

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230127-usctheses-microfilm-box6a (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu