Without Precedent
Page 51
8Marshall to Patterson, Apr. 6, 1802, MP, 6:105–106; Marshall to Cushing, Apr. 19, 1802, MP, 6:108; From Chase, Apr. 24, 1802, MP 6:109–116.
9Marshall to Patterson, May 3, 1802, MP, 6:117; From Patterson, Jun. 11, 1802, MP, 6:120.
10Marshall to Patterson, Apr. 19, 1802, MP, 6:109.
11From Judge Bassett’s Protest, reprinted in Bruce Ackerman, The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2005), 283–284, 289.
12Smith, Marshall, 328.
13Beveridge, Marshall, 3:223–224.
14Marshall, Life of George Washington, 1:218.
15Marshall, Life of George Washington, 2:530.
16Beveridge, Marshall, 3:235–240.
17Beveridge, Marshall, 3:229–230.
18Beveridge, Marshall, 3:227–228; Smith, Marshall, 330–331.
19As quoted in Beveridge, Marshall, 3:268.
20Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299, 302 (1803).
21Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, 2:211–215.
22As quoted in Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, 2:205.
23Jefferson, Weather Observations, Massachusetts Historical Society.
24Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 142–145; William Michael Treanor, “The Story of Marbury v. Madison: Judicial Authority and Political Struggle” in Vicki C. Jackson and Judith Resnik, eds., Federal Courts Stories (New York: Foundation Press, 2010), 47–48.
25Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 146 (1803).
26Newmyer, Marshall, 159–160; Smith, Marshall, 319.
27To James Marshall, Mar. 18, 1801, MP, 6:90.
28Jefferson, Weather Observations, Massachusetts Historical Society.
29Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 154–162.
30Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163–168.
31Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 169–170.
32Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 173–174.
33Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176.
34Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177.
35Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
36See, e.g., Trevett v. Weeden (Rhode Island, 1786).
37Marshall, Jun. 20, 1788, in Kaminski et al., eds., Documentary History, 10:1431.
38Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).
39Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73.
40Bloch, “The Marbury Mystery,” 18 Const. Comment, 607, 612 (2001).
41Beveridge, Marshall, 3:153.
42Warren, Supreme Court, 1:248–254.
43Warren, Supreme Court, 1:257–261; e.g., Jefferson to Archibald Rowan, Sep. 26, 1798, in Boyd, ed., Jefferson Papers, 30:528.
44Smith, Marshall, 324–325.
45Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299, 309 (1803).
CHAPTER 19. PRIZES OF WAR
1Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall: A Study in First Principles (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1939), 12.
2Joel Richard Paul, “The Cost of Free Trade,” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 22, no. 1 (Fall/Winter 2015) 194.
3U.S. v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 109–110 (1801).
4Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 4:194–199.
5Marshall to C. C. Pinckney, Nov. 21, 1802, MP, 6:124–126.
6Frederick C. Leiner, “The Charming Betsy and the Marshall Court,” American Journal of Legal History 45, no. 1 (2001): 3–4.
7Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 65–67. (1804).
8Leiner, “Charming Betsy,” 10.
9James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 269–277; Smith, Marshall, 338.
10Justice Story, for example, thought that expatriation required legislative permission and could not be done without a good-faith change of residence. Kettner, American Citizenship, 276.
11Wood, Empire, 247–250.
12Ziegler, International Law of John Marshall, 93–99; Smith, Marshall, 339.
13Murray v Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 120 (1804).
14Kettner, American Citizenship, 277–278.
15Murray v Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64,113 (1804).
16In a subsequent case, Marshall reaffirmed that unless Congress expressly stated that it intended to violate international law, “the Court is bound by the law of nations which is part of the law of the land.” The Nereide, 9 Cranch 388, 422 (1815).
17Murray v Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 120 (1804).
18Murray v Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 121 (1804).
19Leiner, “Charming Betsy,” 14.
20Joel Richard Paul, “Comity in International Law,” Harvard International Law Journal 32, no. 1 (1991): 19–24. Though the term “comity” was only introduced into U.S. law later by Justice Joseph Story, the sense of mutual respect and reciprocity informed Marshall’s views of the law.
21Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 Dallas (Pa.) 111, 116 (1784).
22Federal Constitution, Art. I (8)(10).
23See, e.g., “The Charming Betsy Canon, Separation of Powers and Customary International Law,” Harvard Law Review 121, no. 4 (February 2008): 1215.
24Ziegler, International Law of John Marshall, 5–6.
25Leiner, “Charming Betsy,” 18.
26Non-Intercourse Act, ch. 2, section 1, 3 Stat. 613 (1799).
27Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, 171 (1804).
28Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170–173 (1804).
29Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 174–175 (1804).
30Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 176–177 (1804).
31Act of Sep. 29, 1789, ch. 25, section 3, 1 Stat. 95 (1789).
32Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 177 (1804).
33Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 179 (1804).
34Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 179 (1804).
CHAPTER 20. HIGH CRIMES
1To Mary Marshall, Jan. 2, 1803, MP, 6:145–146.
2Mason, My Dearest Polly, 153–155.
3Richard E. Ellis, The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 77–80.
4Newmyer, Marshall, 178–179; Peter Charles Hoffer and N. E. H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635–1805 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 181–190.
5Jefferson to Nicholson, May 13, 1803, in Boyd, ed., Jefferson Papers, 40:371–372.
6Adams, History, 1:403.
7Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, 2:224.
8Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, 2:242–243.
9To James Marshall, Apr. 1, 1804, MP, 6:278.
10Samuel H. Smith and Thomas Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase (Washington, D.C.: Samuel Smith, 1805 [reprinted San Bernadino, CA: BiblioLife, 201]), 1:22–23.
11Haskins and Johnson, Foundations of Power, 2:243.
12Adams, History, 1:419.
13Adams, History, 1:450–451; Nancy Isenberg, Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr (New York: Penguin Books, 2007), 272–273; Ellis, Jeffersonian Crisis, 92.
14Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 274–278.
15Notes of Major William Pierce (Maryland), Federal Convention of 1787, found at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pierce.asp, accessed on March. 28, 2016.
16As quoted in C. Peter Magrath, Yazoo: Law and Politics in the New Republic (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1966), 65.
17Magrath, Yazoo, 41.
18Smith and Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase, 1:255.
19Smith and Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase, 1:256.
20Smith and Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase, 1:33–34.
21Smith and Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase, 1:2
59.
22Smith and Lloyd, eds., Trial of Samuel Chase, 1:260.
23Adams, History, 1:452–463; Ellis, Jeffersonian Crisis, 104–105.
24Adams, History, 1:463.
25Marshall to Spencer Roane, Sep. 6, 1819, as quoted, Newmyer, Marshall, 179; Jefferson to William Branch Giles, Apr. 20, 1807, in Ford, ed., Writings of Jefferson, 10:384.
26Adams, History, 1:465.
CHAPTER 21. TREASON
1Aurora, Mar. 8, 1805, in MP, 6:379.
2Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 252–255.
3Andro Linklater, An Artist in Treason: The Extraordinary Double Life of General James Wilkinson (New York: Walker Publishing Co., 2009), 215.
4Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 282–283.
5Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 221.
6R. Kent Newmyer, The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr: Law, Politics, and the Character Wars of the New Nation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 25–28.
7Newmyer, Treason, 25, referencing articles in the Kentucky’s Western World, summer 1806.
8Newmyer, Treason, 31–33.
9Newmyer, Treason, 30, citing Mary-Jo Kline and Joanne Wood, eds., Political Correspondence and Public Papers of Aaron Burr (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983): 2:973–986.
10Newmyer, Treason, 38.
11Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 6.
12Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 218–219, 237–239.
13Newmyer, Treason, 28–29, 33–35.
14Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 204–206, 219.
15Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 210.
16Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: Second Term (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), 275–279.
17Newmyer, Treason, 34.
18Newmyer, Treason, 36–38.
19As quoted in Malone, Jefferson the President: Second Term, 277.
20Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 315.
21Linklater, An Artist in Treason, 244.
22Letter to Giles, Apr. 20, 1807, in Ford, ed., Writings of Jefferson, 10:387.
23Newmyer, Treason, 54.
24Note that the D.C. Circuit Court, unlike the other federal circuit courts, was established by the D.C. Organic Act of 1801. Thus, when the Congress abolished all the circuit courts created by the 1801 Judiciary Act, they left the D.C. Circuit Court in place.
25One treason case was appealed to the Supreme Court on a procedural motion, but the Court did not reach the substance of the case. U.S. v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795). The issue there was whether the defendant could be released on bail.
26Punishment of Crimes Act of 1790, ch. 9, 1 stat 112.
27Newmyer, Treason, 56–57.
28Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75, 126–127, 131, 135 (1807).
29The Enquirer (Richmond), Apr. 3, 1807, p. 2.
30Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 330; Newmyer, Treason, 70.
31Aaron Burr, The Examination of Col. Aaron Burr upon the Charges of a High Misdemeanor and of Treason (Richmond, VA.: S. Grantland, 1807), 34.
32Burr, The Examination of Col. Aaron Burr, 35.
33Virginia Argus (Richmond), Apr. 17, 1807, p. 3.
34Richmond Enquirer, Apr. 10, 1807, p. 3.
35Impartial Observer (Richmond), May 9, 1807, p. 1; Newmyer, Treason, 146.
36E.g., Impartial Observer (Richmond), May 27 1807, p. 1–5.
37Newmyer, Treason, 80
38Newmyer, Treason, 41; Letter to Giles, Apr. 20, 1807, in Ford, ed., Writings of Jefferson, 10:383–388.
39Isenberg, Fallen Founder, 347–348.
40Newmyer, Treason, 120–121.
41Federal Judicial Center, Charles F. Hobson, “Aaron Burr Treason Trial,” found at https://www.fjc.gov/history/famous-federal-trials/u.s.-v.-aaron-burr-treason-trial accessed on June 22, 2017.
42Newmyer, Treason, 112–114.
43Cite to Marshall’s opinion in U.S. v. Burr.
44Newmyer, Treason, 162–165.
45Richmond Enquirer, “Portrait of the Chief Justice,” Nov. 6, 1807, p. 3.
46Virginia Argus (Richmond), Dec. 4, 1807, p. 3.
47Beveridge, Marshall, 3:535; Newmyer, Treason, 166.
48Virginia Argus (Richmond), Dec. 4, 1807, p. 2.
49As quoted in Newmyer, Treason, 157.
50Jefferson to James Madison, May 25, 1810, in Ford, ed., Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 11:139.
51Letter to Giles, Apr. 20, 1807, in Ford, ed., Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:386–387.
52Newmyer, Treason, 177.
CHAPTER 22. ESTRANGEMENT
1Architect of the Capitol, “Old Senate Chamber,” found at https://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/old-senate-chamber, accessed on June 22, 2017.
2Architect of the Capitol, “Old Senate Chamber,” found at https://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/old-senate-chamber, accessed on June 22, 2017.
3Smith, Marshall, 350.
4Smith, Marshall, 351.
5To Louis Marshall, Dec. 23, 1816. MP, 8:146.
6To Louis Marshall, Dec. 7, 1817, MP, 8:160.
7To Mary Marshall, Feb. 16, 1818, MP, 8:179.
8Smith, Marshall, 395–396.
9Smith, Marshall, 371.
10Marshall to Willing & Francis, May 2, 1815, MP, 8:89–90.
11Magrath, Yazoo, 2–4.
12Magrath, Yazoo, 6–7.
13Magrath, Yazoo, 14–15.
14Magreth, Yazoo, 21–22.
15Magreth, Yazoo, 48.
16Magreth, Yazoo, 69.
17Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 128 (1810).
18Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 130–131 (1810).
19Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 132–133 (1810).
20Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 135–137 (1810).
21Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 138–139 (1810).
CHAPTER 23. THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY
1Ketcham, Madison, 107–108.
2Marshall to Pinckney, Oct. 19, 1808, MP, 7:184.
3Daily National Intelligencer, Feb. 12, 1813, p. 1.
4Ketcham, Madison, 478; Wood, Empire, 663.
5Marshall to James Madison, Oct. 15, 1810, in Ford, ed., Writings of Jefferson, 111:152–153.
6To James Marshall, Nov. 21, 1808, MP, 7:186.
7Marshall to Pinckney, Oct. 19, 1808, MP, 7:185.
8Wood, Empire, 623.
9Wood, Empire, 646; Bradford Perkins, Prologue to War: England and the United States, 1805–1812 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961), 74.
10Wood, Empire, 625.
11Jerry L. Mashaw, Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law. The Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 103.
12Mashaw, Creating the Administrative Constitution, 96.
13Joel Richard Paul, “The Myth of Economic Interdependence,” Waseda Proceedings of Comparative Law 11, no. 3 (Spring 2009): 293, 301.
14Marshall to Harry Heth, Mar. 2, 1812, MP, 7:306.
15The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 123–126.
16The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 126–129 (1812).
17The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 129–130; e.g., Thomas Rutherford, Institutes of Natural Law (Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2004), 2:489–490.
18The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 126–130 (1812).
19The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 133.
20The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 135–136.
21The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136.
22Ziegler, International Law of John Marshall, 65.
23The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 137.
24The Schooner Exchange v. Mc
Faddon, 7 Cranch 116, 141.
25Ziegler, International Law of Marshall, 83.
26U.S. v. Richard Peters, 3 Dallas 121 (1795).
27For example, Rutherford had written that “every state has authority to determine, by positive laws, upon what occasions, for what purposes, and in what numbers, foreigners shall be allowed to come within the territories . . .” Rutherford, Institutes, 2:488. Rutherford treated diplomatic immunity as the only exception to the broad rule that “Every nation has a right to judge for itself, how far its intercourse, either of the commercial or of the friendly sort, is likely to be detrimental to itself,” including the power to exclude foreign persons or property. Rutherford, Institutes, 2:489.
28Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations. Béla Kapossy and Richard Whatmore, eds. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2008): 4:706. Marshall tried to extend this principle of diplomatic immunity by analogy: “Equally impossible is it to conceive, whatever may be the construction as to private ships, that a prince who stipulates a passage for his troops, or an asylum for his ships of war in distress, should mean to subject his army or his navy to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.” The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 143.
29The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 145–146.
30The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 146–147.
31Nearly twenty years later the U.S. government did, in fact, conclude an agreement with France to pay the heirs of McFaddon and Greetham a total of $109,133.62, including interest. “A Note on Exchange versus M’Faddon,” American Journal of International Law 18, no. 2 (April 1924): 320.
32Marshall to Robert Smith, Jul. 27, 1812, MP, 7:338.
33Marshall to John Randolph, Jun. 18, 1812, MP, 7:332.
34Marshall to Robert Smith, Jul. 27, 1812, MP, 7:338.
CHAPTER 24. WASHINGTON BURNING
1Wood, Empire, 659.
2Brunsman, The Evil Necessity, 248, 304. In fact, about one-third of all sailors on U.S. ships were British citizens. Wood, Empire, 642, 646; Borneman, 1812, 48. Impressment had been a standard form of military conscription since at least the reign of Elizabeth I.
3Wood, Empire, 659.
4Borneman, 1812, 51.
5Borneman, 1812, 57.
6Wood, Empire, 675, 685.
7Borneman, 1812, 170–171.
8Borneman, 1812, 178.
9Marshall to Pickering, Dec. 11, 1813, MP, 7:417.
10Borneman, 1812, 177–179.