Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P35 pdf

Supreme Court decision Charles River Bridge v.. The facts of Charles River Bridge began in 1650 when the state of Massachusetts granted a charter to Harvard College now Harvard Universit

Trang 1

conveyances This history appears on public record so that title to land can be checked

CHAIN REFERRAL

A type of sales plan that convinces individuals to make purchases based upon the promise that their payment will be reduced for each new purchaser they recommend to the seller

Referral sales in general are under close scrutiny by CONSUMER PROTECTION laws and are illegal in many states due to their FRAUDULENT

and misleading nature A chain referral is a type

of pyramid sales scheme whereby an innocent consumer is lulled into investing money based

on the promise that he will eventually make money, which is usually highly unlikely, if not impossible

CROSS REFERENCE Ponzi Scheme.

CHAMBERS

A judge’s private room or office wherein he or she hears motions, signs papers, and performs other tasks pertaining to his or her office when a session

of the court, such as a trial, is not being held

Business transacted in a private setting is said to be done“in chambers.”

CHAMIZAL TRACT

A description of the 1895 title dispute between the United States and Mexico that arose over a tract of land in El Paso, Texas, known as “El Chamizal.”

The Boundary Commission was unable to agree on a boundary line and a convention was signed by the two governments on June 24,

1910, establishing another commission to decide the issue Because the new commission departed from the terms of submission and because of disturbed conditions in Mexico, no further action was taken until the conclusion of

a treaty in 1963 that divided the disputed territory between the two countries

CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE Champerty is the process whereby one person bargains with a party to a lawsuit to obtain a share in the proceeds of the suit Maintenance is the support or promotion of another person’s suit initiated by intermeddling for personal gain

Both champerty and maintenance have been illegal for two basicPUBLIC POLICY reasons since earlyCOMMON LAW: (1) It is considered desirable

to curb excessLITIGATIONfor the operation of an efficient judicial system The reasons for this are numerous and include problems of overcrowd-ing on court calendars, economic considera-tions, and the desirability of promoting a society that is not excessively litigious Champerty and maintenance work contrary to this societal goal

by stirring up litigation (2) Champerty and maintenance bring money to an individual who was not personally harmed by the DEFENDANT

An attorney found guilty of either champerty or maintenance will be subject to the payment of any damages that may have been incurred by the parties to the lawsuit and to disciplinary proceedings, which can result in his or her disbarment

Whether or not champerty and mainte-nance exist in a particular instance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case They apply specifically to cases wherein one person profits from another person’s recovery

in a lawsuit If a licensed collection agency purchases a group of bad accounts from a store, the agency is buying the right to collect on the accounts rather than on a particular lawsuit and

is therefore not guilty of champerty An attorney who buys aCHOSE IN ACTIONwith the sole,SPECIFIC INTENT to initiate an action for his or her own benefit would be guilty of champerty provided the purchase was made with that intent

To lend money to an individual who would not otherwise be able to afford to bring a lawsuit is not maintenance unless the lender intends to gain substantially from his loan by being compensated with a portion of the recovery

In the early 2000, some states still recognize champerty and maintenance as offenses but in most states they have been replaced with the civil actions of ABUSE OF PROCESS and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, both of which deal with the wrongful initiation of litigation and perversion

of legal process

CHANCELLOR

A secretary, secretary of state, or minister of a king

or other high nobleman

The king’s chancellor in England during the Middle Ages was given a variety of duties,

328 CHAIN REFERRAL

Trang 2

including drawing up writs that permitted the

initiation of a lawsuit in one of theCOMMON-LAW

COURTS and deciding disputes in a way that

gave birth to the system of law called equity

His governmental department was called the

Chancery

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in England

is like the secretary of the U.S treasury, but in

former times he also presided over a court

called the Court of Exchequer, which at first

heard disputes over money owed to the king but

eventually heard a wide variety of cases

involv-ing money This jurisdiction was founded on

the theory that a creditor who could not collect

a debt would later be less able to pay whatever

he owed to the king

Chancellor has also been used as the title for

a judge who sits in a court of equity, for the

president of a university, or for the public

official in charge of higher education in some

states

CHANCERY

The old English court in which the monarch’s

secretary, or Chancellor, began hearing lawsuits

during the fourteenth century

The decisions rendered there were based on

conscience and fairness rather than on the strict

common-law FORMS OF ACTION In the United

States, courts like the old chancery have been

called courts of chancery or courts of equity

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Proof or attestations about an individual’s moral

standing, general nature, traits, and reputation in

the general community

A character witness is an individual who

testifies as to the habits and reputation of

another person In criminal cases, a DEFENDANT

might attempt to reduce the possibility that he

or she will be convicted of committing the

crime as charged by exhibiting his or her good

character or propensity for not committing the

offense Ordinarily, this is limited toTESTIMONY

concerning the particular character trait that is

in issue For example, evidence concerning the

defendant’s trustworthiness with property

might be relevant in an embezzlement case

The character witness must be a person who is

familiar with the defendant’s reputation in the

community fairly close to the time the crime

was committed

In federal trials the admissibility of character evidence and the use of character witnesses are governed by theFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

CHARGE-OFF Eliminate or write off

The term charge-off is used to describe the process of removing from the records of a company something that was once regarded as

an asset but has subsequently become worthless

A classic case is the bad debt, which is an uncollectible debt A bad debt is a permissible business tax deduction, and a non-business bad debt may also be claimed as a charge-off in the year the debt becomes entirely worthless

Charge-off is generally used in reference to a charge or debt that is not paid when due

CHARGE

To impose a burden, duty, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to assess; to demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law To impose a tax, duty, or trust To entrust with responsibilities and duties (e.g., care of another) In commercial transactions, to bill or invoice; to purchase on credit InCRIMINAL LAW, to indict or formally accuse

An encumbrance, lien, or claim; a burden or load; an obligation or duty; a liability; an accusation A person or thing committed to the care of another The price of, or rate for, something

A retail store may attach aFINANCE CHARGEto money owed by a customer on a store account

A charge to the jury is the process whereby a judge addresses the jury before the VERDICT During the charge, the judge summarizes the case and gives instructions to the jury concern-ing such matters as the rules of law that are applicable to various issues in the case

A public charge is a person who has been made a ward of the state who requires public support due to illness or poverty

CHARITABLE TRUST The arrangement by which real or personal property given by one person is held by another

to be used for the benefit of a class of persons or the general public

The law favors charitable trusts, sometimes called public trusts, by according them certain privileges, such as an advantageous tax status

Before a court will enforce a charitable trust,

CHARITABLE TRUST 329

Trang 3

however, it must examine the charity and evaluate its social benefits The court cannot rely on the view of the settlor, the one who establishes the trust, that the trust is charitable

In order to be valid, a charitable trust must fulfill certain requirements The settlor must intend to create this type of trust There must be

a trustee to administer the trust, which must consist of some res or trust property The charitable purpose must be expressly

designat-ed A definite class of persons comprised of indefinite beneficiaries within it must actually receive the benefit The requirements of inten-tion, the trustee, and the res are the same in a charitable trust as they are in any other trust

Charitable Purposes

A charitable purpose is one designed to benefit, ameliorate, or uplift mankind mentally, morally,

or physically The relief of poverty, the improve-ment of governimprove-ment, and the advanceimprove-ment of religion, education, and health are some exam-ples of charitable purposes Trusts to prevent cruelty to animals, to erect a monument in honor of a famous historical figure, and

to beautify a designated village are charitable purposes aimed, respectively, at fostering kind-ness to animals, patriotism, and community well-being

The definition of charitable purposes is derived from an old ENGLISH LAW, the Statute

of Charitable Uses, but has been expanded throughout the years as new public needs developed

Beneficiaries

The class to be benefited in a charitable trust must be a definite segment of the public It must be large enough so that the community in general is affected by, and interested in, the enforcement of the trust, yet it cannot encom-pass the entire human race Within the class, however, the specific persons to benefit from the trust must be indefinite A trust “for the benefit of the orphans of American veterans of the Vietnam conflict” is charitable The orphans

of such veterans constitute a definite class The indefinite persons within the class are the ones who are ultimately chosen by the trustee to be paid the benefits The class is large enough so that the community is interested in the enforcement of the trust

A trust for named persons or a trust for profit cannot be a charitable trust A trust “to construct and maintain a hospital” might be

charitable, even though the hospital charges the patients who are treated, provided that any profits realized are used solely to continue the charitable services rendered and are not paid to private persons

A trust that serves both charitable and noncharitable purposes will fail if the two are inseparable For example, suppose a settlor bequeaths $500,000 to a trustee“to hold in trust for the benefit of all the schools in a particular town.” The settlor’s daughter is the residuary

LEGATEE of the estate, who will inherit the remainder of the estate after the TESTAMENTARY

dispositions are satisfied Some of the schools in the town are public and charitable institutions and some are private and operated for profit The settlor has not apportioned the $500,000 between the public schools and the private schools The valid part—to be given to public schools and charitable institutions—cannot be separated from the invalid part—the disposition to private

or profit making institutions; therefore, the trust fails as a charitable trust The trustee holds the

$500,000 in a RESULTING TRUST for the settlor’s daughter, since the settlor’s disposition cannot be valid as a charitable trust because there is no indefiniteBENEFICIARY

If a trust has both charitable and nonchari-table purposes and if the maximum amount to

be used for noncharitable purposes can be determined, the trust fails only with respect to that amount pertaining to noncharitable pur-poses, which will be held in a resulting trust by the trustee for the settlor’s statutory heir or residuary legatee The remainder is a valid charitable trust

As a general rule, a charitable trust can be eternal, unlike a private trust, which must comply with the RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, a principle limiting the duration of a trust With respect to a private trust, the designated beneficiary is the proper person to enforce the trust, but in a charitable trust, the state attorney general is the one to enforce it The settlor, his or her heirs or personal representatives, the members of the general public, and possible beneficiaries cannot maintain a lawsuit for the enforcement of the trust

Charitable trusts yield substantial tax ben-efits to donors, whether in the form ofINCOME TAXdeductions, tax shelters, or reduced inheri-tance taxes Typically under charitable remainder trusts, immediate income tax deductions can also be matched with avoidance of capital gains taxes if the donor funds the trust using certain

330 CHARITABLE TRUST

Trang 4

types of assets The charitable lead trust, which is

often used in estate planning, commonly benefits

heirs After its duration, the principal assets

return to the donor’s heirs subject to reduced

gift and estate tax

FURTHER READINGS

Archer, Jack H., et al 1994 The Public Trust Doctrine and the

Management of America’s Coasts Amherst, MA: Univ.

of Massachusetts Press.

Teitell, Conrad 2007 “Conrad Teitell’s Guide to Tax

Benefits for Charitable Gifts ” Trusts & Estates (June).

Available online at http://trustsandestates.com/June07

Teitell1.pdf; website home page: http://trustsandestates.

com (accessed July 11, 2009).

Wermuth, William Charles 1914 Modern American Law.

2009, digitized Abilene, TX: Blackstone Institute.

CROSS REFERENCES

Charities; Estate and Gift Taxes; Heir; Taxation.

CHARITIES

Organizations created for the purpose of

philan-thropic rather than pecuniary pursuits

A charity is a group designed to benefit

society or a specific group of people Its purpose

may be educational, humanitarian, or religious

A charity goes beyond giving relief to the

indigent, extending to the promotion of

happi-ness and the support of many worthy causes

The law favors charities because they

pro-mote goodwill and lessen the government’s

burdens They are therefore ordinarily exempt

from paying income or property taxes

Charitable Gifts and Trusts

A charitable gift is something that is donated by

an individual or organization with the intent to

benefit the public or some segment of it as a

whole It is meant for use by an indefinite

number of people Similarly, charitable trusts or

public trusts are trusts of religious, political, or

general social interests, or for the relief of

poverty or the advancement of education

Charities are ordinarily supported by gifts

from donors and most states have set forth

statutes controlling the manner in which funds

are solicited for charities In addition, the state

will generally require charities to disclose their

financial structure and condition

Charitable gifts are oftenTESTAMENTARY, or

created by will If there is a problem in

determining the actual donative intent of the

TESTATOR, the court might have to pass on his

or her intent.CY PRESis a doctrine applied by a

court so that it can carry out a trust made by will for charitable purposes even when the testator’s charitable purpose can not be accomplished in the precise manner specified

by the testator For example, if a testator wished to donate money to a certain hospital whose name had changed, for example, this would not defeat the gift With cy-pres the court would interpret the donor’s intent to be

to give money to the hospital in spite of the change of name

SOURCE: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Giving USA, annual.

Charities

Individuals

$222.9 billion (75.5%)

Charitable Bequests

$22.9 billion (7.8%) Corporations

$12.7 billion (4.3%)

Foundations

$36.5 billion (12.4%)

PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2006

Allocation of Donations Sources of Donations

Religion 32.8%

Health 6.8%

Education 13.9%

Human services 10.0%

Arts, culture, and humanities 10.0%

Public/societal benefit

7.3%

Environmental/wildlife

2.2%

International 3.8% foundationsGifts to

10.0%

ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE,

A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.

CHARITIES 331

Trang 5

Charitable Societies and Institutions

To determine whether an institution is charita-ble, the test is whether its major purpose is to aid others or to make a profit

Charitable corporations are NONPROFIT cor-porations that have been created to minister to the physical needs of the indigent or to advance

a particular goal, such as the aid of a particular religious group or country In order to receive a tax-exempt status, such organizations must meet certain criteria

Ordinarily, charitable corporations have no

CAPITAL STOCK and they obtain their funds primarily from private and public charity These funds are held in trust to serve the charitable objects of the institutions

Beneficial associations also exist mainly for a charitable purpose and not for financial gain

Religious organizations, such as the Young Men’s and Women’s Christian Associations and the Salvation Army, are also considered to be charitable societies The test for determining whether or not an educational institution is a charitable organization is the question of whether it exists for a public purpose or for a private gain

Whereas charities may charge aNOMINALfee for some of their services and still be considered charitable societies, they are organized primarily for the public good and not for profit

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V

WARREN BRIDGE The 1837 landmark U.S Supreme Court decision Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge,

36 U.S (11 Pet.) 420, 9 L Ed 773, illustrated the shift in politics brought about by the presidency of ANDREW JACKSON Nineteenth-century FEDERALISM, a dominant political doc-trine from the time of the drafting of the U.S

Constitution, favored the protection of private investments The Charles River Bridge decision espoused newly popular Jacksonian political beliefs, which favored free enterprise Arguably, the case altered the course of economic jurisprudence in the United States

The facts of Charles River Bridge began in

1650 when the state of Massachusetts granted a charter to Harvard College (now Harvard University) to operate for profit a ferry over the Charles River between Boston and Charles-town Later, in 1785, the Massachusetts

Legislature granted a charter to a group of Charlestown businessmen to build the Charles River Bridge These entrepreneurs were to fund the bridge’s construction and in return the state would allow them to collect revenue from a specified toll for the next forty years As part of the agreement, the entrepreneurs were to pay an

ANNUITY to Harvard College to replace ferry profits lost by the building of the new bridge The bridge was immediately successful and immensely profitable Prompted by its popular-ity, the Massachusetts Legislature in 1792 chartered the building of a second bridge, known as the West Boston Bridge To appease the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge, who faced competition from the West Boston Bridge, the state of Massachusetts extended the Charles River Bridge charter from forty to seventy years

In 1828 Massachusetts chartered a third bridge, the Warren Bridge, which was to be constructed within a few rods of the Charles River Bridge The Charles River Bridge proprie-tors strongly objected to this third bridge because the competition would diminish their profits But Massachusetts citizens viewed the Charles River Bridge as monopolistic and welcomed competition and reduced tolls The Warren Bridge was completed as planned Within a year the Charles River Bridge suffered a 40 percent drop in revenues The bridge’s proprietors, represented by DANIEL WEB-STERandLEMUEL SHAW, went to court, seeking an

INJUNCTION against the Warren Bridge Webster and Shaw argued that the Warren Bridge’s charter with the state violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S Constitution by interfering with the state’s separate obligations under its charter with the Charles River Bridge proprie-tors They maintained that as successors to the original ferry service charter held by Harvard College, the Charles River Bridge proprietors had

an implied exclusive right to tolls charged for crossing the Charles River Moreover, they said that judicial policy should protect investments; without security in investments, entrepreneurs would not be willing to take risks in technologi-cal developments such as bridges and railroads And this reluctance to take risks would only prove detrimental to the public

Lawyers for the Warren Bridge proprietors countered that no exclusive rights existed for transportation over the Charles River and that

332 CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V WARREN BRIDGE

Trang 6

judicial policy should favor technological

prog-ress and free enterprise over the rights of those

investing in private property After hearing oral

arguments in October 1829, the Supreme

Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor

of the Warren Bridge proprietors The Charles

River Bridge group appealed the case to the U.S

Supreme Court

In March 1831 the Supreme Court first

heard arguments in the case At that timeJOHN

MARSHALL was chief justice and the Court was

dominated by Federalists But several justices

were absent during that argument, so the Court

scheduled a second argument This action had a

significant consequence: several justices resigned

or died prior to the second argument, and, taking

advantage of his privilege of appointing new

justices, President Jackson changed the

member-ship of the Court to primarily Democratic

Following a second argument in 1837 the

Court held that the Warren Bridge charter did

not violate the Contracts Clause of the

Constitu-tion Chief Justice ROGER B.TANEY, who authored

the opinion, held that any state legislation that

chartered a private entity to provide a public

service, such as a bridge, turnpike, or ferry, was

to be strictly construed (interpreted) in favor of

the state and against the private entity The Court

found that no implied rights had passed from the

Harvard College ferry charter to the Charles

River Bridge charter

Chief Justice Taney further observed the

harm in ruling for the Charles River Bridge

proprietors simply because they faced

competi-tion and reduced profits owing to the Warren

Bridge He suggested that such a holding would

encourage turnpike proprietors to sue the

railroads for destroying turnpike profits In

Taney’s view, economic development was better

served by public improvements than by

protec-tions for monopolies

The Charles River Bridge decision received

widespread attention Hard-line Federalists

disputed the Court’s rationale, insisting that

only by protecting vested property rights would

future financing for transportation technology

be ensured And although railroads were not at

issue in Charles River Bridge, many historians

believe that the Taney Court placed great faith

in the future of railroads in the United States,

and in rendering its opinion was attempting

to facilitate their growth There is little doubt

among legal scholars that Charles River Bridge

signified the introduction of Jacksonian politics

into U.S jurisprudence

FURTHER READINGS Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge, 11 Pet (13 U.S.) 420 (1837) 2005 Michaelariens.com Web site Available online at http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/

cases/charlesriver.htm; website home page: http://

www.michaelariens.com (accessed August 29, 2009).

McBride, Alex 2006 “Supreme Court History: The First Hundred Years, Landmark Cases, ” The Supreme Court.

New York: Educational Broadcasting Corporation.

Available online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supreme court/antebellum/landmark_charles.htm; website home page: http://www.pbs.org (accessed August 29, 2009).

Mensel, Robert E 1994 “Privilege Against Public Right:

A Reappraisal of the Charles River Bridge Case ” Duquesne Law Review 3.

CHARTER

A grant from the government of ownership rights

in land to a person, a group of people, or an organization such as a corporation

A basic document of law of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION granted by the state, defining its rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of self-government

A document embodying a grant of authority from the legislature or the authority itself, such as

a corporate charter

The leasing of a mode of transportation, such

as a bus, ship, or plane A charter-party is a contract formed to lease a ship to a merchant in order to facilitate the conveyance of goods

vCHASE, SALMON PORTLAND Salmon Portland Chase served from 1864 to

1873 as the sixth chief justice of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES He was also a distinguished lawyer and politician, serving as U.S senator from Ohio (1849–55 and 1860–61), governor of Ohio (1855–59), and secretary of the treasury (1861–64) Chase also sought the presidential nomination in every election be-tween 1856 and 1872, even while sitting as chief justice As a result, many criticized him for neglecting his judicial responsibilities in favor of his political ambitions Despite hisEXTRAJUDICIAL

activities, Chase helped to navigate the Supreme Court through the dangerous political waters of Reconstruction, the period following the Civil War when the country attempted to rebuild itself and readmit the Southern states to the Union, preserving the Court’s powers when a Republican–dominated Congress sought to con-trol both the presidency and the Supreme Court

As chief justice, Chase presided over the 1868

IMPEACHMENT trial of President ANDREW JOHNSON

NO MORE SLAVE STATES,AND NO MORE SLAVE TERRITORY LET THE SOIL OF OUR EXTENSIVE DOMAIN

BE KEPT FREE

—S ALMON P ORTLAND

C HASE

Trang 7

Chase was an ardent opponent ofSLAVERYhis entire life, and in his last years on the Court he fought against a narrow interpretation of theFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, an interpretation that he surmised would allow future state legislatures to rescind the newly won rights of African Americans

Chase was born January 13, 1808, in Cornish, New Hampshire, the eighth of 11 children in a family that had lived in New England since the 1600s His father operated a tavern as well as a glass factory and distillery near Keene, New Hampshire, and died when Chase was nine years old Chase had two prominent uncles who aided him in his father’s absence: Dudley Chase, who served two terms

as U.S senator from Vermont (1813–17 and 1825–31), and Philander Chase, who became bishop of Ohio for the Episcopal Church and president of Cincinnati College When he was

12 years old, Chase moved to Ohio to help

on Philander Chase’s farm In return for his work, his uncle taught him Greek, Latin, and mathematics in his church school Chase attended Cincinnati College for a year then eventually returned to his family in New Hampshire and entered Dartmouth College, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in 1826

After college, Chase moved to Washington, D.C., where he studied law under Attorney General WILLIAM WIRT He passed the bar exam and returned to Cincinnati to set up a legal practice In Cincinnati, Chase’s personal life was clouded by tragedy He lost three wives between

1835 and 1852 He had one daughter by each of his last two wives He remained single for the last part of his life and was a devoted father to his two daughters

Chase strongly opposed slavery from his early years, a position that owed much to his deeply religious outlook In Ohio, he was nicknamed the Attorney General for Runaway Negroes for his LEGAL REPRESENTATION of aboli-tionists who had aided runaway slaves from Kentucky He even took two of these cases to the U.S Supreme Court—Jones v Van Zandt, 46 U

S (5 How.) 215, 12 L Ed 122 (1847), and Moore

v Illinois, 55 U.S (14 How.) 13, 14 L Ed 306 (1852)—both of which he lost About his nickname, Chase commented that he “never refused… help to any person black or white, and that he liked the office nonetheless because there were neither fees nor salary connected with it.”

In 1849 Chase was elected to the U.S Senate

as a member of the Free-Soil party, which

Salmon P Chase.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

1808 Born,

Cornish, N.H.

1820 Moved to Ohio to help on his uncle Philander Chase's farm

1855 Elected governor of Ohio

1860 Reelected to U.S Senate seat;

sought presidential nomination 1864 Nominated as chief justice of the U.S Supreme Court

1873 Died, New York City

1861–65 U.S Civil War

1826 Graduated from Dartmouth College

◆

1849 Elected to U.S.

Senate, representing Ohio

1861 Appointed secretary of the U.S treasury by President Lincoln

1865 Civil War ended; President Lincoln assassinated;

Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery

1868 Presided over the impeachment trial of President Johnson;

Texas v White upheld the general aspects of Reconstruction

◆

334 CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND

Trang 8

sought to keep new states in the west free of

slavery In the Senate, he and CHARLES SUMNER

became leading spokesmen for the antislavery

movement He gained renown through his

opposition to the 1854 KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT,

which allowed each territory to conduct a

popular vote deciding whether it would permit

slavery Shortly thereafter, he helped to found

the antislaveryREPUBLICAN PARTY, and in 1855 he

was elected governor of Ohio He was

consid-ered for the 1856 Republican presidential

nomination but was passed over, and in

February 1860 he was reelected to the U.S

Senate In May of the same year, he sought the

presidential nomination at the Republican

convention in Chicago Chase and William H

Seward were considered the chief contenders

for the nomination, but on the third ballot

Chase’s supporters gave their votes to ABRAHAM

LINCOLN, thus giving the man from Illinois the

nomination After his election, Lincoln offered

Chase and Seward the respective posts of

secretary of the treasury andSECRETARY OF STATE

Chase then gave up his seat as U.S senator

At the Treasury, Chase faced the difficult

task of financing a government that was

engaged in a civil war As part of this effort,

he helped to establish a national banking system

that gave the federal government its first

effective national paper currency Early in the

war, Chase also advised military leaders who

sought guidance from Washington, D.C Chase

was often unhappy with the decisions of Lincoln

and other members of the cabinet and resolved

that he could do better as president He

therefore opposed Lincoln for the Republican

presidential nomination in 1864 Chase had the

support of the more liberal wing of the

Republican Party but he eventually withdrew

his name from consideration, conceding to the

more popular Lincoln In June 1864, after

several disagreements with Lincoln, Chase

resigned from the cabinet

Despite their differences, Lincoln admired

Chase, and in December 1864 he nominated

Chase to succeed ROGER B.TANEYas chief justice

of the U.S Supreme Court He nominated

Chase with the expectation that Chase would

sustain two extraordinary measures taken by the

Union during the war—theEMANCIPATIONof the

slaves and the issuance of paper money to repay

debt Both measures had caused great

contro-versy, and as a result many Americans had lost

confidence in the federal government

Chase joined a Court with only three other justices who consistently supported Republican positions, JusticesDAVID DAVIS,NOAH H.SWAYNE, and SAMUEL F.MILLER, all appointed by Lincoln

The Court was sharply divided over the various issues surrounding Reconstruction The post–

Civil War crisis deepened when Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, and Vice President Andrew Johnson became president

Chase urged a moderate, conciliatory stance toward the defeated South, a stance that eventually alienated him from the Radical Republicans, a faction of the Republican party that sought to impose strict military measures and punitive new laws on the states of the former CONFEDERACY Like the Radical Repub-licans, Chase supported expanded freedoms for African Americans Unlike them, however, he also supported such measures as endingMILITARY GOVERNMENTin the South, pardoning Confeder-ate leaders, and quickly restoring Southern states to the Union Chase’s moderation helped

to spare Jefferson Davis, president of the former Confederacy After the war, Davis had been imprisoned in Virginia, part of Chase’s circuit, where the government hoped to try him for

TREASON Chase refused to hold a civil trial while the area was still under military rule Although a

GRAND JURYindicted Davis for treason, no action was taken against him, and eventually the government’s case was dismissed

Many of the U.S Supreme Court’s decisions during Chase’s tenure involved the thorny issue

of Reconstruction In March 1867 Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, which divided the South into five districts and imposed military rule Reconstruction involved new problems of constitutional interpretation as to the federal government’s powers over the states

At issue were questions not only of states’ rights but also of the status of freed slaves In one early decision,EX PARTEMilligan, 71 U.S (4 Wall.) 2,

18 L Ed 284 (1866), Chase voted with the Court in challenging Congress over Reconstruc-tion The Court held that Congress could not authorize military trials where civil courts were still operating The majority opinion warned of the military’s “gross USURPATION of power”—a direct challenge to the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress However, in later decisions Chase voted to uphold congressional laws pertaining to Reconstruction In the 1867 Test

OATH cases—Cummings v Missouri, 71 U.S

(4 Wall.) 277, 18 L Ed 356, and Ex parte

Trang 9

Garland, 71 U.S (4 Wall.) 333, 18 L Ed 366—

Chase disagreed with the Court’s decision to strike down laws requiring that priests and lawyers swear oaths of loyalty to the Union In his dissenting opinion, joined by Chase, Justice Miller declared that no punishment was inflicted by requiring such an oath and that Congress could impose such requirements

Chase considered TEXAS V WHITE, 74 U.S (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L Ed 227 (1868) to be the most important case of his Supreme Court career

Chase, writing the Court’s opinion, upheld the general principles of Reconstruction, asserting that Congress, and not the Supreme Court, possessed the authority to recognize state governments as legitimate

When Southern states sought to make cases

in court against executives of the federal government—including President Johnson and Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton—Chase joined the majority in dismissing those cases, thereby aiding Congress in its Reconstruction fervor In Mississippi v Johnson, 71 U.S (4 Wall.) 475, 18 L Ed 437 (1867), Mississippi, in the first court case ever to name thePRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES as an individual party, attempted to prevent President Johnson from enforcing certain provisions of the Reconstruc-tion Acts Chase dismissed the case, holding that preventing the president from acting on con-gressional legislation would cause a“collision … between the executive and legislative depart-ments of the government.” This, in turn, would give the House grounds to sue for the president’s impeachment This opinion proved prophetic,

of course, when Congress did attempt toIMPEACH

President Johnson

Chase’s public standing improved when

he ably handled the impeachment trial of President Johnson in March 1868 The Radical Republican–dominated Congress had voted to bring impeachment proceedings against John-son after he dismissed one of their favorite members of his cabinet, Secretary of War Stanton The Senate sat as a court of impeach-ment with Chase presiding as judge Chase frustrated Radical Republican aims by sticking

to procedural rules and helping to bring about Johnson’s acquittal, which passed the Senate by one vote The public acclaim occasioned by his handling of the impeachment trial led Chase to make another try at the presidency in 1868

That time, however, Chase made known his

desire to run as a Democratic candidate, largely because his moderate positions toward the South had endeared him to Democrats His efforts failed

Although the Supreme Court under Chase’s leadership rarely questioned congressional Re-construction measures after 1867, it did declare other federal legislation unconstitutional Whereas before 1864 the Court had overturned acts of Congress only twice—in MARBURY V

MADISON, 5 U.S (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L Ed 60 (1803), andDRED SCOTT V.SANDFORD, 60 U.S (19 How.) 393, 15 L Ed 691 (1857)—between 1864 and 1873 it voided ten pieces of congressional legislation These decisions included the first of theLEGAL TENDERCases, Hepburn v Griswold, 75 U.S (8 Wall.) 603, 19 L Ed 513 (1870)—but reversed later by Knox v Lee and Parker v Davis, 79 U.S (12 Wall.) 457, 20 L Ed 287 (1871), heard concurrently—in which Chase questioned much of his earlier work for the Treasury when he declared the Legal Tender Acts (12 Stat 345, 532, 709) unconstitutional This decision created a temporary crisis of confidence in the national currency The Court reversed this decision in 1871 after a change in membership, with Chase sticking to his views of two years earlier Despite his participation in such judicial activism, Chase at other times advocated judicial restraint In his opinion for the Licence Tax Cases, 72 U.S (5 Wall.) 462, 18

L Ed 497 (1868), in which he upheld a law that taxed the sale of lottery tickets throughout the United States, Chase wrote:

This court can know nothing ofPUBLIC POLICY

except from the Constitution and the laws, and the course of administration and deci-sion It has no legislative powers It cannot amend or modify any LEGISLATIVE ACTS It cannot examine questions as expedient or inexpedient, as politic or impolitic Consid-erations of that sort must, in general, be addressed to the legislature Questions of policy determined there are concluded here ULYSSES S.GRANTwon the presidential election

of 1868, and from that time onward, the power

of Radical Republicanism began to wane Grant’s appointments made the Court a more conservative body In theSLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES,

83 U.S (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L Ed 394 (1873), Chase dissented from the Court’s narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868 and sought to protect the rights of African Americans against

336 CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND

Trang 10

infringements by state legislation In its

Slaughter-House decision, the Court held that the

Fourteenth Amendment’s PRIVILEGES AND

IMMU-NITIESClause protected only a few select rights of

national citizenship, such as the right to travel

The Court did not interpret the amendment as

guaranteeing more fundamental rights, such as

the right to vote Chase objected that the

Court’s opinion jeopardized newly won

free-doms for African Americans It would take

another century before the Court would reverse

this narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth

Amendment

Chase suffered a series of crippling strokes

beginning in 1870 Despite his failing health, his

daughter Catherine Chase and other admirers

put forth his name for the 1872 presidential

nomination As had happened each time before,

his nomination came to nothing He died May

7, 1873, after suffering a stroke while visiting his

daughter in New York City, and he was interred

in Spring Grove Cemetary in Cincinnati

Although Chase did not achieve his highest

goal of becoming president, he nevertheless held

more high offices during his life than did any

other Supreme Court justice besides JAMES F

BYRNES and WILLIAM H TAFT More importantly,

Chase successfully guided the Court through

some of the most tumultuous years in the

history of the nation His actions as chief justice

helped to preserve the powers of the Supreme

Court in the face of serious congressional

challenges during the extraordinary years

fol-lowing the Civil War

Tiêu đề	Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3rd Edition Volume 2 P35
Thể loại	Encyclopedia

Định dạng
Số trang	10
Dung lượng	329,06 KB