17 minute read
Famous American Judges: Chief Justice Marshall
Chief Justice John Marshall
By Harry Munsinger
John Marshall was born in a log cabin on September 24, 1755, in Germantown, Virginia. His formal education included one year of grammar school and six weeks of law school. From this humble beginning, Marshall became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Before Marshall became Chief Justice, the Supreme Court had little power and lacked prestige. Marshall transformed the Court into a powerful branch of the federal government and established the Court as the arbiter of federal statutory disputes and the interpreter of the United States Constitution.
Marshall’s Early Life
After the American Revolutionary War began, Marshall joined the Continental Army and fought with General George Washington. While in the army, he visited Yorktown, Virginia, where he met fourteen-year-old Mary Ambler. He later enrolled in law school at the College of William and Mary to be near Mary. There, he attended lectures by George Wythe and read Blackstone’s Commentaries and books by David Hume and other enlightenment thinkers. After six weeks, Marshall learned Mary was moving to Richmond, so he withdrew from law school and followed her. After Marshall passed an examination, Virginia admitted Marshall to practice law in Virginia. Then-Governor Thomas Jefferson signed Marshall’s law license. When Mary turned sixteen, Marshall asked her to marry him, and to his surprise, she refused. She changed her mind later that day and agreed to marry him.
Delegate Marshall
Marshall was a delegate to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Other prominent delegates included James Monroe, James Madison, Richard Henry Lee, Edmund Randolph, and George Wythe. In supporting the Constitution, Marshall focused on the President’s powers as Commander in Chief under Article II, and the authority of the federal courts under Article III. He favored a strong federal government to defend the country and argued that states’ rights would be protected because George Washington would be the first President.
Diplomat Marshall
In spring 1797, President John Adams asked Elbridge Gerry, Charles Pinckney, and John Marshall to negotiate an end to French seizures of American shipping. The diplomats failed to obtain an agreement, in part because the French stalled for time, hoping to defeat the British. The French were willing to stop harassing American shipping, release captured American crews, and pay reparations for the cargos seized if the Americans paid the Marquis de Talleyrand—the French Foreign Minister—a large bribe and loaned money to France. But the Americans were unwilling to meet those terms. President Adams became angry with Talleyrand’s treatment of the American diplomats and asked Congress for money to build ships and fortify American defenses.
Congress refused to appropriate money until the diplomats’ dispatches were published, so Adams released the diplomatic journal under the title “XYZ papers.” The dispatches showed that France had caused the impasse by making unreasonable demands on the American delegation, causing Americans to turn against France. When Marshall returned to America, he was hailed as a national hero for his firm stance against French demands. He told President Adams that the French did not want to start a war with America because they were already too busy fighting most of Europe.
Secretary of State Marshall
A few years later, President Adams fired his Secretary of State and nominated Marshall to replace him. As Secretary of State, Marshall had extraordinary authority: his office was the primary administrative agency of government at that time. The agency issued passports, copyrights, and land patents, and oversaw the Justice Department because the Attorney General served only as the President’s legal advisor. The agency also ran the mint, handled the census, supervised United States territories, and published government documents.
Marshall faced many problems as Secretary of State. His most pressing problem was how to deal with debts Americans owed Britain. The British ambassador wanted the United States government to pay England a lump sum to cover the debts, but Marshall worried that France would be angry if America paid money to England while the two European countries were at war. Marshall informed the British ambassador that the United States would pay no more than $2.5 million, much less than the claims were worth. This tactic delayed the negotiations for months. The United States finally agreed to pay £600,000 to settle Tory debts, a fraction of the amount owed.
The next problem Secretary Marshall faced was the capture of American ships and the seizure of United States citizens to serve as crewmen on British Navy ships. Marshall instructed his ambassador to tell England that the United States wanted to remain neutral between France and England but stood ready to defend its shipping if necessary. This position was a bluff because the American Navy was small compared to the massive British Navy. England refused to stop detaining United States ships and impressing American sailors. Marshall could do little to stop it. Ultimately, disregard for the rights of United States ships on the high seas triggered the War of 1812 with England.
Marshall also had to deal with French harassment of American shipping, but those negotiations stalled while Napoleon won repeated victories over the European coalition. After many months of hard bargaining, the French finally agreed to stop raiding American shipping, although compensation for past confiscations was delayed for years.
Marshall’s final problem was how to handle the Barbary pirates who sailed from the North African coast and captured American ships. The pirates claimed to be customs agents of North African monarchs collecting fees for passage through the Mediterranean. They wanted payment to stop harassing American shipping. President Washington had paid bribes because he had more pressing problems with the French and British. Marshall thought Washington’s tactic sensible because it saved the United States millions of dollars in naval costs. President Adams agreed. However, when Jefferson became President, he declared war against the Barbary Pirates rather than pay bribes. The United States Navy and Marines soundly defeated the pirates, but at a huge cost.
Chief Justice John Marshall
In 1800, Adams and Jefferson competed for the Presidency and Jefferson won. Before leaving office, Adams nominated, and Congress confirmed, Marshall to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to replace Chief Justice Ellsworth who resigned due to health problems. At that time, the Court handled mostly admiralty cases and disputes between the states, because there were few federal statutes at the time, and state law governed most legal disputes.
When Adams nominated Marshall, the federal circuit courts of appeals did not exist. Thus, Supreme Court Justices travelled to the states to hear cases, in addition to hearing cases in Washington, D.C. Before Jefferson took office, though, Congress enacted a law establishing circuit courts, eliminating the need for Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit throughout the United States.
Marshall opened his first session of the Court on February 2, 1801, in the congressional office basement. Other members of the Court included William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, and Alfred Moore. Marshall wanted to build a consensus within the Court to withstand pressures he foresaw from Jefferson and Congress, so he befriended each Justice and learned about their personal lives. He even moved the Justices into the same boarding house and met with them every evening over a glass of Madeira.
Marshall served on the Court for thirty- four years and introduced the practice of issuing majority opinions rather than allowing each Justice to write individual opinions, as done in England. During his tenure, the Court issued over one thousand opinions, and Marshall authored more than half of them. Marshall believed the United States Constitution should evolve to meet the needs of later generations, and he strongly defended the separation of powers, the sanctity of contracts, and the supremacy of federal law over state law.
Talbot v. Seeman
The Marshall Court’s first important case occurred after the USS Constitution captured the armed French vessel Amelia and took the ship to New York harbor as a prize. The Constitution’s commander, Captain Talbot, claimed half the value of the ship and cargo, even though a neutral Hamburg merchant named Seeman owned the cargo. In the dispute that followed, Alexander Hamilton represented Captain Talbot, and Aaron Burr represented Seeman. A federal district court ruled in favor of Talbot, but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Seeman. The Supreme Court accepted the case for final resolution.
Marshall wrote the opinion and established the important principle that only Congress has the authority to declare war. According to Marshall, an implied contract existed between Talbot and Seeman, entitling Talbot to compensation for the salvage of the cargo in the amount of one sixth of the value of the ship and its contents, less court costs. Marshall reasoned that the Amelia was subject to seizure because Talbot had no way of knowing the ship carried a neutral cargo. He concluded that the Amelia was not an enemy vessel because America and France were not at war, so the capture was illegal under international law.
Marbury v. Madison
Marshall often used ordinary cases to announce sweeping legal rulings as in Marbury v. Madison. Two days before leaving office, President Adams appointed dozens of Federalist Party supporters to justice of the peace positions to frustrate incoming President Jefferson’s administration. The Senate quickly confirmed the appointments, but outgoing Secretary of State Marshall could not deliver all the commissions before Jefferson’s inauguration. When Jefferson took office, forty-two signed Justice of the Peace commissions awaited delivery.
Jefferson refused to deliver the commissions, including one for William Marbury. At the time, being a justice of the peace was not an important job. Because Marbury was wealthy and did not need the income, he likely sued James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, to embarrass Jefferson. Madison refused to hire an attorney or appear to defend himself. Marbury’s attorney had difficulty getting testimony about what had happened to the commissions because the Republican administration and Congress refused to answer questions, claiming their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. During the trial, Marbury’s attorney argued that the commissions vested upon signature. Because no one offered conflicting testimony, Marbury won his case by default.
Marshall wrote a unanimous opinion for the Court, holding that Marbury had a right to receive his commission upon signature. He explained that the Secretary of State had a duty to deliver the commissions, and that neither the President nor his administration was above the law. Marshall explained that, under the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and states, and Congress could not change the Court’s power.
Near the end of the opinion, Marshall addressed the most important issue: whether a federal statute or the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Marshall wrote that the Constitution is supreme, and any federal statute inconsistent with the United States Constitution is null and void. Marbury thus established the important doctrine that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution, and the document is the supreme law of the land. States reacted favorably to the decision, so neither Jefferson nor Madison challenged judicial review of federal laws. Marshall’s opinion gave the Supreme Court authority to rule on state and federal statutes and to interpret the United States Constitution.10 In this simple case concerning a justice of the peace, the Court gained enormous power that had not previously been recognized.
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon raised the issue of whether American courts have jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign military vessel visiting an American port. The dispute began when the American schooner Exchange departed Baltimore for Spain and was captured on the high seas by a French privateer. Taken to a French port, the vessel was refitted as a warship and renamed the Balaou. En route to the West Indies, a storm forced the ship to enter Philadelphia harbor. The ship owner filed suit in United States District Court to regain possession of his property, but the federal district judge ruled the vessel was immune because it was a foreign warship. The court of appeals ruled that the vessel had voluntarily entered an American port and had, therefore, subjected itself to American jurisdiction.
In an effort to avoid a dispute with France while that country was engaged in a war with Britain, the government sought review in the Supreme Court and contended that American courts lack jurisdiction over friendly foreign warships. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the Court’s unanimous decision, explaining that federal jurisdiction within United States territory is exclusive, and that only American action or law can limit that jurisdiction because only a sovereign can grant an exception to its territorial jurisdiction. Marshall reasoned that because American ports are open to all powers with whom America is at peace, the seizure of the French ship in Philadelphia was illegal. He concluded that the ship’s owner must seek redress from a political branch of government rather than the courts, nicely avoiding a dispute with France.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
The dispute in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee began in 1791, when Denny Martin sued David Hunter for trespass to land that Martin inherited from his uncle, Lord Fairfax. The State of Virginia had characterized Lord Fairfax as a British sympathizer during the Revolutionary War, expropriated Fairfax’s land, and sold the land to Hunter. Martin sued to obtain his inheritance. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Martin did not have good title to the land. When the dispute reached the Supreme Court, Marshall recused himself because he owned part of the disputed land. Nevertheless, he drafted the Court’s opinion for Justice Story. According to “Story’s” opinion, the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, restored good title to Martin based on the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Because treaties are the supreme law of the land and override a Virginia state statute, the treaty restored Martin’s title.
The Virginia Supreme Court, however, refused to eject Hunter, contending that the United States Supreme Court had no power to hear the appeal because Virginia was a coequal government with the United States. Martin appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that a state is subordinate to the federal government. Justice Story agreed, ruling that the United States Constitution was ordained and established by the people, subordinating states to the United States government. Martin established the doctrines that the United States Supreme Court is superior to state courts, and that federal law is superior to state law. Maryland tested these doctrines later when it levied a tax on the Second United States Bank.
Portrait of Chief Justice John Marshall (Steel engraving with signature).
Chappel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
McCulloch v. Maryland
In 1816, Congress established the Second Bank of the United States to restore the value of the United States dollar and refinance debts incurred during the War of 1812. In 1819, Maryland imposed a tax on notes issued by the Second Bank to raise revenue for the state. McCulloch, manager of the Maryland branch of the Second Bank, refused to pay the tax, and he was convicted of violating state law. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court. Daniel Webster represented McCulloch, and William Pinkney served as lead attorney for the State of Maryland. The case raised a fundamental issue about the relationship of states to the federal government: If a state could tax a federal bank, what was the extent of federal supremacy?
In a unanimous decision, Marshall answered two questions: (1) Does the federal government have the authority to charter a national bank; and (2) Does a state have the power to tax a federal bank? He reasoned that, although the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government authority to charter a national bank, the document should be read broadly because it gives Congress “all necessary and proper” powers to carry out its express powers. Marshall believed that if the ends are legitimate, then any means used by the federal government to achieve those ends are also legitimate. He explained that because a national bank enabled Congress to tax and spend, Congress had the power to charter a national bank because it has explicit power to tax and spend.
Maryland argued that even if the national bank is legal, the state could still tax it. Marshall disagreed, ruling that the power to tax is the power to destroy, so states have no authority to tax a national bank because of the Supremacy Clause. Marshall’s decision in McCulloch reinforced slave states’ worst fears that the federal government might someday use its supremacy power to outlaw slavery.
Gibbons v. Ogden
The next important case the Marshall Court heard involved the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Known as the great steamboat case, Gibbons v. Ogden established the doctrine that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce includes the right to regulate navigation on United States waterways. Gibbons and Ogden were partners in a business that took passengers from New York to New Jersey. They had a dispute, and Gibbons withdrew from the partnership and opened his own steamboat company under a federal license. Ogden sued in New York court and won an injunction against Gibbons, who appealed the state court judgment to the United States Supreme Court. The case raised two issues: Does Congress have the power to regulate navigation, and can the federal government regulate navigation within the waterways of New York state?
Daniel Webster represented Gibbons and argued that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is comprehensive and exclusive. Ogden’s attorney pointed out that the Constitution does not forbid states from regulating commerce within their own waters, and that restricting navigation does not equate to prohibiting commerce. Marshall, writing for the Court, rejected a narrow reading of the Constitution, holding that limiting Congress’s power would cripple the federal government. He wrote that Article I gives Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce and defined “commerce” as all commercial transactions, including navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden gave the federal government primary jurisdiction over interstate commerce and made state law subordinate to federal law.
Marshall’s Death
The winter of 1835 was severe, and the roads were icy when Marshall traveled through Virginia on his way home from Washington, D.C. His coach hit a patch of ice and rolled over, injuring Marshall. He sought medical care in Philadelphia, and the physicians who examined Marshall determined that he had an enlarged liver with abscesses that prevented him from eating properly. Marshall lived a few more weeks and died on July 6, 1835.
Harry Munsinger is the author of Texas Divorce Guide, The History of Marriage and Divorce, History of Inheritance Law, History of Medical Miracles, and Portraits of Leadership He has served on the San Antonio Bar Association’s publications committee for many years. During that time, he has been a frequent contributor to the San Antonio Lawyer magazine. Although now retired from law practice, Harry continues to contribute to this magazine!
