The battle over the Judiciary Act of 1801 illustrates the pronounced party conflict prevalent in America by 1801. Interests were no longer ignored and talk of partisanship kept quiet. The Federalist and Republican parties created a partisan atmosphere in all aspects of government. The judiciary which had seen only subtle partisan conflict in the past was now swept into the middle of the conflict between the two parties. Partisanship came to play a role in all functions of government, and the battle over the Judiciary Act of 1801 illustrates how enflamed this conflict had become. While partisanship did exist neither party saw their actions as partisan. The Republicans saw the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 as partisan. While Federalists saw it protecting the government. Conversely, Federalists saw the Republican repeal of the act as partisan. Yet Republicans saw their repeal as completely devoid of partisanship. Thus while partisanship did exist, it was often in the eye of the beholder.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, although enacted to correct for deficiencies in the judiciary, ignited partisan feuding. During the 1790s, the judiciary was set up in an almost unmanageable system of circuit riding. The justices had to travel the country and attend to circuit courts, which was a considerable burden. There was also the possibility of the justices hearing cases in the Supreme Court, which they had decided while on circuit. By 1800, it had become obvious that a less centralized and more efficient judiciary was necessary. Yet the reform of the judiciary for the best of reasons could not have come at a worse time. With Jefferson ready to ascend the presidency, the last minute appointment of new judges outraged Republicans and put Federalists on the defensive. Thus the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had at its heart much needed reform, became a partisan struggle which engulfed the Supreme Court.
The Constitution, which had laid out a skeleton of the judiciary, gave no specifics as to how to operate these courts. Therefore in 1789, congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act created a system of circuit courts, presided over by the six men sitting on the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 fleshed out the outline given in the Constitution, but in practice it soon became obvious that it had major flaws. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court was the only federal court. The six men on the Supreme Court attended to the courts in each circuit, and there were no other federal judges. The inordinate amount of travel, and the possibility of hearing the same case in appeal that a justice had decided earlier, led to an inefficient judiciary.1
For the justices the worst part of their duty on the Supreme Court was the extensive travel through harsh weather and often unmanageable roads. As John Jay described in a letter to William Cushing, "the terms of the Sup. Court should certainly be held at Seasons less severe to the Court & Parties than Feb & Aug."2 In another letter to Cushing, Jay one again described the difficulties of travel through harsh weather, writing, "I am prepared and purpose to set out for Ph. Tomorrow if the weather should prove fair. for altho I have regained more Health...I find it delicate, and not sufficiently confirmed to admit of my travelling in bad weather."3
Typical South Carolina Road
Although there are numerous examples of the justices complaining of bad weather or poor conditions to one another, as early as 1792 all six justices had written President Washington concerning this flaw in the new judiciary. Jay and his fellow justices hoped that Washington could aid them in what they saw as "burdens laid upon us so excessive that we cannot forbear representing them in strong and explicit terms" and complained that "we cannot reconcile ourselves to the idea of existing in exile from our families."4 In another letter from the same year the justices again complained that, "to pass the greater part of their days on the road, and at inns, and at a distance from their families is a requisition which,...should not be made." They doubted that "any set of judges, however robust, would be able to support, and punctually execute, such severe duties for any length of time."5 Unfortunately for the justices, during Washington's presidency nothing was done to correct the judicial system.
However during Adam's presidency, plans were set in motion to reshape the judiciary and correct these problems. The Federalist-dominated congress sought to reshape the judiciary so that justices no longer would be required to ride the circuit. Congress proposed creating new circuit courts with their own judges. The Judiciary Act of 1801 created sixteen new judgeships to serve on six new circuit courts and decreased the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five.6 Although on the surface these changes seemed to remedy the problems plaguing the court, they instead served to ignite partisan controversy.
Partisan battles over the court reached their boiling point with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1801, but political battles over the court had become widespread during the late 1790s. The Supreme Court during this period had become undoubtedly a Federalist court. Jay and Ellsworth had both served as foreign emissaries for the Federalist government, and Chase had delivered anti-Jefferson attacks from the bench.7 While Republicans obviously opposed the court, by the end of the decade the general public had become distrustful of the court as well. As the country became more Republican and states rights orientated, popular opinion turned on the court. The public now saw the court as an elitist aristocracy and feared the nationalistic views which it upheld.8 As one man, writing during this period, put it, "shall this court continue, it will ruin this Country...I had rather the Indians would fall on us, than to have this federal Court."9
With popular opinion shifting and Republican victories in the election of 1800, the Federalist Congress had to act. On December 19, 1800, Representative Griswold first put forward the idea of a bill to alter the structure of the judiciary. Debate continued for a month and on January 20, 1801, the bill passed by a vote of 51 to 43. On February 13, 1801, the Judiciary Act of 1801, actually entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the Courts of the United States," was passed into law.10 Within two weeks, Adams filled every position with Federalists, and just two days before Jefferson took office, the Senate approved all of Adam's appointments.11 The Republicans referred to these last-second appointments with the term, "midnight judges." This term alluded to their belief that these appointment had been made in an underhanded and devious way. With Republicans in control of the Presidency and both houses of congress, these last minute Federalist judicial appointments were seen by Republicans as partisan in nature. Republicans were outraged. They had accepted the Federalist composition of the judiciary under Washington and Adams, but to pass this bill and railroad through judges as Jefferson assumed power was too much. Republicans were not going to give into what in their minds was blatant partisanship.Judiciary Act of 1801
Although Republicans saw this act as partisan, Federalists did not. In their view the act was a necessary safeguard against the new Republican government. To preserve their ideal government, they believed that the judiciary must be made up of Federalists. They did not consider their actions as partisan, instead they saw them as necessary to ensure proper government. If the Republicans gained control of the judiciary, they would control all three branches of government and Federalists ideals would be lost. Thus they justified their actions as necessary to preserve the political ideals they stood for.
Republicans had not fought with Federalists over the passage of this bill, because as Jefferson wrote to Madison, "It is believed that the judiciary system will not be pushed as the appointments, if made by the present administration, could not fall on them."12 Yet, Jefferson was also aware that Federalist might attempt to continue their influence in government: "The Feds appear determined to prevent an election, & to pass a bill giving the government to mr. Jay, appointed Chief Justice." Jefferson, saw that the Federalists means to remain in power was through the Judiciary Act, writing to Madison that "they have got their judiciary bill forwarded to commitment. I dread this above all the measures meditated, because appointments in the nature of freehold render it difficult to undo what is done."13 Jefferson and his Republican colleagues feared that Federalists might use this bill to their advantage, but they never truly believed that it would happen. Thus when Adams appointed the judges himself, Jefferson and his fellow Republicans were outraged.
In February of 1801, Humphrey Marshall wrote to John Marshall to offer his opinion that William Mc.Clung should be one of the new judges. While this was perfectly acceptable, he also made it clear that it was because of Mc.Clung's political beliefs that he should be appointed: "political Opinions often have an influence in decisions upon private rights, you will readily perceive the importance of placing in the circuit Courts a man well affected to the federal government."14 Although the Judiciary Act of 1801 was on the surface an attempt to better organize the judicial system, Republicans saw ulterior motives in the this act.
Republicans saw the Judiciary Act of 1801 as partisan, not only because of the "midnight judges," but because these circuit courts would infringe on state courts. Going back to the arguments of the Constitutional Convention, Republicans feared that courts at the district level were another attempt by Federalists to weaken state powers. As the country had voted overwhelmingly Republican in 1800, the Republicans felt justified in their attacks on the judiciary. They believed the Judiciary Act was not only partisan, but went against the wishes of the American public. Jefferson who saw his election as a sign of a great Republican "revolution," truly believed the Judiciary Act was not in the public's best interests. Republicans believed the people and the government were on their side and they should act accordingly, as James Monroe wrote to Jefferson, "you always had the people and now have the govt. on yr. side."15 Jefferson hoped to overcome partisan concerns as President, as when he said, "We are all republicans-we are all federalists," but he could not stand to see the Judiciary Act remain as law.16
For the first time actual party conflict affected the judiciary. Jefferson and his Republicans were not about to let Adams and the Federalists control even one branch of the new government. As parties grew and came into conflict in the late 1790s, it was inevitable that this conflict would reach the judiciary. Partisanship was no longer seen as something that could not exist in government. Both parties now saw that to advance the interest of their party, they must act to ensure that their party had control of the government. With Madison and Washington, partisanship may have been lurking in the shadows, by 1801 partisanship invaded all aspects of government. To Republicans, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was obviously partisan in nature.
Jefferson and his fellow Republicans feared that although the Federalist party had almost been driven from government, under the Judiciary Act of 1801 it could be years before they were driven from the judiciary. As James Monroe wrote to Jefferson, "This party [Federalists] has retired into the judiciary, in a strong body where it lives on the treasury, & therefore cannot be starved out."17 Jefferson may have spoken publicly of conciliation with the Federalists, but in private he believed the people favored his Republican ideals. This belief led Jefferson and the congress to pass legislation overturning the Judiciary Act of 1801. Thus the judiciary reverted to its pre-1801 status.18 Jefferson and his allies publicly blamed financial burdens for the repeal, but that was little more than a smoke screen. Partisan conflict had caused the now powerful Republicans to act in the same partisan manner which had outraged them a year earlier. Monroe who had pointed out the partisan nature of the first act also realized the partisan nature of this act. Monroe warned Jefferson that, "it[Judiciary Act of 1802] may be considered as an unconstitutional oppression of the judiciary by the legislature."19 Nevertheless, Republicans ignored the need for judicial reform, opting instead to return the judiciary to its prior weak status.20 Although Monroe may have warned of the partisan nature of the repeal, Republicans felt justified in their actions. Just as Federalist believed the Judiciary Act of 1801 was nonpartisan, Republicans believed their repeal was nonpartisan. Republicans believed that with the government now under their control, they had a right to protect their ideal view of government. Thus they held that their repeal of the Judiciary Act was nonpartisan.
The Judiciary Act of 1802 upset Federalists, just as Republicans had been outraged a year earlier. Federalists such as Gouverneur Morris attacked the bill on the grounds that it "render[ed] the judicial system manifestly defective and hazards the existence of the Constitution."21 Federalists who had seen their actions as nonpartisan, now believed that the Republicans had acted in a partisan manner with their repeal. But amidst the partisan fighting over the judiciary, it was the Supreme Court who overcame the temptation to act in a partisan manner. The Judiciary Act of 1802, which eliminated the judgeships created a year before led to litigation as these judges sought to have there positions returned. This litigation eventually reached the Supreme Court, and it was here that the ideal nonpartisan nature of the judiciary shone through. Although Federalists dominated the court, they overcame their political beliefs and found the Judiciary Act of 1802 constitutional. Although John Marshall, a strong Federalist held that "for myself I more than doubt the constitutionality of this mearsure,"22 the court as a whole agreed with Justice Chase who wrote that "I suppose it will not be questioned, that the repealing Act is Constitutional and will reverse every part of the Law repealed."23 Therefore in the case of Stuart v. Laird, the Supreme Court found that the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 was constitutional.24
John Marshall
Amidst the constant claims of partisanship and party conflict, the Supreme Court acted just as it was intended. Just as Madison and Washington envisioned, the Supreme Court overcame the partisanship surrounding it. Since its creation, the founding fathers had envisioned the judiciary as the one branch of government which could rise above faction. Although partisanship had surrounded the court since its inception, it became clear in Stuart v. Laird that the Supreme Court itself was not partisan. The court had it in its power to rule against the repeal, which would have eased the considerable burden they were under. Yet they ignored their own interests and ruled in favor of the appeal which they saw as constitutional. By not allowing political ideology to cloud its judgment, the Supreme Court truly became the bastion against partisanship that it had been intended to be.
During this period, the focal point of partisan conflict over the judiciary was the Judiciary Act of 1801 and its repeal. As parties organized everything became partisan in nature. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was the dying Federalists last hope to remain in government. Adams and his fellow Federalists believed that if they were to ensure their political ideals, then they must appoint a Federalist court. Yet they saw this not as a partisan act, but rather as a last attempt to ensure their ideal government. Conversely, Republicans saw this act as extremely partisan and immediately repealed it. Republicans saw their repeal as nonpartisan, as they sought to uphold their ideals of government. While Federalists believed it was the Republicans who had acted in a partisan manner by overturning their legislation. During this period partisanship did exist, but it was often in the eye of the beholder.
Thus during this period the nature of partisanship with regard to the court and the government changed. Men of similar interests now banded together into political parties which sought to advance their political agendas. With the advent of political parties, men in government now saw their political enemies as being partisan. While they believed their actions were nonpartisan, because they were acting in the best interests of the people. While Madison and Washington claimed they acted in an unpartisan manner, by 1801 Jefferson could claim that Adams acted in a partisan manner. James Monroe put it best when he wrote to Jefferson, "You see that Adams has done everything in his power to embarrass yr. admn. In some of his appointments, too, he has nominated his enemies to strengthen his party. This shews that personal hatreds are sacrificed to the good of the cause."25 Both Republicans and Federalists feared the other party would allow partisanship to enter the judiciary. While ignoring how their own actions were no less partisan than those of their counterparts. Yet amidst these fears of partisanship, it was the court itself who rose above faction and acted in an unbiased manner, just as it had been intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judiciary Act of 1801 (2 Stat. 89) was an effort by the lame duck Federalist majority in Congress to prolong its control of the federal judiciary before the end of President John Adams' term. Adopted on February 13, 1801, it was criticized by the Republicans and repealed by the subsequent Republican-dominated Congress on April 29, 1802.
The Act reduced the number of seats on the Supreme Court from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court. No such vacancy occurred during the brief period the Act was in effect, so that the size of the Court remained unchanged.
It reorganized the circuit courts, doubling them in number from three to six, and created three new circuit judgeships for each circuit (except the sixth, which received only one circuit judge). In addition to creating new lifetime posts for Federalist judges, the circuit judgeships were intended to relieve the justices of the Supreme Court from the hardships of riding circuit (that is, sitting as judges on the circuit courts). The circuit judgeships were abolished in 1802, and the justices continued to ride circuit until 1869.
It also reorganized the district courts, creating ten additional courts. These courts were to be presided over by the existing district judges in most cases. In addition to subdividing several of the existing district courts, it created the District of Ohio which covered the Northwest and Indiana Territories, and the District of Potomac from the District of Columbia and pieces of Maryland and Virginia, which was the first time a federal judicial district crossed state lines. However, the district courts for Kentucky and Tennessee were abolished, and their judges reassigned to the circuit courts.
In the nineteen days between passage of this Act and the conclusion of his administration, President Adams quickly filled as many of the newly created circuit judgeships as possible. The new judges were known as the "Midnight Judges" because Adams was said to be signing their appointments at midnight prior to President Thomas Jefferson's inauguration. (Actually, only three commissions were signed on his last day.) The famous Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison involved one of these "midnight" appointments, although it was an appointment to a judgeship of the District of Columbia, which was authorized under a different Act of Congress, not the Judiciary Act.
The Act proved ineffective in prolonging Federalist control: upon its repeal, the Federalist judges in the newly created courts found themselves out of work, their positions abolished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-11-25 03:57:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by Twisted Vixen 4
·
0⤊
0⤋