History of American Law pg267-314

Finally I past the half-way point in this beast. Just a few observations:

p269

I wonder if this is another tip to de mode of academia, or something else. The author writes and quotes Edwin Corwin in "The Twilight of the Supreme Court" (1934) p78:

Far more controversial were cases [between cicra 1850-1900] that seemed to have a sinister goal: to "annex the principles of laissez faire capitalism to the Constitution and put them beyond the reach of state legislative power"

I am too jaded with ivory tower spew to comment on the "sinister" snipe. What bothers me is really Corwin's quote and his citation. A "goal" means something strove for, so, according to the argument, they court was trying to "annex" principles that were not already there.

However, was this the case? Most of the Supreme Court decisions in regard to commerce before this period were all about laissez faire capitalism. Gibbons v. Ogden maintained competition in interstate ferry routes. McCulloch v. Maryland encouraging banking competition, and knocking down state laws giving a virtual monopoly to banks chartered in that state. Those are just two cases that immediately spring to mind.

p299

This is just too funny. In regards to the pedantic nature of appeals courts in the latter half of the century:

Harwell, the defendant in a Texas case decided in 1886, had been arrested and convicted for receiving stolen cattle. The Texas court reversed, because, among other things, the jury found the defendant 'guity' instead of 'guilty' . In 1877, the same court reversed a conviction beacuse the jury carelessly wrote "We, the jury, the defendant guilty," leaving out the world 'find'. The same court, however, magnanimously upheld a conviction of 'guily' in 1879, proving that a 't' was less crucial than an 'l' in the law of Texas.

p314

Earlier in the chapter the author briefly discusses the development of the adverse possession doctrine in the US. The doctrine could be colloquially called "squatter's rights" to land. The period of time varied state to state, but essentially if you lived, maintained, and paid taxes on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it was yours.

The author then goes on to argue that the government sold/gave land as soon as possible to grow the economy. Given the former, I am not so sure. Did the government simply short-circuit the doctrine of adverse possession by laws like the Homestead Act of 1962. Or more, conspiratorially, done so as to quickly transfer choice lands to certain groups so as to avoid the doctrine.

p314

Just a passing observation as it contradicts some pop-history as taught to me in High School. Teddy Roosevelt is always lauded as the great land conservationist. Yet Yellowstone was set aside under Ulysses S. Grant. Vast lands were set aside by Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland. Finally between two Cleveland's two terms Chester Arthur signed into law a conservation bill giving the President the right to set-aside lands for conservation. It seems that Roosevelt only continued the 30 year trend, not nobly went against the tide.