were decided, only three of which, Chisholm v. State v. Georgia, 2 Ball. 419, Ware v. Hylton, 3 Ball. 199, and Calder v. Bull, 3 Ball. 386, were of general importance. It is not surprising, therefore, that the law reports contain few specimens of the judicial powers of the ten justices whose service falls entirely or mainly within this period. Jay (1789-95) and Rutleclge (1795), although men of distinguished ability and high character, were not profound lawyers. Jay's most con spicuous judicial utterance was his opinion in Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 Ball. 419, in which he formulated the Federalist view of position of the States under the Constitu tion. Rutledge's service was confined to his circuit, the Senate having refused to confirm his appointment. Wilson (i/Sq-qS),1 Iredell (1790-99) and Ellsworth (1769-99) were the ablest members of the court during this pe riod. In his dissenting opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Ball. 419, Iredell expounded the doctrine of state rights with consummate power.2 The most conspicuous monument of Ellsworth's ability was the Judiciary Act of 1789* Paterson (1793-1806) was a lawyer of much ability, and, with his wide experience in public affairs, made a very acceptable judge.4 Blair (1789-95)0 and dishing (1789i8io)6 brought to the court their judicial ex perience in the courts of their respective States. The only record of Johnson's short 'See Chisholm -•. Georgia, 2 Pall. 419; Ware v. Hylton, 3 ib, 199; United States r. Henfield, Wharton's State Trials, 49.
- See also Ware r. Hylton, 3 Ball. 199; Calder r.
Hull, //<, 386; Wilson i: Daniels, 4 Dall. 401; United States T. Mmulell, i Hughes 411;. 3 His judicia^ style may be studied in the Phoebe Ann, 3 Dall. 319; Wiscart r. Dauchy, /'*, 321; La Ven geance, ib, 297; Brown r. Barry, i/>, 365 : Clark r. Russel, ib, 415; Simms T. Irvine, ib, 425; Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 ib, 8; Wilson v. Daniels, ib, 401; and in Kirby's Connecticut Reports, Hobby -'. Finch, 14; Hart i'. Ellsworth 127; Adams?•. Kellogg, 175. 4 His leading opinions are Penhallow -•. Doane, 3 Dall. 54; Van Home's Lessee T. Dorrance, 2 it, 304; Ware 7. Hylton, 3 it, 199; Calder v. Bull, it, 386; United States T. Mitchell, 2 it, 348. 5 See his opinion in Chisholm r. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. 6 Mcllvaine -: Cox's Lessee, 4 Cranch 209; Chisholm z'. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; Ware v. Hylton, 3 it, 199.
service (1791-93) is his brief opinion in Geor gia v. Brailsford, 3 Ball. i. Moore (17991804), likewise, delivered only one opinion.7 On the fourth day of February, 1801, John Marshall took his seat as chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was the first session of the court at the new seat of the national government, and it marks the real beginnings of our federal jurisprudence. Not only had Marshall's predecessors done little to outline the great work that was to be done, but the circumstances under which he assumed his office were decidedly propi tious. The appointment itself was due to a fortuitous combination of events. The resig nation of Chief Justice Ellsworth caused a vacancy during the last days of Adams' ad ministration. Upon Jay's refusal to accept the office, it was supposed that Justice Paterson, who was supported by the ultra-Federal ists, would be promoted. But the President had 'been much impressed by Marshall's pow erful defence in Congress of the administra tion's course in delivering up Thomas Xash, alias Jonathan Robbins, a British seaman who claimed to be an American citizen, to the British authorities; and this speech prob ably contributed more than any one thing to make Marshall chief justice. The bitter conflict between the Federalist and Republican parties had resulted in 1800 in the triumph of Jefferson, and the defeated Federalists resorted to desperate measures to perpetuate their power. One of the last acts of Congress in February, 1801, was the rearrangement of the judicial districts and the establishment of separate circuit courts. This act gave to President Adams the ap pointment of sixteen new judges, whose com missions he signed and delivered on the eve of, his departure from office. The appoint ment of these "midnight judges1' was fiercely assailed in the ensuing Congress; the act creating1 new circuit courts was repealed, and in order to prevent any interference by the 7 Bas i>. Tingy, 4 Dall. 37.
