Introduction

Abstract

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Thejob of editor of this Journal is a very pleasant one, primarily because of all the help I get from so many people. At the top ofthe list is Clare Cushman, who has been the managing editor since I tookover. Once we have accepted a piece, it is Clare’s hard work and eagle eye that make sure the piece is properly edited, facts checked, and interesting pictures chosen. Without her work, the issue you hold in your hand would not have been possible, and I want to thank her publicly for all she does. My “burden,” ifone could call it that, has also been made easier by the addition ofan as­ sociate editor, Tim Huebner. A well-respected legal historian and chairman of the History Department at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, Tim immediately understood that an editor’sjob is notjust waiting for articles to come in, but going out and talking to people in the field about what they are working on and whether they would like to offer it to the Journal for publication. It was a lot of fun at the annual meeting of the American Society for Legal History last fall to “work the crowd” with Tim, and the fruit of that labor will be appearing in the Journal in the near future. I cannot overstate what a rock Grier Stephenson has been in culling through the growing number of books that appear on le­ gal and constitutional history, picking out the best of them that apply to the history of the Supreme Court, and then providing our read­ ers with pithy and intelligent reviews. It is a labor oflove for him, I know, but that does not detract from the benefit it gives to us. Finally, my thanks to Jim O’Hara and David Pride, the chairman of the Publica­ tions Committee and the executive director of the Society, respectively. They have provided guidance and support since I came on board, and make our work all that much easier. To all ofthese people, a sincere thanks. This issue explores a number of different aspects of Court history. Everyone knows that for nearly a century, the Justices complained about having to ride circuit, until Congress fi­ nally established the Circuit Courts ofAppeals system in 1891. It was not just the long travel in days when travel was difficult, but also the harsh living conditions and occasional dan­ gers. Steven Brown tells a circuit-riding story that concerns John McKinley, a lesser-known v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY judge injudicial history. While McKinley’s cir­ cuit was unusually large (and later reduced in size), the story shows us how much different a Justice’s job was in the nineteenth century. Eachyearthe Society awards two HughesGossett Awards. One is for the best article to appear in the Journal of Supreme Court History in the previous year. The other goes to a paper written when the author was a student—either in college, graduate, or law school—and includes publication in the Jour­ nal. Emily Kendall’s article on Salmon Chase is this year’s winner of the student HughesGossett ; she wrote her paper “Because of ‘His Spotless Integrity of Character’: The Story of Salmon P. Chase: Cabinets, Courts, and Cur­ rencies” while a law student at George Mason University. There are few cases in Supreme Court his­ tory that bear the odium surrounding Lochner v. New York (1905). It has been roundly derided for more than a century as the worst example ofjudicial activism, and Justice Oliver Wen­ dell Holmes’s dissent in that case has been considered iconic in its call for judicial re­ straint. Recently, however, some scholars have been taking a second look at Lochner and sug­ gesting that perhaps it is not the terrible deci­ sion everyone has said it is. David Bernstein is the latest scholar to join this group. He ar­ gues that if we look at the legal culture of the times, Lochner makes not only perfectly good sense, but also good law. Whether such an argument will win over the legal academy remains to be seen, but it is a debate well worth...