Introduction

Abstract

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Various issues of the Journal show dif­ fering degrees of internal consistency. When we publish the pieces that grow out of our an­ nual lecture series, all or nearly all of the arti­ cles in that issue relate to a particular theme, such as the recent issue carrying the lectures on Thomas Jefferson. While there is certainly much interest in looking at an important topic from several angles, I preferthose issues where the articles constitute a potpourri. It is these is­ sues, like the one you now hold in your hands, that in my mind best capture the great richness that characterizes the history of the Supreme Court. Despitethe number ofyears I have stud­ ied the Court and edited this journal, I never cease to be pleasantly surprised by new ways scholars keep discovering to inform us about the Court’s past. As Ross Davies notes, we are all so used to the idea of one indivisible Supreme Court that many ofus cannot fathom the idea that for nearly four decades the duties of the nation’s highest tribunal were carried on by a single member sitting in Washington for the August Term, a condition created by the Jeffersonians as part oftheirplan to undo the 1800 Judiciary Act. Not only did this “rump” Court sit, but it actually dealt with some cases. One can only feel sympathy for the poor Justice who had to attend to the Court’s business in an un-air conditioned federal city, especially when he had already put in hard time riding circuit. Although we tout the American system of government as a divided or separated one, where the executive, legislative and judicial functions are walled offfrom one another, his­ torians andpolitical scientistshave longknown that the lines of demarcation are never sharp, but often fuzzy. John Kaminski, one of the pre-eminent scholars ofthe Federalist era, and C. Jennifer Lawton explore one ofthose over­ lapping areas, the grand jury charges of Chief Justice John Jay. In that era such charges rarely had anything to do with law, and a great deal to do withpolitics andpublic policy. In fact, some ofthe Framers saw such charges as one way to bring the government closer to the people. All of us who are lawyers (or have law degrees) at one time or another think about the remote (extremely remote) possibility that we would one day be appointed to the high court, to serve in the same body that included v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY John Marshall, Stephen J. Field, Oliver Wen­ dell Holmes, Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, William J. Brennan, Jr. and the two John Marshall Har­ lans. While enjoying that fantasy, it would never occur to us to decline such an honor. Yet apparently a number of people have, and Bennett Boskey, a former clerk in the Court, recounts some of those stories. Mr. Boskey has limited his account to a certain type of declination, but there are a number of urban legends around as to other instances where someone has rejected an of­ fer to become a Justice. Whether it is true or not, for example, I heard many times that John Kennedy wanted to put the noted Harvard Law scholar Paul Freund on the Court, and could not understand why Freund would want to stay in Cambridge. Speaking of stories, the Society is cur­ rently in the process ofcollecting stories about the Court, the kind that often do not wind up in scholarly publications. Please see the notice that our managing editor, Clare Cushman, has put into this issue, and ifany ofyou know some good tales (preferably true), please share them with us. Several years ago we began offering a Hughes-Gossett prize to students for papers relating to the Supreme Court, and the high quality ofthose effortshas confirmed ourjudg­ ment in creating that award. This year the prize goes to Helen J. Knowles, who while a student at Boston University challenged the accepted wisdom of the Solicitor General as a “tenth member” of the Court. At least for Archibald Cox during the reapportionment cases, the SG’s office and the Justices operated on sepa­ rate wave lengths. Finally...