John Marshall and Spencer Roane: An Historical Analysis of their Conflict over U. S. Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction

Abstract

John Marshall and Spencer Roane: An Historical Analysis of their Conflict over U. S. Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Samuel R. Olken Introduction Between 1810 and 1821 Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court participated in a series of fierce debates with Spencer Roane, Chief Justice of the Vir­ ginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Essentially, theirs was a conflict over the authority of the United States Supreme Court to review the actions of state courts and legislatures. In Cohens v. Virginia 1 the controversyreached its crescendo. As a leading proponent of a strong national government, John Marshall believed in a powerful federal judiciary with the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter in disputes involving questions of federal and constitutional law. Spencer Roane favored a relatively weak national government and ar­ gued the United States Supreme Court did not have the authority to review the decisions of state courts in matters involving federal or constitutional issues. Many historians have analyzed their conflict as a personal one and have portrayed Roane as a bitter, frustrated Republican aspi­ rant totheUnitedStates SupremeCourt. When JohnAdams replaced OliverEllsworth withthe Federalist Marshall in December 1800, this purportedly precluded Roane’s appointment whenJefferson became President the following March.2 For several reasons, however, Jeffer­ son would not have made Roane ChiefJustice. Despite the latter’s prestige, he remained a junior member of the Virginia Supreme Court in 1801. Jefferson barely knew Roane; the two didnotbecome close friends until 1815. Finally, Roane’s intimate association with Patrick Henry, a past political foe of Jefferson, probably pre­ vented the appointment.3 This paper examines the develop­ ment of the Marshall-Roane conflict over Su­ preme Court appellatejurisdiction. It suggests two reasons why their bitter dispute over the Cohens decision did not occur spontaneously. First, by 1821 these jurists had formed diver­ gent conceptions of federal judicial power. Marshall’s points represented the refinement of constitutional views he initially presented in his defense of the federal judiciary during de­ bates with Roane’s mentor, Patrick Henry, and George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Con­ vention of 1788. In contrast, Spencer Roane’s contin­ ual immersion in Virginia politics and law for forty years explains his belief in a federal judi­ ciarywith limited constitutional authority. Roane viewedhisjudicialpost as a means ofpreserving the power of his court to decide matters of federal and constitutional law.4 In addition, the Cohens decision marked the final piece in a trilogyofcases involvingSupreme Court appel­ late jurisdiction. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee5 and McCulloch v. Ma/yland6 the Marshall Court addressed this issue in broad constitutional and legal terms, but in Cohens the Chief Justice delivered an exhaustive analysis of federaljudi- 126 JOURNAL 1990 The first challenge to ChiefJustice John Marshall’s belief that the United States Supreme Court had the authority to reexamine cases involving federal or constitutional law came from fellow Virginian Spencer Roane (right). Roane,who eventually became chiefjudge of the Virginia Court ofAppeals, fiercely denied that the Marshall Court had the power to review decisions by state courts. cial power that elaborated on principles pre­ sented in the earlier cases. Moreover, Marshall’s opinion responded directly to the criticisms levied against his Court by Spencer Roane and other Republican Virginia jurists from 1810 to 1821. Inasmuch as this essay traces the con­ tours of this debate, it suggests the political and judicial positions of each man affected his understanding of the relationship between Virginia and the federal government. The first part examines the arguments over the federaljudiciaryin the Virginia Ratify­ ing Convention of 1788. The second discusses the political and legal influences upon each jurist’s developing notions of federal judicial power until 1810. For purposes ofthis study the term federal courts also signifies the United States Supreme Court. The final section ana­ lyzes the extent of their conflict over Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction between 1810 and 1821. I. The Debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention In the summer of 1788 Virginia held a ratifying convention in which delegates from throughout the state debated the merits of adopting the Constitution. From the conclu­ sion of the Revolution to 1787 a loose confed­ eration of states existed, at the...