Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (68 U.S.) 175 (1864), argued 15 Dec. 1863, decided 11 Jan. 1864 by vote of 8 to 1; Swayne for the Court, Miller in dissent, Taney not participating. The competition of northern cities before the Civil War for rail traffic resulted in imprudent bond issues, with consequent defaults and repudiations. Dubuque, Iowa, promoters issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the state constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier holdings sustaining the validity of the bonds. The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions.

Yet in Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the latest Iowa Supreme Court construction. Federal judges were not bound by state courts' oscillations, Swayne asserted. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice,” he wrote (pp. 206–207). Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.

Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised Gelpcke. Critics charged that it deepened animosities between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it throttled urban development. In its disdain for state judicial authority, Gelpcke was a precursor of substantive due process.

See also Capitalism; Judicial Power and Jurisdiction.

Harold M. Hyman

GELPCKÉ V. DUBUQUE,

GELPCKÉ V. DUBUQUE, 6 Wallace 50 (1864). Prior to its decision in Gelpcké v. Dubuque, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that it would defer to the most recent state court decision when interpreting that state's constitution. In this case the city of Dubuque issued and later defaulted on bonds to finance the construction of a railroad. The city argued that it was not required to pay back the bonds because in 1862 the Iowa Supreme Court found the 1847 law authorizing the bonds unconstitutional under the state constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, hearing this case because Gelpcké was not a citizen of Iowa, determined that Dubuque must repay Gelpcké because the Iowa court's ruling did not impair the obligations made by the city under the law before it was found unconstitutional. In his majority opinion Justice Noah H. Swayne stated that the Court would not necessarily be bound by a state court's interpretation of that state's constitution. Preserving state court precedent was not important enough to justify "imolat[ing] truth, justice, and the law." In his dissent Justice Samuel F. Miller argued that the Court should show greater respect for the autonomy of state courts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fairman, Charles. Mr. Justice Miller and the Supreme Court, 1862– 1890. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1939.

———. Reconstruction and Reunion, 1864–88. Volumes 6–7 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1987–1988.

Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf, 2001.

Akiba J.Covitz

Esa LianneSferra

Meredith L.Stewart

See alsoJudicial Review .