Samuel Chase served as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1796 to 1811. In 1804 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase. However, the Senate did not uphold the House's action and Chase continued to serve on the Court until his death. Chase remains the only justice who has been the subject of impeachment proceedings. Chase's decisions set several precedents for the Supreme Court, among them opinions establishing the supremacy of federal treaties over state laws and the establishment of judicial review, which is the Court's power to void legislation it deems unconstitutional, a power that makes the judiciary one of the three primary branches of the federal government (the other two branches being Congress and the president).
"I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State legislature."
Known for his fiery and partisan manner, Chase was an active politician for most of his life. Before his career as a judge Chase served in the Maryland colonial and state legislatures. As a member of the continental congress in the 1770s, Chase was an outspoken advocate of American independence from Britain. He signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He opposed the Constitution as an Anti-Federalist (an opponent of federal government powers over the states) in the 1780s. Later, however, he became a member of the federalist party and as a Supreme Court justice helped establish the powers of the federal judiciary. Chase generally
The Samuel Chase Impeachment Trial
Originally an anti-Federalist opposed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on grounds that it deprived the states of their independence and sovereignty, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase changed his tune about the propriety of a strong central government once he saw the anarchy and madness wrought by the French Revolution. By the time he was seated on the nation's high court, Chase had earned a reputation for his zealous defense of the federalist party and his harsh criticism of the democratic-republican party.
Generally speaking, the Federalist Party favored a strong national government, promoted legislation that advanced mercantile interests, supported the creation of a national bank, and believed that the federal government should be run by the most well-educated and affluent Americans. The Democratic-Republican Party generally favored stronger and more independent state governments, promoted legislation that advanced agricultural interests, opposed the creation of a national bank, and believed that the federal government should be run as a popular democracy, with its power being directly and closely derived from everyday, average Americans.
Chase's political beliefs endeared him to the White House while Federalist john adams was in office. But in 1800 Democratic-Republican thomas jefferson defeated Adams to become the third president of the United States, and his Democratic-Republican Party took control of both houses of Congress. Chase had rankled Democratic-Republicans even before Jefferson took office. The beginning of the fall term of the Supreme Court in 1800 had to be postponed several weeks until Chase finished campaigning for John Adams in Maryland.
After Jefferson took office, Chase began openly assailing the president and his policies. Chase even took to condemning the Democratic-Republicans from the bench. In reading a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in May 1803, Chase unleashed what one contemporary observer called "a tirade against Democratic-Republican legislation." Dismayed that Jeffersonians in Maryland had established universal male suffrage, Chase suggested to the grand jurors that "the country … [was] headed down the road to mobocracy, the worst of all popular governments" and that, if left in power, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans would eliminate "all security for property, and personal liberty." The "modern doctrine … that all men in a state of society are entitled to equal liberty and equal rights," Chase warned, will bring "mighty mischief upon us." Finally, Chase said that congressional Democratic-Republicans had gravely compromised the independence of the judiciary by repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, which lame-duck Federalist lawmakers had passed to create extra federal judgeships for President Adams to fill.
When Jefferson learned of Chase's grand jury charge on May 13, 1803, he immediately wrote Joseph Nicholson, one of his party leaders in the House of Representatives, suggesting action against Chase: "Ought this seditious and official act on the principles of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, to go unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions for your consideration, for myself it is better that I should not interfere." Nicholson quietly alerted his Democratic-Republican colleagues as to Jefferson's suggestion. Less than a year later, on March 12, 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase by a 73 to 32 margin, naming John Randolph, a cousin of Jefferson and a mercurial politician in his own right, to head the House Managers responsible for prosecuting Chase in his trial before the Senate.
The eight articles of impeachment centered on three charges. The first charge arose from Chase's remarks before the Baltimore grand jury. The second charge stemmed from his conduct in the 1800 treason trial of John Fries. The third charge focused on Chase's conduct in the 1800 sedition trial of James Callender. Together, the House managers argued, these three charges represented judicial misconduct amounting to impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution provides that the federal judges "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The least serious of the charges concerned Chase's conduct in the Fries trial. Fries was accused of treason for leading a riot over a dwelling tax in Pennsylvania in 1799. At the outset of the Fries trial, Chase had delivered a written opinion in which he defined the meaning of treason as a matter of law, without ever hearing argument from the lawyers in the case. Fries' attorneys were flabbergasted. They withdrew from the case because, they contended, Chase's conduct had irrevocably tainted the jury pool and made a fair trial impossible. Without counsel, Fries was easily convicted. In defense of his actions, Chase told the Senate that before the jury began deliberating in the Fries case, he had instructed the jurors that they had the final word on the definition of treason and the final say on how that definition would be applied to the facts of the case.
The most serious charge concerned Chase's conduct at the Callender trial. Callender had been indicted under the provisions of the Sedition Act for publishing a book accusing John Adams of being a British toady and a monarchist. Passed in 1798 by a Federalist Congress, the Sedition Act made it a crime to speak or write in such a way as to bring the president or Congress "into contempt or disrepute." Jeffersonians viewed the act as a political tool that the Adams administration used to muzzle its opponents.
During the impeachment trial, the House Managers presented evidence that Chase had prejudged the Callender case. They offered testimony that Chase, upon first reading Callender's book, had expressed the intent to present the offending passages to a grand jury himself and obtain an indictment against the defendant. Chase admitted threatening such action but denied following through on the threat and argued that the threat by itself did not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. The House Managers also presented evidence that Chase failed to exclude a juror from sitting on the jury, even though the juror had formed an unfavorable opinion about Callender. Chase admitted that one juror indicated having formed such an opinion, but Chase said that the same juror also said he had not formed an opinion about the specific charges against the defendant.
The trial began on February 9, 1805, and the House Managers took ten full days to present the testimony of more than 50 witnesses. Chase did not testify during the proceedings but instead read a prepared statement that attempted to refute the charges. Closing arguments started on February 20 and lasted several days. Martin Luther, one the country's most able and respected lawyers, represented Chase. Seven House Managers, led by Randolph, spoke for the prosecution. Thirty-Four senators weighed the evidence, 25 Democratic-Republicans and 9 Federalists. aaron burr, Jefferson's vice president, presided over the proceedings. Twenty-two votes, or two-thirds of the Senate, were necessary for conviction.
On March 1, 1805, the Senate announced its verdicts. Chase was acquitted on all counts. The closest vote was 19–15 in favor of convicting Chase for his anti–Democratic-Republican remarks to the Baltimore grand jury. Contemporary observers and historians have given Martin Luther a lion's share of the credit for the acquittals. His closing argument deeply impressed the Senate with ideas that Chase was a wronged man and that the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary would be imperiled by conviction. John Randolph's closing argument, by contrast, was described as so ineffective, disorganized, shrill, and blatantly partisan that even Thomas Jefferson was alienated.
The failure of the Senate to convict allowed Chase to return to the Supreme Court and serve 6 more years as an associate justice. More importantly, the acquittal deterred the House of Representatives from using impeachment as a partisan political tool. Some historians have suggested that the Chase impeachment trial was just a test case for House Democratic-Republicans who would have pursued other impeachments more aggressively.
The Chase impeachment is also said to have left a lasting impression on Chase's friend, Chief Justice john marshall, who spent much of his later career attempting to demonstrate that the nation's high court was separate from and even above party politics. In the final analysis, these two results represent flip sides of the same coin: one result increased the independence of the federal judiciary from interference by the legislative and executive branches, while the other result revealed the danger to that independence created by unelected federal judges who publicly attack the popular policies of democratically elected lawmakers.
Presser, Stephen B. 1991. The Original Misunderstanding: The English, the Americans, and the Dialectic of Federalist Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic.
Rehnquist, William H. 1992. Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic.
favored a strong government ruled by an elite and he opposed the radical ideas of the French Revolution.
Chase was born April 17, 1741, in Somerset County, Maryland. His father, Thomas Chase, was a British-born clergyman of the Church of England. His mother, Matilda Walker Chase, died at Chase's birth. In 1744 the family moved to Baltimore where Chase grew up and received a classical education under his father's supervision. Chase studied law in Annapolis, Maryland, at the office of Attorney John Hall from 1759 until he was admitted to the bar in 1763. In 1762 Chase married Ann Baldwin. They had seven children, three of them dying in infancy. Ann died sometime between 1776 and 1779 and in 1784 Chase married Hannah Kitty Giles, with whom he had two daughters.
Chase established a successful law practice in Annapolis, the colonial capital and later the state capital of Maryland. He also became prominent in colonial politics. In 1764 he was elected to the lower house of Maryland's colonial legislature as a representative of Annapolis and by the early 1770s he had become well-known as a skillful legislator and outstanding leader, earning the nickname the Maryland Demosthenes after the ancient Greek orator and politician. He represented Maryland in the Continental Congresses from 1774 to 1778 and 1784 to 1785 and in 1778 served on as many as thirty committees in his tireless efforts to advance the cause of independence from Britain. He advocated a boycott of Britain and a political confederation of the colonies. He denounced those who opposed such policies as "despicable tools of power, emerged from obscurity and basking in proprietary sunshine." Together with benjamin franklin and Charles Carroll, Chase traveled in 1776 to Montreal in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade Canada to join the American colonies in their revolt against England. He signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and worked for its acceptance in Maryland.
Chase helped draft the Maryland Constitution in 1776. He served in the Maryland House of Delegates for all but a year and a half between 1777 and 1788. When the U.S. Constitution came before the Maryland Convention for ratification Chase was in the minority of delegates who voted against it. He was an ardent Anti-Federalist at the time and argued that the Constitution concentrated power in the hands of the central government at the expense of the common individual. "I consider the Constitution," he wrote to a friend, "as radically defective in this essential: the bulk of the people can have nothing to say to it. The government is not a government of the people." He also argued that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom of the press and the right to trial by jury.
His opposition to the Constitution cost him his state legislative seat in 1788. The same year, Chase also went bankrupt after several of his speculative business ventures failed. These business risks had also damaged his political career, which had been plagued with charges that he used his office for personal gain. In 1778 he had been dismissed from the Continental Congress for two years for allegedly attempting to corner the flour market and profit from speculation on prices.
Dogged by bankruptcy and charges of corruption, Chase sought refuge in the position of a local judge in Baltimore County in 1788. In 1791 he was concurrently appointed chief judge of the Maryland General Court. The state assembly, upset with his behavior on the bench and his holding two positions as judge, tried unsuccessfully to remove him from both positions.
Chase might seem to have been an unlikely choice for a Supreme Court justice. However, President george washington nominated him to the Supreme Court on January 26, 1796. Over the years Washington had been impressed by Chase's legal skills; he also admired the zeal with which Chase had worked for American independence during the Revolutionary War as well as Chase's efforts in support of Washington in the Continental Congress. James McHenry of Maryland, the secretary of war and a friend of Washington's, strongly recommended Chase to Washington. Moreover, the Supreme Court was not very powerful or prestigious at the time and it was difficult to find a lawyer who would accept a position on it. The job did not pay well and justices had to travel long distances to preside over circuit courts.
Chase took his seat on the Court on February 4, 1796. He was an Anti-Federalist at the time of the Constitution's ratification but during his tenure on the Court he became a persuasive advocate for the federal judiciary's power to review legislation. Two cases from Chase's first session on the Supreme Court—Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 171, 1 L. Ed. 556, and Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 199, 1 L. Ed. 568, both decided in March 1796—stand out. In Hylton v. United States, the Court for the first time reviewed a law passed by Congress. Although the Court refrained from declaring its ability to void acts of Congress on constitutional grounds, its review nevertheless paved the way for marbury v. madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), which established the right of the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. At issue in Ware v. Hylton was whether a treaty decided by the federal government could take precedence over state laws. The U.S. government had made a treaty with Great Britain following the Revolutionary War that provided for the payment of debts owed to Great Britain. The states, meanwhile, had passed their own laws on this issue, many of which enabled U.S. citizens to forgo repaying their debts to British citizens. john marshall, future chief justice of the Court, argued the case before the Court for the debtors. The Court ruled that the national treaty had precedent over state law. Of Chase's opinion in this case, constitutional scholar edward s. corwin wrote in 1930 that it "remains to this day the most impressive assertion of the supremacy of national treaties over State laws."
In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386, 1 L. Ed. 648 (1798), Chase wrote a highly influential opinion for the Court. He defined a constitutional interpretation of ex post facto laws—that is, retroactive laws, or laws that affect matters occurring before their enactment. Chase decided that the Constitution's prohibition of such laws extended only to criminal statutes that make prior conduct a crime, not to civil statutes. Chase also set a precedent by arguing that any law "contrary to the great first principles of the social compact" must be declared void. In his opinion, Chase emphasized that the Constitution limits the ability of legislators to disturb established property rights even when it does not expressly set forth such rights. Described by Presser as the natural-law basis of the Constitution, this argument broadened the Court's ability to test the constitutionality of legislation.
In United States v. Callender, Chase's Trial 65, Whart. St. Tr. 668, 25 F. Cas. 239, No. 14, 709 (C.C. Va.) (1800), Chase further defined the powers of the Court when he ruled that a jury could not decide the constitutionality of a law:
[T]he judicial power of the United States is the only proper and competent authority to decide whether any statute made by congress
(or any of the state legislatures) is contrary to, or in violation of, the federal constitution.… I believe that it has been the general and prevailing opinion in all the Union, that the power now wished to be exercised by a jury, belongs properly to the Federal Courts.
Chase also found himself embroiled in highly publicized political controversy for his actions both on and off the bench. For example, he made partisan speeches in 1796 for john adams, the Federalist party candidate for president, even after he had taken the position of Supreme Court justice. He also pushed for passage of the alien and sedition act, 1 Stat. 596 (1798), which outlawed "false, scandalous, and malicious" attacks on the government, the president, or Congress. The law was designed largely to discourage criticism of President Adams by the rival democratic-republican party, whose most well-known leader was thomas jefferson. In circuit court decisions in 1799 and 1800 Chase imposed harsh sentences on Democratic-Republicans who had published opinions critical of Adams's Federalist administration. In several cases Chase worked to keep Anti-Federalists off juries. In the case of John Fries of Pennsylvania, a strong supporter of Jefferson who had led rebellions against federal excise taxes, Chase sentenced the accused to death. President Adams subsequently set aside the sentence.
In 1800 the political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., changed when Jefferson defeated Adams for the presidency of the United States. In 1803 Chase got into trouble with the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans when he severely criticized their policies in front of a Baltimore grand jury. Chase explained that he objected to recent changes in Maryland law that gave more men the privilege of voting. Such changes as these advanced by Democratic-Republicans, Chase exclaimed, would
rapidly destroy all protection to property, and all security to personal liberty, and our Republican Constitution [would] sink into mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments.… The modern doctrines by our late reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty mischief upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly destroy progress, until peace and order, freedom and property shall be destroyed.
This angered Jefferson and other Democratic-Republicans and in 1804 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase on charges of misconduct and bias in the sedition cases and of seditious criticism of Jefferson in the 1803 Baltimore grand jury charge. In 1805, the Democratic-Republican–controlled U.S. Senate moved to impeach Chase. Democratic-Republican senators charged that Chase had been guilty of judicial misconduct and that his partisan acts showed that he lacked political objectivity. Federalists defending Chase argued that he had committed no crime and that he could not be convicted under the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate failed to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to impeach Chase and he remained on the Court until his death.
Chase's acquittal set an important precedent for the Court—no Supreme Court justice could be removed simply because of his or her political beliefs. The failure to impeach Chase allowed Chief Justice Marshall to assert and define the powers of the Court in future decisions with more confidence. It was thus a step in the process of defining the independence of the Supreme Court as one of the three primary branches of U.S. government.
Chase avoided controversy in his subsequent work on the Court. His near impeachment served as a warning both to him and to other justices to be careful in their choice of words while in office. As Chase suffered in later years from declining health, Marshall became the most vocal justice and assumed Chase's position as the lightning rod for the Court.
Chase died June 19, 1811, in Baltimore. He was interred in St. Paul's Cemetery.
Haw, James. 1993. "Samuel Chase." In The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1993, ed. Claire Cushman. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Samuel Chase Impeachment: 1805
Samuel Chase Impeachment: 1805
Defendant: Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase
Crime Charged: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution
Chief Defense Lawyers: Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Hopkinson, and Luther Martin
Chief Prosecutor: Trial Managers John Randolph and Caesar Rodney
Judges: The U.S. Senate, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding
Place: Washington, D.C.
Dates of Trial: February 4-March 1, 1805
Verdict: Not guilty
SIGNIFICANCE: Congress for the first and only time exercised its constitutional prerogative to try a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Samuel Chase was born in Somerset County, Maryland in April of 1741. During the next 70 years, until his death in 1811, he would become one of America's most famous and controversial founding fathers.
Chase was active in politics from an early age and was elected to colonial Maryland's Assembly on the strength of his anti-English platform. He was Maryland's delegate to the Continental Congress of 1774 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and was one of the signers of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. After fighting in the Revolutionary War, during which he became friends with George Washington, Chase returned to Maryland. Chase used his influence in the Federalist Party to further his judicial career, and he swiftly rose through a succession of ever more prestigious posts. Chase was appointed presiding justice of the Baltimore Criminal Court, then in 1791 he was appointed chief justice of the Maryland Court of Appeals, and finally in 1796 he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chase's Supreme Court nomination had Washington's personal backing.
From the Maryland courts to the Supreme Court, Chase was an openly Federalist judge, and he never hid his political loyalties. He zealously enforced the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts, and he supported the strict prosecution of persons involved in antigovernment demonstrations and allegedly treasonous activities. Chase presided at several trials involving supporters of his fellow founding father and presidential contender Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the candidate of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party and won the hotly contested election of 1800.
Jefferson had a series of political struggles with the Federalists, whose supporters such as Chase and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall dominated the federal judiciary. For several years, Jefferson's energies were focused on the legal issues in Marbury v. Madison (see separate entry), which ended on February 24, 1803 with Marshall's famous opinion proclaiming the doctrine of judicial review.
Congress Impeaches Chase
After Marbury, Jefferson adopted a different tactic in attacking the Federalist judiciary. He decided to exploit his party's domination of the Senate, where 25 of the 34 senators were Democratic-Republicans and only nine were Federalists. Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, federal judges can be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," and under Article I, Section 3, the trial must be conducted before the Senate. Jefferson's allies in the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against Chase, which were duly received by the Senate.
The Senate's High Court of Impeachment, presided over by Vice President Aaron Burr, opened on February 4, 1805. The "trial managers," or prosecutors, were John Randolph and Caesar Rodney. Chase's lawyers were Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Hopkinson, and Luther Martin. There were eight Articles, or charges, which named a variety of Democratic-Republican grievances against Chase concerning the trials over which he had presided. The charges ranged from giving a false legal definition of treason during the trial of one John Fries (see separate entry) in Article One to making very political comments to a Baltimore grand jury in Article Eight.
There was certainly plenty of evidence that Chase was a highly opinionated Federalist judge, who had perhaps acted with little regard for courtroom niceties, but there was very little proof that his actions were serious enough to be deemed constitutional violations. Even the Democratic-Republican senators felt uncomfortable. Trial manager Rodney in his closing argument lamely begged the Senate:
Remember, if this honorable court acquit the defendant, they declare in the most solemn manner … that he has … behaved himself well, in a manner becoming the character of a judge worthy of his situation.
On March 1, 1805, the Senate voted on Chase's impeachment. On each of the eight Articles, enough Democratic-Republican senators joined the Federalists in voting "not guilty" so that Chase was acquitted of all the charges against him. Chase continued to serve on the Supreme Court until he died in June 1811.
Samuel Chase's acquittal was a defeat for Thomas Jefferson, who may have planned to impeach Chief Justice John Marshall if Chase had been found guilty. The Samuel Chase impeachment was the first and only time Congress impeached a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
—Stephen G. Christianson
Suggestions for Further Reading
Elsmere, Jane Shaffer. Justice Samuel Chase. Muncie, Ind.: Janevar Publishing, 1980.
Haw, James. Stormy Patriot: the Life of Samuel Chase. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1980.
Rehnquist, William H. Grand Inquests: the Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrer Johnson. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1992.
Samuel Chase (1741-1811), American politician and member of the early U.S. Supreme Court, was the most controversial of the founders of the American Republic.
Samuel Chase was born on April 17, 1741, in Somerset County, Md. He was educated, primarily in the classics, by his father, the Rev. Thomas Chase, until 1759, when he began the study of law; 2 years later he was admitted to practice. In 1762 he married Anne Baldwin. He was a member of the assembly (1764-1784) from Annapolis, where he resided until moving to Baltimore (1786).
A Force for Independence
An early and active opponent of the British crown, Chase led the tumultuous demonstrations of the Sons of Liberty against the Stamp Act. After the Boston Tea Party controversy in 1774, he was a member of the Maryland Committee of Correspondence and a delegate to the First Continental Congress. The following year he returned to Philadelphia for the Second Continental Congress and served in the Maryland Convention and Council of Safety. In the congresses he was among the most active and zealous and was instrumental in causing the Maryland Legislature to change its instructions to its congressional delegation so as to vote for independence. John Adams described Chase in Congress as "violent and boisterous" in debate and "tedious upon frivolous Points." So violent were his attacks on a fellow delegate who was unenthusiastic about independence that his victim retired from Congress. Chase's own patriotism was questioned when Alexander Hamilton (under the pen name "Publius") revealed that Chase had taken advantage of knowledge gained in Congress to try to corner the flour market. Temporarily retired from national politics, Chase remained a dominant figure in Maryland politics.
In 1784 Chase was married again, this time to Hannah Kilty Giles. Through the years he had diversified his business interests to include involvement in confiscated coal and iron lands. In 1789, however, he declared insolvency. He was concerned in drafting the Mount Vernon Agreement of 1785, which settled differences on the Potomac between Maryland and Virginia, but it might be a mistake to see this as a step toward nationalism; and Chase's attitude toward the Constitution bears this out. He was not a delegate to Philadelphia, but under the name "Caution" he assailed the document as undemocratic and voted against ratification. His faction, however, was easily outvoted. Ironically, in view of his later actions, he proposed amendments protecting freedom of press and trial by jury. He was appointed to state judgeships in 1788 and 1791, and his holding of dual offices and his overbearing manner on the bench almost led to his ouster.
Member of the Supreme Court
In the Continental Congress, Chase had helped thwart opponents of Gen. Washington, and when Chase's name was suggested for Federal office in 1795, the President may have remembered this support. Washington first considered appointing Chase attorney general but in 1796 selected him for the Supreme Court, in place of the resigned John Blair. The fact that Chase had converted to Federalism lends credence to the assumption that his democratic opposition to the Constitution was another instance of his demagoguery.
In the first 5 years on the Supreme Court he delivered several precedent-making opinions. In Hylton v. United States, 1796, he defined direct taxation much more satisfactorily than would be done by the Court 99 years later. In Ware v. Hylton, also 1796, he effectively asserted the supremacy of treaties over state law, and 2 years later in Calder v. Bull he provided the textbook definition of expost facto laws. He summed up differing attitudes on judicial review in Cooper v. Telfair. An important circuit opinion was his ruling in United States v. Worrall that Federal courts lacked jurisdiction over common-law crimes.
Chase, however, is best remembered for the contentious behavior that he carried to the bench. He advocated passage of the Sedition Act and then acted almost like a prosecutor, especially in the case of James T. Callender. At the second treason trial of John Fries, Chase's action was so high-handed as to lead to a boycott of his Court by Philadelphia lawyers. The "hanging judge," as the Republican press called him, campaigned vigorously for President Adams in 1800 and probably reached the peak of judicial impropriety on May 2, 1803, when he delivered a blistering tirade against democracy and the Jefferson administration, while making a jury charge. This action prompted the Jeffersonians to impeach him, and he was tried but not convicted in 1805, despite intense pressure from Jefferson, the Senate taking a narrow interpretation of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" of Article III of the Constitution. chase's conviction might well have been followed by the impeachment of Justice John Marshall, but impeachment became a dead letter with Chase's trial, although the prospect may have served to curb the justices' political activities.
Chase was often absent his last 10 years on the bench due to gout, and his productivity was far less than that of his first 5 years. His stormy life ended on June 19, 1811.
There is no biography of Chase. Philip A. Crowl, Maryland during and after the Revolution: A Political and Economic Study (1943), provides useful background material, as does the biography of one of his closest friends, Luther Martin of Maryland, by Paul S. Clarkson and R. Samuel Jett (1970). The volumes in preparation on the history of the Supreme Court by Julius Goebel and Gerald A. Gunther will supersede existing works.
Elsmere, Jane Shaffer, Justice Samuel Chase, Muncie, Ind.: Janevar Pub. Co., 1980.
Stormy patriot: the life of Samuel Chase, Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1980. □
CHASE, SAMUEL. (1741–1811). Signer. Maryland. Born 17 April 1741, in Somerset County, Maryland, Samuel Chase was admitted to the bar in 1761. He became a prominent lawyer and sat in the colonial and then state legislature from 1764 to 1788, where he earned a reputation for extreme independence. He even supported the regulation of ministerial salaries, which reduced his father's income by half. Chase resisted the Stamp Act and, as a member of the Sons of Liberty, publicly affirmed his own participation in the looting of public offices, destroying stamps and burning the collector in effigy. In the Continental Congress of 1774 to 1778, he was also a member of the Maryland committee of safety, the first Maryland convention, and the Committee of Correspondence. He advocated a total trade embargo of England, favored confederation, and supported George Washington in the face of congressional intrigues. Chase was sent on the unsuccessful Canadian mission. In 1778 he attempted, with others, to corner the flour market, using congressional information about the arrival of the French fleet. Alexander Hamilton exposed this corruption, temporarily ending Chase's political career. In 1783 the governor of Maryland sent Chase to England to recover state funds invested in the Bank of England before the war. He failed in this mission. In 1786 he moved from Annapolis to Baltimore and, in 1788, he became chief judge of the new criminal court. A member of the state convention that adopted the Federal Constitution in 1788, he opposed its ratification. After serving as chief of the Maryland general court, he was named to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1796. In 1804, he was impeached by the House of Representatives but was acquitted by the Senate. He continued on the bench until his death on 19 June 1811.
SEE ALSO Canada, Congressional Committee to.
Samuel Chase's papers. Maryland Historical Society. Baltimore, Maryland.
Haw, James, et al. Stormy Patriot: The Life of Samuel Chase. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1980.
revised by Michael Bellesiles
Samuel Chase, 1741–1811, political leader in the American Revolution, signer of the Declaration of Independence, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1796–1811), b. Somerset co., Md. A lawyer, he participated in pre-Revolutionary activities and was a delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses. In 1776 he was appointed, together with Benjamin Franklin and Charles Carroll of Carrollton, to win Canada over to the Revolutionary cause, but the plan failed. Chase helped to influence Maryland opinion to support independence from Great Britain. Although he opposed adoption of the U.S. Constitution, he later became a strong Federalist and President Washington appointed him (1796) to the U.S. Supreme Court. A series of brilliant and influential decisions established his leadership in the court until he was eclipsed by the rising genius of John Marshall. Chase was impeached (1804) by the U.S. House of Representatives for discrimination on the bench against Jeffersonians. Tried before the Senate (1805), he was found not guilty. This verdict discouraged further attempts to impeach justices for purely political reasons.