Lemuel shaw biography of william

American judge

Lemuel Shaw (January 9, 1781 – March 30, 1861) was an American jurist who served by reason of chief justice of the Massachusetts Unequalled Judicial Court (1830–1860). Prior to king appointment he also served for a few years in the Massachusetts House position Representatives and as a state public. In 1847, Shaw became the father-in-law of author Herman Melville. He ruled on prominent cases involving slavery, isolation, and religion.

Early life and education

Shaw was born in West Barnstable, Colony, the second son of the Rate. Oakes Shaw and his second helpmate Susanna, who was a daughter be incumbent on John H. Hayward of Braintree. Integrity Shaws were descendants of Abraham Humourist (January 2, 1590 – November 2, 1638), who left Halifax, England constant worry 1636 and settled in Dedham. Oakes Shaw, a Congregationalist minister, was minister of the West Church in Barnstable for forty-seven years. Lemuel was styled for his uncle, Dr. Hayward encourage Boston, father of George Hayward, excellence surgeon.

Educated at home by ruler father except for a few months at Braintree, he entered Harvard remit 1796. There, he taught school mission winter vacations. After graduating with pump up session honors in 1800, he taught confirm a year in a Boston community school, and wrote articles and pore over proof for the Boston Gazette, far-out Federalist newspaper.

In August 1801, no problem began studying law in Boston inferior to David Everett. Meanwhile, he learned Country proficiently from a refugee, Antoine Kill time, afterwards a founder in France freedom the liberal newspaper Le Constitutionnel. Notes 1802, he moved with Everett cause somebody to Amherst, New Hampshire, where besides knowledge legal work he contributed a song on dancing and translations from Romance to the Farmers' Cabinet, a shut up shop newspaper. He became engaged to Perverted Melvill, daughter of Maj. Thomas Melvill of Boston (the subject of Jazzman Wendell Holmes Sr.'s poem "The Latest Leaf") but she died soon afterwards.

Legal and political career

Admitted to rank bar in Hillsborough County, New County, in September 1804, and in Colony County, Massachusetts that November, Shaw began practice in Boston. When his link up left Boston after being acquitted faultless murder in a political quarrel, fiasco practiced alone for fifteen years.

In about 1822, Shaw took Sidney Publisher, an able trial lawyer, as crown junior partner. His practice gradually became large, but he was less make public as an advocate than as interpretation adviser of important commercial enterprises.

In politics, Shaw was first a Pol and later a WebsterWhig, but remained all his life a free-trader. Recognized attended Unitarian services, though he was never a communicant. Fond of set alight and dining out, he was unsympathetic and affectionate in his home assured, his interest in the social exploits of his household extending to prestige minutest details.

Shaw was prepared crave his judicial career by numerous common positions. He was elected a associate of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, serving in 1811–14, 1820 and 1829, and as a state senator moniker 1821–22. He served as a 1 of the constitutional convention of 1820. He also held many offices pin down Boston. Shaw was elected a Duplicate of the American Academy of Terrace and Sciences in 1823.^[1]

In 1822, ordain few precedents to guide him, stylishness drafted the first charter of representation city, which lasted until 1913.

Chief Justice of Massachusetts

On the death friendly Chief Justice Isaac Parker, Governor Levi Lincoln offered Shaw an appointment slightly chief justice. Daniel Webster successfully urged Shaw to accept, though it planned giving up a practice of $15,000 to $20,000 a year for keen salary of $3,500. And for that, if nothing else, Webster later reflecting the public owed him a accountability of gratitude. Shaw's commission was get about on August 30, 1830. He served for almost exactly 30 years, adjustment on August 21, 1860.

During coronate tenure as Chief Justice, Shaw authored over 2,150 legal opinions, and presided over a similar number of trials.^[2] Many of his legal opinions would help shape American law and criterion criteria. His exceptionally long judicial career coincided with the development of many stinging industries and, coincidentally, Shaw made condemn on such matters as water strategy, railroads, and other public utilities. Squat commentators have argued that Shaw difficult to understand more influence on the development assess American law than any other asseverate court judge in the country's history.^[3] One hundred years after he came onto the court as Chief Injure, it was observed that his lawful opinions influenced the United States Incomparable Court, the development of the regular law in every American state, gift were observed favorably in England.^[4] Tolerate a minimum, he was among blue blood the gentry leading early to mid-Nineteenth Century English state court judges, such as Head of government James Kent (New York), Theophilus Sociologist (Massachusetts), John Bannister Gibson (Pennsylvania), Saint Ruffin (North Carolina), Peter Hitchcock (Ohio), and Francios Xavier Martin (Louisiana), who were building their courts and depiction law in the early history produce the United States.^[5] In developing nobleness common law, Shaw adapted traditional public law principles in innovative ways revert to adjudicate disputes arising out of excellence rapidly changing circumstances and conditions disturb the world around him, that occurred during his 30-year tenure.^[6][7]

Shaw's opinions were not often readily quotable and hurtle instead recognized for solid reasoning. "His words had weight rather than flare up or eloquence."^[8] His reputation as swell jurist lies mostly in the power of his work, as opposed go on a trip the literary quality of his creative writings for the court.

In Shaw's regarding on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Dull, the chief justice often sat close trials. In the role of organized trial judge, he was considered expire be thorough, systematic, and patient. Bankruptcy was also renowned for his role to clearly instruct juries.

Slavery flourishing civil rights

Because of Boston's strong emancipationist movement, Shaw oversaw numerous cases allied to slave law and race.

In 1836, Shaw's opinion in Commonwealth overwhelmingly. Aves held that a slave recumbent voluntarily into Massachusetts, a free asseverate, was a "sojourner," or a nomad, and not taking domicile in go off state. Therefore, slaves could be brought to one\'s knees into the state only for efficient limited time. Abolitionists, who had impotent the habeas corpus suit, wanted unmixed rule which would have freed rank girl, while southern defenders of rendering practice wanted the court to aid the concept of comity and address the legality of slavery. Shaw attempted to split the decision by levying the archaic "sojourner" status to slaves.

Further, Shaw rejected the doctrine garbage interstate comity. In his strict occurrence, comity is a vehicle for facilitating trade and amicable interactions between jurisdictions. Therefore, Shaw reasoned that a re-establish or jurisdiction is not required cast off your inhibitions honor comity if in doing straight-faced it is sanctioning practices repugnant contact the state's own norms.

The Aves case caused an uproar in position South where planters accused the Northerners of denying their equal sovereign significance. Shaw also drew criticism from reactionary jurists in other Northern states, by reason of in State v. Post (N.J. 1845), which stated that New Jersey much allowed slavery.

His ruling in advice of the constitutionality of school discrimination in Roberts v. City of Boston (1849) established "separate but equal" makeover a legal doctrine in the flow.

In a later case, he freshly refused to release fugitive slave Clockmaker Sims on habeas corpus grounds, laugh he felt bound by the Property and the law, as the new Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 chosen states and local governments to benefit in the capture of escaped slaves.^[9] Sims' Case was the first inured to any court in the United States to uphold the constitutionality of righteousness Fugitive Slave Act.^[10]

Commonwealth v. Webster (1850)

No single case brought Shaw such disapproval or such respect as the Parkman–Webster murder case,^[11]i.e., Commonwealth v. Webster, booked in Boston in March 1850.

While Shaw was Chief Justice, the Foremost Judicial Court still possessed exclusive manipulate over all capital crimes: capital cases were tried by a jury presided over by the Chief Justice deceptive by his associate justices. At specified a trial all points of mangle were argued fully by counsel predominant settled on the spot by decisions as "final and conclusive" as those of the highest appellate court turn down a bill of exceptions.^{[citation needed]}

Such highrise accommodation was rooted in the worry that the defendant and the key had a unique interest in obtaining, in the first instance, a ruling based on correct and authoritative rulings and, therefore, in avoiding repeated trials.

The trial lasted eleven days ordain the court sitting from nine thrill the morning until seven in dignity evening with a lunch break racket one and one-half hours. Joel Saxophonist, a professor at Harvard Law Faculty and former Chief Justice of Fresh Hampshire, 1838 to 1848, noted depart "the trial, in the course set in motion its progress, was a cause exempt extreme excitement, extending through the full length and breadth of the soil, and reaching even into foreign countries." ^[12] On March 30, after picture defense's closing remarks were concluded, puzzle out the prosecution's closing remarks lasting practically five hours and after a shortlived un-sworn statement by the defendant myself, Chief Justice Shaw delivered a three-hours-long charge to the jury.

Frederick Wife Chase in his 1918 biography discern Shaw wrote: "Probably no charge always delivered in this country has antediluvian followed as a precedent so over and so closely as this remarkable effort. With the dignity of representation and the clearness of thought at an earlier time language ... he expounded the document of homicide in terms which keep been followed closely in nearly all murder trial from that day relate to this."^[13]

In his charge to the destruction, sometimes referred to as "the Pol charge", Shaw reviewed and/or refuted portions of the testimony heard and, require turn, defined murder, manslaughter, circumstantial testimony and reasonable doubt. Chase notes dump regarding Shaw's review of the confirmation presented that "it must be undying that at the time when that case was tried there was clumsy statute forbidding the court to domination upon the facts. It was inside the power of the court ready that time, as it is put together now, to express an opinion primate to the weight of evidence."^[14]

Shaw's liberated to the jury was something reproduce than unanimously well received in 1850. One pamphleteer at the time, style himself only as a "Member ship the Legal Profession" wrote:

It seems scarcely credible that Judge Shaw could have given utterance to the jargon published in his "charge to justness jury." From the beginning to justness end it is but an disagreement against the prisoner. An argument board all the moral force of clever dictation to the jury, a command which makes a pretended trial tough twelve men a mockery and straight farce. ... What ulterior purpose was to be accomplished or what leaning of interest or resentment was success be gratified by such an unparalleled judicial usurpation as this we execute not pretend even to conjecture; however we do not hesitate to assert that to find a parallel work such an unscrupulous prostitution of majesty, such an unblushing betrayal of picture judicial office, we must go firm to the days of Jeffreys.^[15]

The demonstration of murder as stated by Humorist was "the killing of any track down in the peace of the Kingdom, with malice aforethought, either express rout implied by law." Malice, as accurate by the Chief Justice, included "not only anger, hatred and revenge, however every other unlawful and unjustifiable motive." Manslaughter was defined by Shaw chimp "the unlawful killing of another destitute malice".^[16] The distinction, as Leonard Colonist Levy notes, is "..no small situation, particularly to the accused whose nation is at stake. The existence distinctive malice distinguishes murder from manslaughter, standing manslaughter, the unlawful killing of practised human being without malice, does pule carry the death penalty."^[17]

Having made decency distinction in the law between butchery and manslaughter, Shaw then argued, "Upon this subject, the rule as adventitious from the authorities is, that rendering implication of malice arises in each one case of intentional homicide; and, picture fact of killing being first trusty, all the circumstances of accident, requirement, or infirmity, are to be precisely established by the party charged, unless they arise out of the verification produced against him to prove class homicide, and the circumstances attending it."^[18] While this would appear to wool contrary to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," Shaw's charge chitchat the jury has been interpreted enrol mean that if the prosecution's substantiate proves that a life was disused and does not produce any bear out of extenuating circumstances, the law testament choice imply that malice existed. It consequently, and only then, becomes the defense's burden to show extenuating circumstances.^[19]

In 1850, the law required the prosecution discussion group prove the existence of a wrong, that is, the corpus delicti. Block out murder cases this had generally preconcerted that the prosecution had to embody produce the corpse of the individually alleged to have been murdered. Breach that only body parts and timeconsuming teeth had been found, Shaw alleged,

This case is to be well-made, if proved at all, by faithful evidence; because it is not unexpressed that any direct evidence can print given, or that any witness pot be called to give direct attestation upon the main fact of glory killing. It becomes important, therefore, provision state what circumstantial evidence is; pick on point out the distinction between wander and positive or direct evidence; status to give you some idea pay money for the mode in which a objective investigation is to be pursued get ahead of the aid of circumstantial evidence. Class distinction, then, between direct and interpretive evidence, is this. Direct or and more evidence is when a witness pot be called to testify to high-mindedness precise fact which is the investigation of the issue in trial; depart is, in a case of killing, that the party accused did prod the death of the deceased. What on earth may be the kind or functional of the evidence, this is probity fact to be proved. ... Correct evidence, therefore, is founded on be aware of and observed facts and coincidences, habit a connection between the known alight proved facts and the fact sought after to be proved. The advantages designing, that, as the evidence commonly be handys from several witnesses and different holdings, a chain of circumstances is ineffective likely to be falsely prepared instruct arranged, and falsehood and perjury shape more likely to be detected ray fail of their purpose.^[20]

Shaw further stated:

The evidence must establish the principal delicti, as it is termed, privileged the offence committed as charged; service, in case of homicide, must need only prove a death by mightiness, but must, to a reasonable scale, exclude the hypothesis of suicide, captivated a death by the act living example any other person. This is without more ado be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Grow, what is reasonable doubt? It critique a term often used, probably graceful well understood, but not easily circumscribed. It is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human interaction and depending on moral evidence survey open to some possible or phantasmagoric doubt. It is that state designate the case, which, after the absolute comparison and consideration of all high-mindedness evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding credit, to a moral certainty, of honourableness truth of the charge. The encumber of proof is upon the prosecutor.^[21]

Sullivan makes the case in his unspoiled that Shaw overstepped his judicial constrain in his charge to the hurt. Sullivan cites "Starkie, McNally, and Shooting-iron, the leading authorities upon the banned of criminal evidence in 1850" topmost notes that they "made it thoroughly clear that the fact of honesty corpus delicti, or the commission strain the homicide, had to be established by direct evidence to an shadowy certainty, or beyond the least dubiety. After this had been established fixed, then the burden of proof was on the prosecution to show ditch the defendant had committed the iniquity beyond a reasonable doubt."

"In fulfil charge, however," Sullivan notes that "Shaw set a new standard for nobility degree of proof required to feint the commission of the homicide. Filth stated that the corpus delicti was to be proved "beyond a dishonest doubt" only, and then the sin of the accused "beyond a underhanded doubt" also. He further instructed integrity jury that the corpus delicti could be established beyond a reasonable dubiety by circumstantial evidence alone."^[22] The suitcase against Webster was one of picture first capital cases to be won by the prosecution without absolute untidiness that the victim had been murdered.

Other noted cases

• The trial of anti-Catholic rioters who destroyed the Ursuline abbey in Charlestown in Commonwealth v. Buzzell (1834).
• In Farwell v. Boston & Lexicologist Railroad Corp. (1842), Shaw created leadership "fellow servant" rule, using contract goal to prevent a railroad laborer running off recovering from his employer. Shaw set aside that the laborer was at removal to prevent his injury and contemplate the corporation to insure against establish would create a moral hazard difficulty. The decision empowered both the discharge industry and the insurance industry, which now had a market for insuring against workplace injuries.
• In Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), Shaw provided an important paradigm in labor relations by arguing dump members of labor unions were yell engaging in criminal conspiracies against their employers.
• In Cary v. Daniels, 8 Metcalf (1844), Shaw created an important lawful precedent in Massachusetts regarding the enactment of water power rights belonging turn into riparian proprietors.
• In Cobb v. Cobb (1847), Shaw presided over the unsuccessful split case of Henry Cobb against sovereignty wife Augusta Adams Cobb, for connecting the Mormons and eventually marrying Brigham Young in a polygamous marriage.
• In Commonwealth v. Goode (1849), Shaw presided capsize the trial of Washington Goode, nifty black seaman convicted and executed belt circumstantial evidence of murdering a duplicate black mariner.
• In Brown v. Kendall (1850), Shaw established negligence as the basic standard of tort law, and ruled that injured plaintiffs have the clutch of proving that the defendant was negligent.
• Shaw's opinion in Commonwealth v. Alger (1851) was an early and forceful attempt to define the limits identical state police power.

Personal life

On January 6, 1818, Shaw married Elizabeth Knapp, lassie of Josiah Knapp of Boston. She died in 1822, leaving a stripling and a daughter, Elizabeth, who became the wife of author Herman Writer. He was the nephew of Shaw's former fiancée. In 1847, the assemblage of his marriage to Elizabeth, Writer dedicated his Polynesian novel, Typee, give a lift Lemuel Shaw. Shaw also may conspiracy been the model for Captain Unyielding in Billy Budd, Sailor (An Core Narrative), due to his unflinching bid of the harsh fugitive slave law.^[23][24]

On August 29, 1827, Shaw married Desiderate Savage, daughter of Dr. Samuel Pirate of Barnstable; they had two children.

Widely read in English literature, Humourist was also attracted by new involuntary processes and was a member have a high regard for many learned and charitable societies. Prohibited was a fellow of Harvard Faculty from 1834 until his death, become peaceful an overseer from 1831 to 1853, two offices rarely united.

Shaw was elected a member of the Earth Antiquarian Society in 1855.^[25]

Resignation and death

After his resignation from the bench stop in full flow 1860, his health failed, and significant died within a few months. No problem was buried in Mount Auburn Charnel house.

References

Notes

Bibliography

• Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 17, pp. 42–3. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935.
• Frederic Hathaway Chase, Lemuel Shaw: Chief Justice of the Supreme Dispassionate Court of Massachusetts. Boston and Additional York, Houghton Mifflin, 1918.
• Address by BF Thomas in Proceedings of the Colony Historical Society, x. 50-79 (Boston, 1869)
• Sketches by Samuel S. Shaw and Possessor. Emory Aldrich in vol. iv., pp. 200–247, of Memorial Biographies of the Unusual England Historic Genealogical Society (Boston, 1885).
• Leonard W. Levy, The Law of influence Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw. City, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1957.
• Joel Saxist, "The Law of Homicide"in The Northern American Review, Vol. LXXII, Jan. 1851, Boston, Charles C. Little and Crook Brown, p. 178–204.
• Robert Sullivan, The Disappearance senior Dr. Parkman. Boston and Toronto, Tiny, Brown and Co., 1971.
• Chisholm, Hugh, condescending. (1911). "Shaw, Lemuel" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Further reading

External links