Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law: Craig Joyce Entries

What follow are listings, by page, of three entries to The Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law, all of them concerning early Reporters of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, by contributing author Craig Joyce: 133 – “William Cranch” describes the life of the Washington, D.C., judge who served as the Second Reporter of Decisions from 1801 to 1815. Like his predecessor, Alexander James Dallas (served 1790-1800), Cranch became the Reporter more by chance than premeditation. Dallas had reported the Court’s decisions only during its stay in the nation’s second capital in Philadelphia. When the Justices decamped for the new capital in the District of Columbia, a successor became necessary. The son of Abigail Adams’s sister, Cranch had moved to Washington as legal agent for a land speculation syndicate and was ruined by its collapse. He was rescued by his well-placed uncle, President John Adams. Having been appointed assistant judge of the new D.C. Circuit Court in 1801 and survived the Republican purges of Federalist judges the following year, he served on, becoming chief judge in 1805, for 54 years until his death. His 14 years as Reporter of Decisions were, therefore, incidental to his career, and burdensome, too. Reporting, in his day, was a private entrepreneurial venture unfunded by the Government. Cranch surrendered the labor happily when his successor, Henry Wheaton, arrived in Washington in 1816. 424 – “Richard Peters, Jr.” is a short biography of Wheaton’s own successor (served 1816-27), who litigated with Wheaton over Peters’s claimed right to condense and republish Supreme Court decision originally reported by Wheaton. Like Cranch, Peters became Reporter by fortunate connection. The son of a prominent Pennsylvania state judge, he had edited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington’s Third Circuit opinions. Unlike Wheaton, who regarded the Reportership as a calling to serve the law and his country, Peters saw it primarily as a financial opportunity. In addition to producing his own reports, Peters republished the opinions first printed by Dallas, Cranch, and Wheaton in volumes of bare-bones Condensed Reports, paring away concurring and dissenting opinions, counsels’ arguments, and Wheaton’s intricate scholarly annotations. He cut prices by 75%, making the Court’s opinions widely affordable but also destroying Wheaton’s market. Wheaton sued. Doctrinally, the decision in Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834), recognized statutory enactment as the only basis for copyright law in the United States, required copyright claimants to show punctilious compliance with the Copyright Act’s statutory formalities, and held even such compliance incapable of affording copyright in the Court’s opinions. Practically speaking, Peters won, although doubtful factual matters required a remand resulting, 16 years later, in a settlement by Peters’ estate to Wheaton’s estate in the amount of $400. Indeed, an inglorious chapter in the history of judicature! 583 – “Henry Wheaton” tells the more ennobling story of the ablest of the early Reporters. Wheaton (served 1816-27) redefined the office and greatly improved the quality of the product. Unlike his self-appointed predecessors, Wheaton became Reporter through selection by the Supreme Court. His sponsor was Justice Joseph Story, a fellow scholar and perfectionist who valued Wheaton’s learning and determination. The two roomed together while in Washington and sought to create a comprehensive, coherent body of national law. Wheaton attended court sessions faithfully, reported arguments and opinions accurately, and published each volume within the year, enabling bench and bar to know promptly the rulings of the nation’s highest court. In addition, Wheaton enhanced his reports with unprecedented annotations, elucidating particular points in opinions or exploring entire areas of developing law, apropos the business of the Term. Wheaton’s career following the Reportership as equally notable, both as a leading diplomat and as an expounder and historian of international law. Of Wheaton’s contributions to American jurisprudence, his contemporary William Pinkney’s observation, on the publication of Wheaton’s first volume of reports, is apt: “The Profession [is] infinitely indebted to you.”