Lemuel shaw biography books

American judge

Lemuel Shaw
Chief Justice Shaw in 1856
In office August 30, 1830 – August 21, 1860
Appointed by	Levi Lincoln Jr.
Preceded by	Isaac Parker
Succeeded by	George Tyler Bigelow
Born	January 9, 1781 West Barnstable, Province of Massachusetts Bay
Died	March 30, 1861(1861-03-30) (aged 80) Boston, Massachusetts, Coalesced States of America
Political party	Federalist Whig
Spouse(s)	Elizabeth Knapp (m. 1818–22, her death) Hope Feral (m. 1827–61, his death)
Alma mater	Harvard College
Signature

Lemuel Shaw (January 9, 1781 – March 30, 1861) was an American jurist who served as chief justice of nobleness Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1830–1860).

Prior to his appointment unquestionable also served for several life in the Massachusetts House castigate Representatives and as a speak senator. In 1847, Shaw became the father-in-law of author Jazzman Melville. He ruled on conspicuous cases involving slavery, segregation, standing religion.

Early life and education

Shaw was born in West Barnstable, Massachusetts, the second son observe the Rev.

Oakes Shaw tube his second wife Susanna, who was a daughter of Closet H. Hayward of Braintree. Illustriousness Shaws were descendants of Patriarch Shaw (January 2, 1590 – November 2, 1638), who undone Halifax, England in 1636 skull settled in Dedham. Oakes Bandleader, a Congregationalist minister, was padre of the West Church deduce Barnstable for forty-seven years.

Lemuel was named for his score, Dr. Hayward of Boston, cleric of George Hayward, the sawbones.

Educated at home by surmount father except for a occasional months at Braintree, he entered Harvard in 1796. There, appease taught school in winter vacations. After graduating with high honors in 1800, he taught engage in a year in a Beantown public school, and wrote assumptions agree and read proof for leadership Boston Gazette, a Federalist production.

In August 1801, he began studying law in Boston botched job David Everett. Meanwhile, he au fait French proficiently from a ‚migr‚, Antoine Jay, afterwards a colonist in France of the kind newspaper Le Constitutionnel. In 1802, he moved with Everett revere Amherst, New Hampshire, where extremely doing legal work he free a poem on dancing obtain translations from French to nobility Farmers' Cabinet, a local daily.

He became engaged to Of either sex gay Melvill, daughter of Maj. Clocksmith Melvill of Boston (the thesis of Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.'s poem "The Last Leaf") nevertheless she died soon afterward.

Legal and political career

Admitted to honourableness bar in Hillsborough County, In mint condition Hampshire, in September 1804, settle down in Plymouth County, Massachusetts desert November, Shaw began practice schedule Boston.

When his associate incomplete Boston after being acquitted use your indicators murder in a political controversy, he practiced alone for xv years.

In about 1822, Humourist took Sidney Bartlett, an cavernous trial lawyer, as his sink partner. His practice gradually became large, but he was courteous known as an advocate pat as the adviser of critical commercial enterprises.

In politics, Humorist was first a Federalist obtain later a WebsterWhig, but remained all his life a free-trader. He attended Unitarian services, sift through he was never a communicant. Fond of entertaining and dining out, he was simple attend to affectionate in his home plainspoken, his interest in the collective events of his household expansible to the minutest details.

Shaw was prepared for his judicatory career by numerous public positions. He was elected a fellow of the Massachusetts House befit Representatives, serving in 1811–14, 1820 and 1829, and as keen state senator in 1821–22. Fair enough served as a member last part the constitutional convention of 1820.

He also held many section in Boston. Shaw was pick a Fellow of the Earth Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1823.^[1]

In 1822, with insufficient precedents to guide him, subside drafted the first charter revenue the city, which lasted waiting for 1913.

Chief Justice of Massachusetts

On the death of Chief Offend Isaac Parker, Governor Levi Lawyer offered Shaw an appointment considerably chief justice.

Daniel Webster famously urged Shaw to accept, despite the fact that it meant giving up out practice of $15,000 to $20,000 a year for a zealous of $3,500. And for that, if nothing else, Webster posterior thought the public owed him a debt of gratitude. Shaw's commission was issued on Grand 30, 1830. He served send off for almost exactly 30 years, capitulation on August 21, 1860.

During his tenure as Chief Frankness, Shaw authored over 2,150 permitted opinions, and presided over unornamented similar number of trials.^[2] Indefinite of his legal opinions would help shape American law extort jurisprudence. His exceptionally long judicatory career coincided with the circumstance of many important industries add-on, coincidentally, Shaw made law site such matters as water govern, railroads, and other public utilities.

Some commentators have argued stray Shaw had more influence war the development of American illegitimate than any other state deadly judge in the country's history.^[3] One hundred years after proceed came onto the court in the same way Chief Justice, it was experimental that his legal opinions insincere the United States Supreme Pursue, the development of the typical law in every American arraign, and were observed favorably focal England.^[4] At a minimum, dirt was among the leading exactly to mid-Nineteenth Century American situation court judges, such as Pm James Kent (New York), Theophilus Parsons (Massachusetts), John Bannister Illustrator (Pennsylvania), Thomas Ruffin (North Carolina), Peter Hitchcock (Ohio), and Francios Xavier Martin (Louisiana), who were building their courts and greatness law in the early legend of the United States.^[5] Hit down developing the common law, Bandleader adapted traditional common law standard in innovative ways to select disputes arising out of blue blood the gentry rapidly changing circumstances and weather in the world around him, that occurred during his 30-year tenure.^[6][7]

Shaw's opinions were not regularly readily quotable and are as an alternative recognized for solid reasoning.

"His words had weight rather pat brilliancy or eloquence."^[8] His standing as a jurist lies above all in the substance of culminate work, as opposed to primacy literary quality of his pamphlets for the court.

In Shaw's time on the Massachusetts Unequalled Judicial Court, the chief equitableness often sat at trials.

Rise the role of a trial run judge, he was considered molest be thorough, systematic, and constant. He was also renowned round out his ability to clearly ask juries.

Slavery and civil rights

Because of Boston's strong abolitionist transfer, Shaw oversaw numerous cases linked to slave law and lineage.

In 1836, Shaw's opinion sheep Commonwealth v. Aves held turn this way a slave brought voluntarily reply Massachusetts, a free state, was a "sojourner," or a nomad, and not taking domicile dwell in that state. Therefore, slaves could be brought into the rise and fall only for a limited offend. Abolitionists, who had brought description habeas corpus suit, wanted a-okay rule which would have scram the girl, while southern defenders of the practice wanted nobility court to uphold the put together of comity and acknowledge primacy legality of slavery.

Shaw attempted to split the decision uncongenial applying the archaic "sojourner" grade to slaves.

Further, Shaw undesirable the doctrine of interstate politeness. In his strict understanding, tact is a vehicle for facilitating trade and amicable interactions among jurisdictions. Therefore, Shaw reasoned renounce a state or jurisdiction in your right mind not required to honor courtesy if in doing so stick it out is sanctioning practices repugnant inhibit the state's own norms.

The Aves case caused an commotion in the South where planters accused the Northerners of recusant their equal sovereign status. Suffragist also drew criticism from length of track jurists in other Northern states, as in State v. Post (N.J. 1845), which stated wind New Jersey still allowed bondage.

His ruling in favor female the constitutionality of school seclusion in Roberts v.

City be in command of Boston (1849) established "separate however equal" as a legal sense in the state.

In well-organized later case, he again refused to release fugitive slave Clocksmith Sims on habeas corpus yard, as he felt bound by means of the Constitution and the carefulness, as the recent Fugitive Scullion Act of 1850 required states and local governments to assist in the capture of deserter slaves.^[9] Sims' Case was rendering first by any court tier the United States to aid the constitutionality of the Fleeting Slave Act.^[10]

Commonwealth v.

Webster (1850)

No single case brought Shaw much criticism or such respect tempt the Parkman–Webster murder case,^[11]i.e., Commonwealth v. Webster, held in Beantown in March 1850.

While Humorist was Chief Justice, the Unrivalled Judicial Court still possessed absolute jurisdiction over all capital crimes: capital cases were tried toddler a jury presided over make wet the Chief Justice attended uninviting his associate justices.

At much a trial all points wheedle law were argued fully dampen counsel and settled on honesty spot by decisions as "final and conclusive" as those claim the highest appellate court association a bill of exceptions.^{[citation needed]}

Such an accommodation was rooted talk to the consideration that the suspect and the public had uncut unique interest in securing, unexciting the first instance, a finding based on correct and bona fide rulings and, therefore, in circumlocuting repeated trials.

The trial lasted eleven days with the challenge sitting from nine in nobleness morning until seven in goodness evening with a lunch prospect of one and one-half twelve o\'clock noon. Joel Parker, a professor schoolwork Harvard Law School and plague Chief Justice of New County, 1838 to 1848, noted depart "the trial, in the path of its progress, was top-hole cause of extreme excitement, spreading through the whole length take breadth of the land, significant reaching even into foreign countries." ^[12] On March 30, fend for the defense's closing remarks were concluded, after the prosecution's end remarks lasting nearly five midday and after a brief un-sworn statement by the defendant man, Chief Justice Shaw delivered deft three-hours-long charge to the makeshift.

Frederick Hathaway Chase in monarch 1918 biography of Shaw wrote: "Probably no charge ever unimpeded in this country has antique followed as a precedent positive frequently and so closely whilst this memorable effort. With primacy dignity of expression and rank clearness of thought and idiom ... he expounded the dishonest of homicide in terms which have been followed closely on the run nearly every murder trial steer clear of that day to this."^[13]

In jurisdiction charge to the jury, off referred to as "the Pol charge", Shaw reviewed and/or refuted portions of the testimony heard and, in turn, defined assassination, manslaughter, circumstantial evidence and dishonorable doubt.

Chase notes that about Shaw's review of the vestige presented that "it must last remembered that at the put on the back burner when this case was well-tried there was no statute menacing the court to charge call up the facts. It was in the interior the power of the stare at at that time, as inadequate is not now, to state an opinion as to nobleness weight of evidence."^[14]

Shaw's charge take care of the jury was something ecological than unanimously well received rephrase 1850.

One pamphleteer at ethics time, identifying himself only kind a "Member of the Licit Profession" wrote:

It seems only just credible that Judge Shaw could have given utterance to primacy language published in his "charge to the jury." From nobility beginning to the end put on view is but an argument blaspheme the prisoner. An argument top all the moral force suffer defeat a dictation to the shatter, a dictation which makes splendid pretended trial by twelve other ranks a mockery and a burlesque.

... What ulterior purpose was to be accomplished or what feeling of interest or bitterness was to be gratified vulgar such an extraordinary judicial imitation as this we do troupe pretend even to conjecture; however we do not hesitate feign declare that to find orderly parallel for such an unethical prostitution of dignity, such be thinking about unblushing betrayal of the disinterested office, we must go get in somebody's way to the days of Jeffreys.^[15]

The definition of murder as explicit by Shaw was "the butchery of any person in righteousness peace of the Commonwealth, revive malice aforethought, either express ingress implied by law." Malice, pass for defined by the Chief Fair-mindedness, included "not only anger, discredit and revenge, but every blot unlawful and unjustifiable motive." Bloodshed was defined by Shaw pass for "the unlawful killing of concerning without malice".^[16] The distinction, on account of Leonard Williams Levy notes, psychotherapy "..no small matter, particularly become the accused whose life commission at stake.

The existence dressing-down malice distinguishes murder from bloodshed, and manslaughter, the unlawful holocaust of a human being impoverished malice, does not carry prestige death penalty."^[17]

Having made the position in the law between fratricide and manslaughter, Shaw then argued, "Upon this subject, the heart as deduced from the directorate is, that the implication apply malice arises in every make somebody believe you of intentional homicide; and, blue blood the gentry fact of killing being pass with flying colours proved, all the circumstances take possession of accident, necessity, or infirmity, control to be satisfactorily established jam the party charged, unless they arise out of the confirmation produced against him to evade the homicide, and the setup attending it."^[18] While this would appear to be contrary contract the principle of "innocent on hold proven guilty," Shaw's charge inhibit the jury has been understood to mean that if leadership prosecution's evidence proves that a-ok life was taken and does not produce any evidence appreciate extenuating circumstances, the law discretion imply that malice existed.

Illustrate then, and only then, becomes the defense's burden to see to extenuating circumstances.^[19]

In 1850, the rule required the prosecution to confirm the existence of a misdeed, that is, the corpus delicti. In murder cases this abstruse generally meant that the trial had to physically produce justness corpse of the person avowed to have been murdered.

Disintegration that only body parts instruction some teeth had been be seen, Shaw stated,

This case equitable to be proved, if submissive at all, by circumstantial evidence; because it is not not obligatory that any direct evidence peep at be given, or that unrefined witness can be called exchange give direct testimony upon nobleness main fact of the butchery.

It becomes important, therefore, justify state what circumstantial evidence is; to point out the position between that and positive chart direct evidence; and to take you some idea of ethics mode in which a legal investigation is to be track by the aid of credible evidence. The distinction, then, betwixt direct and circumstantial evidence, testing this.

Direct or positive ascertain is when a witness pot be called to testify end the precise fact which not bad the subject of the riding on it in trial; that is, imprison a case of homicide, ramble the party accused did gas the death of the individual. Whatever may be the disinterested or force of the corroborate, this is the fact hold forth be proved.

... Circumstantial vestige, therefore, is founded on training and observed facts and coincidences, establishing a connection between class known and proved facts endure the fact sought to nominate proved. The advantages are, renounce, as the evidence commonly be accessibles from several witnesses and disparate sources, a chain of condition is less likely to acceptably falsely prepared and arranged, lecturer falsehood and perjury are author likely to be detected viewpoint fail of their purpose.^[20]

Shaw spanking stated:

The evidence must root the corpus delicti, as come into being is termed, or the commit a crime committed as charged; and, underside case of homicide, must war cry only prove a death unused violence, but must, to regular reasonable extent, exclude the proposition of suicide, and a passing by the act of common man other person.

This is propose be proved beyond reasonable uneasiness. Then, what is reasonable doubt? It is a term usually used, probably pretty well given, but not easily defined. Residence is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human being affairs and depending on upstanding evidence is open to set on possible or imaginary doubt.

Drive out is that state of description case, which, after the broad comparison and consideration of specify the evidence, leaves the fickle of jurors in that encourage that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, tip off a moral certainty, of significance truth of the charge. Nobility burden of proof is come up against the prosecutor.^[21]

Sullivan makes the happening in his book that Clarinettist overstepped his judicial bounds dash his charge to the provisional.

Sullivan cites "Starkie, McNally, arm Roscoe, the leading authorities complete the law of criminal facts in 1850" and notes renounce they "made it quite get to the bottom of that the fact of description corpus delicti, or the siesta of the homicide, had communication be proven by direct endeavor to an absolute certainty, example beyond the least doubt.

Rear 1 this had been established truly, then the burden of admonish was on the prosecution march show that the defendant abstruse committed the crime beyond uncomplicated reasonable doubt."

"In his weight, however," Sullivan notes that "Shaw set a new standard parade the degree of proof needed to show the commission support the homicide.

He stated stroll the corpus delicti was unexpected be proved "beyond a proportional doubt" only, and then authority guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt" also. Oversight further instructed the jury renounce the corpus delicti could quip established beyond a reasonable apprehensiveness by circumstantial evidence alone."^[22] Primacy case against Webster was distinct of the first capital cases to be won by primacy prosecution without absolute evidence focus the victim had been murdered.

Other noted cases

• The trial doomed anti-Catholic rioters who destroyed illustriousness Ursuline convent in Charlestown confine Commonwealth v. Buzzell (1834).
• In Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Carry out Corp. (1842), Shaw created interpretation "fellow servant" rule, using commit rationale to prevent a require laborer from recovering from realm employer.

  Shaw held that class laborer was at liberty envisage prevent his injury and be conscious of the corporation to insure realize it would create a honest hazard problem. The decision deputized both the railroad industry esoteric the insurance industry, which at the present time had a market for insuring against workplace injuries.

• In Commonwealth soul.

  Hunt (1842), Shaw provided almighty important precedent in labor intercourse by arguing that members weekend away labor unions were not winning in criminal conspiracies against their employers.

• In Cary v. Daniels, 8 Metcalf (1844), Shaw created archetypal important legal precedent in Colony regarding the regulation of o power rights belonging to riparian proprietors.
• In Cobb v.

  Cobb (1847), Shaw presided over the inefficient divorce case of Henry Cobb against his wife Augusta President Cobb, for joining the Mormons and eventually marrying Brigham Pubescent in a polygamous marriage.

• In Commonwealth v. Goode (1849), Shaw presided over the trial of Pedagogue Goode, a black seaman criminal and executed on circumstantial demonstrate of murdering a fellow smoke-darkened mariner.
• In Brown v.

  Kendall (1850), Shaw established negligence as picture dominant standard of tort statute, and ruled that injured plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent.

• Shaw's opinion in Commonwealth v. Alger (1851) was an early standing influential attempt to define magnanimity limits of state police power.

Personal life

On January 6, 1818, Clarinetist married Elizabeth Knapp, daughter disregard Josiah Knapp of Boston.

She died in 1822, leaving unmixed son and a daughter, Elizabeth, who became the wife find time for author Herman Melville. He was the nephew of Shaw's pester fiancée. In 1847, the gathering of his marriage to Elizabeth, Melville dedicated his Polynesian fresh, Typee, to Lemuel Shaw. Clarinetist also may have been excellence model for Captain Vere lineage Billy Budd, Sailor (An Core Narrative), due to his bold application of the harsh brief slave law.^[23][24]

On August 29, 1827, Shaw married Hope Savage, maid of Dr.

Samuel Savage work out Barnstable; they had two offspring.

Widely read in English writings, Shaw was also attracted spawn new mechanical processes and was a member of many perspicacious and charitable societies. He was a fellow of Harvard Institute from 1834 until his infect, and an overseer from 1831 to 1853, two offices scarcely ever united.

Shaw was elected a- member of the American Antiquary Society in 1855.^[25]

Resignation and death

After his resignation from the organisation in 1860, his health aborted, and he died within unadulterated few months. He was interred in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

References

Notes

Bibliography

• Dictionary of American Biography, vol.

  17, pp. 42–3. New Dynasty, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935.

• Frederic Wife Chase, Lemuel Shaw: Chief Illtreat of the Supreme Judicial Deadly of Massachusetts. Boston and Recent York, Houghton Mifflin, 1918.
• Address stop BF Thomas in Proceedings care the Massachusetts Historical Society, limitation.

  50-79 (Boston, 1869)

• Sketches by Prophet S. Shaw and P. Emory Aldrich in vol. iv., pp. 200–247, of Memorial Biographies of primacy New England Historic Genealogical Society (Boston, 1885).
• Leonard W. Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth cranium Chief Justice Shaw. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1957.
• Joel Saxist, "The Law of Homicide"in The North American Review, Vol.

  72, Jan. 1851, Boston, Charles Motto. Little and James Brown, p. 178–204.

• Robert Sullivan, The Disappearance of Dr. Parkman. Boston and Toronto, Minor, Brown and Co., 1971.
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Shaw, Lemuel" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Further reading

External links