Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:33:33.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Construction of Citizenship and the Creation of American Common Law in Illinois, 1850–1861

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2002

Howard Schweber
Howard Schweber*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the vocabulary and analytical organization of American common law underwent a profound and far-reaching transformation in a process that began in the northern industrial states around 1850. The language and categories of pleading cases, the burdens of proof, and the standards for the adjudication of cases, all were transformed. This was not merely a matter of revision, it was a reconfiguration of the basic reasoning process that defined the logic of the law. The result was the displacement of the inherited English common- law system, which until that time had undergone only minor modifications. In its place, a unified system of specifically American common law emerged, constructed around a model of American public citizenship that replaced private rights with public duties as its lodestone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Joel H. Silbey posits that throughout the nineteenth century a high mobility rate meant that local parties were “constantly shifting collection(s) of short-term participants” ( Silbey, , The American Political Nation, 1838–1893 [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991], 149 Google Scholar).

2. John Phillip Reid argues that settlers moving west brought their governing local conceptions with them even in the absence of attorneys or lawbooks. His argument is not simply that western immigrants were familiar with the legal rules that had been in place in their earlier places of settlement, but that their conduct was informed by “a behaviorism based on law,” a set of internalized norms derived from common law practice but not necessarily articulated in technical terms. Reid, , Law for the Elephant: Property and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail (San Marino, CA, 1980), 11.Google Scholar

3. Friedman, Lawrence, A History of American Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), 324.Google Scholar

4. Adams, Charles Francis, “The Railroad System,” North American Review 104 (1867): 484 Google Scholar.

5. Donnely, Samuel J. M., “The Fault Principle: A Sketch of its Development in Tort Law During the Nineteenth Century,” Syracuse University Law Review 18 (1967): 742 Google Scholar. See generally Kostal, Rande W., The Law and English Railway Capitalism, 1825–1875 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

6. Berman, Harold J. and Reid, Charles J. Jr., “The Transformation of English Legal Science: From Hale to Blackstone,” Emory Law Journal 45 (1996): 438–522.Google Scholar

7. Hillard, Francis, The Elements of Law: Being a Comprehensive Summary of American Civil Jurisprudence for the Use of Students, Men of Business, and General Readers (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1835), iii–iv Google Scholar. On the Americanization of Blackstone, see Sheppard, Stephen, The American Blackstone (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, forthcoming 2002)Google Scholar.

8. “Dane's Abridgment,” American Jurist and Law Magazine 4 (1830): 66, qtd. in Cook, Charles M., The American Codification Movement: A Study of Antebellum Legal Reform (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 81 Google Scholar.

9. Hall, Kermit T., The Magic Mirror: Law in American History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Friedman, A History of American Law, 409; Malone, Wex S., Essays on Torts (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Rabin, Robert L., “The Historical Development of the Fault Principle: A Reinterpretation,” Georgia Law Review 15 (1981): 926–61Google Scholar; Schwartz, Gary, “Tort Law and the Economy in Nineteenth Century America: A Reinterpretation,” Yale Law Journal 90 (1981): 1717–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Wilson, Major L., Space, Time and Freedom: the Quest for Nationality and the Irrepressible Conflict, 1815–1861 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Ferguson, Robert A., Law and Letters in American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Marx, Leo, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

11. For examples of this growing literature see, King, Andrew J., “Constructing Gender,” Law and History Review 13 (1995): 63–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Barbara Y. Welke, “When All the Women Were White, and All the Blacks Were Men: Gender, Class, Race and the Road to Plessy, 1855–1914,” Law & History Review 13 (1995): 261–316; Chamallas, Martha and Kerber, Linda K., “Women and the Law of Fright: A History,” Michigan Law Review 88 (1990): 814–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MacLean, Nancy, “The Leo Frank Case Reconsidered: Gender and Sexual Politics in the Making of Reactionary Populism,” The Journal of American History 78 (1991): 917–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. For discussions of ways in which the technical legal category of state and national citizenship exclude whole classes of persons from participation in American law and politics, see Smith, Rogers, Civil Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 115–36Google Scholar; Newman, Gerald L., Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 60–71 Google Scholar; Kettner, James H., The Development of American Citizenship, 1608– 1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 224–47Google Scholar.

13. Marshall, T. H., Class, Citizenship and Social Development (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1964), 70 Google Scholar.

14. Tomlins, Christopher L., Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Lowi, Theodore J., “The Welfare State: Ethical Foundations and Constitutional Remedies,” Political Science Quarterly 101 (1986): 197–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Gold, David, The Shaping of Nineteenth-Century Law: John Appleton and Responsible Individualism (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990), 85 Google Scholar.

16. McGraw, Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1984), 5Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D., The Railroads: The Nation's First Big Business (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965), 3–18 Google Scholar.

17. Moses, John, Illinois, Historical and Statistical, Comprising the Essential Facts of its Planting and Growth as a Province, County, Territory, and State, vols. (Chicago: Fergus Printing Co., 1892), 2:629.Google Scholar

18. Karsten, Peter, Heart Versus Head: Judge-Made Law in Nineteenth- Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 299.Google Scholar

19. Hilliard, Francis, The Law of Torts or Private Wrongs (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1859), 66 Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., 67, quoting Per Knight Bruce, V. C. Walter v. Telfe, 4 DeG. & S. 315.

21. Hilliard, The Law of Torts, 2:73–75.

22. Ibid., 2:78–79.

23. Ibid., 2:82, quoting 1 Chit. Pl. 71.; 83, citing Thompson, J., Russell v. Cottom, Am. Law Register (May 1859), 406.

24. “Every proprietor of land, on the bank of a fresh water river, has a right to the use of the water, as it was wont to run, without diminution or alteration” (Hilliard, The Law of Torts, 2:108).

25. The owner of a house has a right to make as many windows as he may see fit, although by so doing he may destroy the privacy of his neighbors. The opening of such windows is not actionable, but the remedy is by obstructing them, which may lawfully be done… . But where a house has lights which have existed twenty years, or ancient lights; the erection of another which obstructs them is ground of action or injunction. (Ibid., 145) This rule made slums possible, as newcomers were disadvantaged by village traditions. We think the rule is well settled, that, in a city tenement, an easement of light and air, derived from use and enjoyment, or implied grant, can only extend to a reasonable distance, so as to give to the tenement entitled to it such amount of air and light as is reasonable necessary … not the amount which, under some circumstances, would be agreeable and pleasant, nor the full amount which the tenement has been accustomed to receive; but the amount reasonably necessary. (Ibid., 2:151)

26. Ibid., 2:70.

27. See, generally, Fisher, William W., “Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760–1860,” Emory Law Journal 39 (1990): 112–21Google Scholar.

28. Howard, Robert P., Illinois, a History of the Prairie State (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 241 Google Scholar; Cole, Arthur Charles, The Centennial History of Illinois, Volume III: The Era of the Civil War, 1848–1870 (Springfield, IL: Illinois Centennial Commission, 1919), 31.Google Scholar

29. Gerald Gamm, “Buried Treasure: Theory and Historical,” The Political Methodologist 8 (1982): 8. It is interesting to note that in many of the cases studied here, railroad companies’ lawyers submitted printed briefs, while those submitted by plaintiffs were handwritten. The difficulty of reading faded, handwritten documents in comparison with the ease of reading printed materials creates an obvious bias in the historical researcher that favors reliance on the more accessible texts.

30. [I]n our law the goodness of a custom depends upon it's having been used time out of mind; or, in the solemnity of our legal phrase, time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. This it is that gives it its weight and authority; and of this nature are the maxims and customs which compose the common law, or le non scripta, of this kingdom. (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England [A Facsimile of the First Edition], 4 vols. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 1:67.)

31. Hirschfield, Charles, “The Great Railroad Conspiracy,” Michigan History 36 (1952): 97–219 Google Scholar.

32. Jones, Alan, “Republicanism, Railroads, and Nineteenth- Century Midwestern Constitutionalism,” in Liberty Property and Government: Constitutional Interpretation Before the New Deal, ed. Paul, Ellen Franklin and Dickman, Howard (Albany: State University of New York at Albany Press, 1989), 249.Google Scholar

33. Illinois Laws, 1855 (Feb. 14, 1855), 173.

34. Illinois Laws, 1854 (Nov. 5, 1849); Illinois Laws, 1854 (Feb. 25, 1854).

35. Seeley v. Peters, 10 Ill. 130 (1848).

36. Illinois State Historical Archives file 1866, 4 (subsequently cited as ISHA).

37. ISHA file 1866, 5.

38. Seeley, 10 Ill. at 130–31.

39. Seeley, 10 Ill. at 142, 141–42 (emphasis added).

40. Seeley, 10 Ill. at 149–50.

41. Seeley, 10 Ill. at 151, 152–53.

42. Great Western RR Co. v. Thompson 17 Ill. 131 (1855), discussed below.

43. Aurora Branch R.R. Co. v. Grimes, 13 Ill. 585 (1852).

44. When a man leave a pit open, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his. (Exodus 21:33)

45. Grimes, 13 Ill. at 588 (emphasis added), citing Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60 (1809).

46. Grimes, 13 Ill. at 588–89, 591.

47. Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East at 60–61.

48. ISHA file 11990, 1, 6.

49. The Chicago & Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Patchin, 16 Ill. 198 (1854).

50. ISHA file 2364, 1–2.

51. ISHA file 2364, 4.

52. ISHA file 2364, 5.

53. Ibid.

54. Patchin, 16 Ill. at 200–201.

55. Patchin, 16 Ill. at 203.

56. Patchin, 16 Ill. at 204.

57. Ibid.

58. Patchin, 16 Ill. at 200.

59. Ibid. (emphasis added).

60. Great Western RR Co. v. Thompson, 17 Ill. 131 (1855).

61. ISHA file 2333, 10, 7.

62. ISHA file 2333, 2.

63. ISHA file 2333, 14.

64. Thompson, 17 Ill. at 117.

65. Thompson, 17 Ill. at 134.

66. Illinois Central RR Co. v. Cox, 20 Ill. 21 (1858), opinion by Sidney Breese.

67. Central Military Tract R.R. Co. v. Rockafellow, 17 Ill. 541 (1856).

68. ISHA file 12278, 2.

69. ISHA file 12278, 5–6.

70. Rockafellow, 17 Ill. at 549.

71. Rockafellow, 17 Ill. at 551.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886), holding that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

75. Fisher v. Clisbee, 12 Ill. 344, 351 (1851) (emphasis in original).

76. Chicago & Aurora R.R. Co. v. Thompson, 19 Ill. 578 (1858).

77. Thompson, 19 Ill. at 578.

78. Illinois State Historical Archives, file 2991, 3–4.

79. Thompson, 19 Ill. at 585.

80. Thompson, 19 Ill. at 587.

81. Thompson, 19 Ill. at 589.

82. Ibid. (emphasis in original).

83. Thompson, 19 Ill. at 592 (emphasis added).

84. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Middlesworth, 43 Ill. 64 (1867).

85. Chicago & Rock Island Railroad Co. v. Reid, 24 Ill. 144, 145 (1860).

86. The Galena and Chicago Union R.R. Co. v. Jacobs, 20 Ill 478 (1858).

87. ISHA file 12514, 21.

88. ISHA file 12514, 10–21.

89. ISHA file 12514, 22–23.

90. ISHA file 12514, 23–24.

91. ISHA file 12514, 25–26, 27–28.

92. ISHA file 12514, 27–29.

93. Jacobs, 20 Ill. at 488.

94. Jacobs, 20 Ill. at 489.

95. Jacobs, 20 Ill. at 497.

96. Ibid.

97. Galena & Chicago Union Railroad Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 265 (1859).

98. ISHA file 12784, 11, 51–52.

99. Dill, 22 Ill. at 266–67.

100. ISHA file 127884, 11.

101. ISHA file 127884, 30.

102. ISHA file 12784, 31.

103. ISHA file 12784, 6–7.

104. ISHA file 12784, 7 (emphasis in original).

105. Ibid.

106. Dill, 22 Ill. at 271.

107. Respectively: Yarwood I, 15 Ill. 468 (1854); Fay, 16 Ill. 558 (1855); and Yarwood II, 17 Ill. 509 (1856).

108. Fay, 16 Ill. at 571 (1855).

109. ISHA file 12293, 29.

110. ISHA file 12293, 28.

111. ISHA file 12215, 15–16.

112. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 474.

113. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 469.

114. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 473–74.

115. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 471–72.

116. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 472.

117. For a discussion of developments concerning the rules of third-party contracts in this period, see Peter Karsten, “The ‘Discovery’ of Law by English and American Jurists of the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Centuries: Third-Party Beneficiary Contracts as a Test Case,” Law and History Review 9 (1991), 327–81.

118. Yarwood I, 15 Ill. at 472.

119. In the second trial the brakeman from the trial testified that he believed there was a rule prohibiting passengers from standing on the platforms between cars, but “could not say whether [there were] any printed rules to that effect on that train or not” (ISHA file 12293, 31).

120. Fay, 16 Ill. 558 (1855).

121. Fay, 16 Ill. at 568.

122. Fay, 16 Ill. at 569–70.

123. Fay, 16 Ill. at 571.

124. Yarwood II, 17 Ill. 509 (June 1856).

125. Yarwood II, 17 Ill. at 518.

126. Yarwood II, 17 Ill. at 518, 520.

127. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Erastus Hazzard, 26 Ill. 373 (1861).

128. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 383.

129. ISHA file 13586, 7 (pages not numbered). Many of the briefs filed by the railroads’ lawyers were printed, but this was quite unusual for a plaintiff 's brief.

130. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 390.

131. No copy of that opinion or its associated papers appears in the archive, and its author is unknown. The record does include a copy of Hazzard's original “Brief of Authorities,” but the arguments are entirely duplicative of those that appear in a more developed form in the Petition for Rehearing.

132. ISHA file 13586, 2 (emphasis in original).

133. ISHA file 13586, 5 (emphasis in original).

134. ISHA file 13586, 8.

135. ISHA file 13586, 1.

136. Ibid.

137. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 377–80, 379.

138. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 379 (emphasis added).

139. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 379–80.

140. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 381.

141. Ibid.

142. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 384–85 (emphasis in original).

143. Hazzard, 26 Ill. at 387.

144. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. George, 19 Ill. 510 (April 1858).

145. George, 19 Ill. at 517.

146. Galena & Chi. Union R.R. Co. v. Rae, et. al., 18 Ill. 488, 490 (1857).

147. Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Cox, 20 Ill. 21 (1858).

148. ISHA file 8732, 2–3.

149. ISHA file 8732, 2.

150. If the jury believe from the evidence, that Bennett and Scott were but the employees, agents of the defendant, to haul in the wood of company, or have it hauled in, and not contractors, then they are but their servants, and not contractors in the sense in which it is used in the instructions for defendant. (ISHA file 8732, 3)

151. ISHA file 8732, 4, 3.

152. Cox, 20 Ill. at 27 (emphasis added).

153. Cox, 20 Ill. at 27.

154. Moss v. Johnson, 22 Ill. 633 (1859).

155. ISHA file 12850, 28.

156. ISHA file 12850, 38.

157. Moss, 22 Ill. at 642 (1859).

158. Ibid.

159. Ibid.