Nomination President
Ulysses S. Grant nominated Waite as Chief Justice on January 19, 1874, after a political circus related to the appointment. Chief Justice
Salmon P. Chase died in May 1873, and Grant waited six months before first offering the seat in November to the powerful
Senator Roscoe Conkling of
New York, who declined. After ruling out a promotion of a sitting
Associate Justice to Chief (despite much lobbying from the legal community for Justice
Samuel Freeman Miller), Grant was determined to appoint an outsider as Chief Justice and offered the Chief Justiceship to senators
Oliver Morton of
Indiana and
Timothy Howe of
Wisconsin, then to his
Secretary of State,
Hamilton Fish. He finally submitted his nomination of
Attorney General George H. Williams to the Senate on December 1. A month later, however, Grant withdrew the nomination, at Williams' request, after charges of corruption made his confirmation all but certain to fail. One day after withdrawing Williams, Grant nominated
Democrat and former Attorney General
Caleb Cushing, but withdrew it after Republican Senators alleged Civil War-era connections between Cushing and the
Confederate President
Jefferson Davis. Finally, after persistent lobbying from Ohioans, including
Interior Secretary Columbus Delano, on January 19, 1874, Grant nominated the little-known Waite. He was notified of his nomination by a telegram. The nomination was not well received in political circles. The former
Secretary of the Navy,
Gideon Welles, remarked of Waite that, "It is a wonder that Grant did not pick up some old acquaintance, who was a
stage driver or
bartender, for the place," and the political journal
The Nation, said "Mr Waite stands in the front-rank of second-rank lawyers." Nationwide sentiment, however, was relief that a non-divisive and competent choice had been made, and Waite was confirmed unanimously as Chief Justice on January 21, 1874, receiving his commission the same day.
Tenure , 1890 As Chief Justice, Waite never became a significant intellectual force on the Supreme Court. But his managerial and social skill, "especially his good humor and sensitivity to others, helped him to maintain a remarkably harmonious and productive court." During Waite's tenure, the Court decided some 3,470 cases. In part, the large number of cases decided and the variety of issues confronted reflected the lack of discretion the Court had at the time in hearing appeals from lower federal and state courts. However, Waite demonstrated an ability to get his brethren to reach decisions and write opinions without delay. His own work habits and output were formidable: he drafted one-third of these opinions. In the cases that grew out of the
American Civil War and
Reconstruction, and especially in those that involved the interpretation of the
Reconstruction Amendments, i.e. the
Thirteenth,
Fourteenth and
Fifteenth amendments, Waite sympathized with the court's general tendency to interpret these amendments narrowly. In
United States v. Cruikshank, the court struck down the
Enforcement Act, ruling that the states had to be relied on to protect citizens from attack by other private citizens. The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to
falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. He concluded that "We may suspect that race was the cause of the hostility but is it not so averred." Thus, the court overturned the convictions of three men accused of massacring at least 105 blacks in the
Colfax massacre at the
Grant Parish, Louisiana, courthouse on Easter 1873. Their convictions under the
Enforcement Act were thrown out not because the statutes were unconstitutional, but because the indictments under which the men were charged were infirm because they failed to allege specifically that the murders were committed on account of the victims' race. In particular,
New Dealers in the Franklin Roosevelt administration looked to
Munn v. Illinois for guidance in interpreting due process, as well as the Commerce and Contract Clauses. Waite concurred with the majority in the
Head Money Cases (1884), the Ku-Klux Case (
United States v. Harris, 1883), the
Civil Rights Cases (1883),
Pace v. Alabama (1883), and the
Legal Tender Cases (including
Juilliard v. Greenman) (1883). Among the most important opinions he personally wrote were the
Enforcement Act Cases (1875), the
Sinking Fund Cases (1878), the
Railroad Commission Cases (1886) and the
Telephone Cases (1887). In 1876, amid speculation about a third term for President Grant, who had been tainted by scandals, some Republicans turned to Waite. They believed he was a better presidential nominee for the Republican Party. However, Waite refused, announcing "my duty [i]s not to make it a stepping stone to someone else but to preserve its purity and make my own name as honorable as that of any of my predecessors." In the aftermath of the
presidential election of 1876, Waite refused to sit on the
Electoral Commission that decided the electoral votes of
Florida because of his close friendship with GOP presidential nominee
Rutherford B. Hayes as well as being a Yale College classmate of Democratic presidential nominee
Samuel J. Tilden. As Chief Justice, Waite swore in Presidents
Rutherford Hayes,
James Garfield,
Chester A. Arthur and
Grover Cleveland. After suffering a breakdown, probably due to overwork, Waite refused to retire. Almost to the moment of his death, he continued to draft opinions and lead the Court. The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. Before publication, Davis wrote a letter to Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct, to which Waite replied: I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.
[4] Hence this
dictum in the headnote and the Waite reply changed the course of history and how
corporations came to have the legal rights of a human person.
Thomas Hartmann, in his book
Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and Theft of Human Rights, has the following to say: In these two sentences (according to the conventional wisdom), Waite weakened the kind of democratic republic the original authors of the Constitution had envisioned, and set the stage for the future worldwide damage of our environmental, governmental, and cultural commons. The plutocracy that had arisen with the East India Company in 1600, and been fought back by America's Founders, had gained a tool that was to allow them, in the coming decades, to once again gain control of most of North America, and then the world. Ironically, of the 307 Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court in the years between his proclamation and 1910, only 19 dealt with African Americans: 288 were suits brought by corporations seeking the rights of natural persons. ==Death==