Iredell, James (1751–1799)

views updated

IREDELL, JAMES (1751–1799)

James Iredell was one of the most active and important members of the United States Supreme Court during the 1790s. Although he was a strong nationalist and vigorous advocate of judicial power, he also was a political realist who understood, in a way that his contemporaries on the High Court did not, the widespread distrust of centralized government and an independent judiciary that existed in America following the american revolution.

Iredell was the eldest son of a well-connected but financially troubled merchant from Bristol, England. When his father suffered a paralytic stroke, his mother's family, in 1768, arranged for him to become comptroller of the customs in Edenton, North Carolina. While performing his duties, Iredell studied law with Samuel Johnston, a leading member of the North Carolina bar, whose sister he married in 1773. Although he remained in the service of the king until the spring of 1776, his real sympathies were with the colonists, and after independence he became a firm supporter of the patriot cause. Following the break with England he served on a committee to revise old laws and draft new legislation to make government in North Carolina compatible with republicanism. He also helped create a judiciary system for the state, and reluctantly accepted an appointment as a Superior Court judge, a position from which he resigned after six months because he disliked riding circuit. In 1779 he was appointed attorney general of North Carolina.

In the sharp struggle that took place over the writing of a state constitution, Iredell sided with the more moderate and conservative Whigs who favored as few changes as possible from the old colonial form of government and wanted to see an independent judiciary, a strong executive, and property qualifications for voting. And in the political struggle of the 1780s, Iredell aligned himself with those who favored the enforcement of contracts, opposed debtor relief legislation, and defended the rights of Tories as protected by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. He denounced a number of laws adopted in the mid-1780s to confiscate Loyalist property, and in "An Address to the Public" in 1786 expressed his belief in the need for limitations upon the authority of the legislature: "I have no doubt but that the power of the Assembly is limited, and defined by the Constitution. It is the creature of the Constitution." Iredell further elaborated on how unbridled legislative authority could be checked in an August 26, 1787, letter to richard dobbs spaight, a delegate to the constitutional convention, which contained one of the earliest and clearest theoretical expressions of the doctrine of judicial review : "I confess it has ever been my opinion that an act inconsistent with the Constitution was void; and that the judges consistently with their duties, could not carry it into effect. The Constitution appears to me to be a fundamental law, limiting the powers of the legislative, and with which every exercise of those powers must, necessarily, be compared."

Iredell was a warm proponent of the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787–1788, even though the opposition to it was particularly intense in North Carolina. In fact, North Carolina at first refused to ratify the Constitution, and did not accept the new government until November 1789, eight months after it had begun operations. During the course of the debate over ratification Iredell published a pamphlet entitled "Answers to Mr. [George] Mason's Objections to the New Constitution," which attracted national attention. In February 1790, President george washington, recognizing Iredell to be a firm friend of the central government, appointed him to the United States Supreme Court.

Although Iredell continually complained about the hardships entailed in riding circuit, he performed his duties conscientiously and participated in almost all the important cases of the 1790s. Despite the fact that his various decisions were knowledgeable in the law, intelligent, and forcefully presented, it is not easy to classify Iredell according to the political and intellectual currents of his day. To be sure, as a Federalist he supported alexander hamilton's financial program, jay ' streaty, and the alien and sedition acts. Moreover, his opinions in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (1795) and hylton v. united states (1796) had strong nationalist implications, and in calder v. bull (1798) he reiterated his belief in judicial review. He also argued in behalf of an independent judiciary by taking strong exception to an attempt by Congress to require the Justices of the United States Supreme Court to serve as pension commissioners. But Iredell's experiences with North Carolina politics made him not only aware of but also sensitive to the jealousy of the states for their rights and the popular hostility that existed toward the federal judiciary. He thus dissented when the Supreme Court ruled against the state of Georgia in a suit brought by a citizen of South Carolina in chisholm v. georgia (1793). Iredell argued that the decision would be viewed as a dangerous assault upon the sovereignty of the states. His fears were well founded, for the protests against the decision were so widespread and intense that the eleventh amendment to the Constitution was quickly adopted to deny jurisdiction to the federal courts in suits brought against a state by the citizens of another state or by foreigners. He also dissented in ware v. hylton (1796) when the High Court declared invalid a Virginia statute of 1777 sequestering pre-Revolutionary debts of British creditors. Although ultimately upheld and enforced, the decision, as Iredell recognized, was the source of much popular dissatisfaction.

Richard E. Ellis
(1986)