USDC - District of New Hampshire - The United States District Court
 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
 |
Home < General Information < History < The United States District Court
The District Courts were designed to occupy the bottom, or third tier, of the three-tier system of judicial responsibility established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. However, unlike the Circuit Courts and even the Supreme Court, the District Courts have engendered far less controversy and undergone far less change in the intervening years between 1789 and the present.
The district courts have always been a site of original federal jurisdiction. It will be remembered that one of the most distinctive characteristics of the circuit courts, and the prime characteristic of the Supreme Court, involved appellate jurisdiction -- the ability to re-try or review cases already adjudicated within the federal system. The power to hear cases for the first time is called original jurisdiction.
Judge John Parker describes the role of the District Courts as follows:
The principle jurisdiction of the District Courts was in admiralty and after the passage of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 in bankruptcy matters. They had jurisdiction, too, in minor criminal cases and cases involving penalties and forfeitures. All of the civil and criminal jurisdiction exercised by the Circuit and District Courts prior to the Judicial Code of 1911 was vested by that code in the District Courts, which have since that time been the chief federal trial courts sitting with and without a jury and trying cases in law, in equity and in admiralty.
Since the Evarts act of 1891, Districts judges have been sitting on the benches of the Circuit Courts and the Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as the District Court. The Judicial Code of 1911 freed them from the responsibility of sitting on the Circuit Court and gave them more time to devote to the District Court and its increased workload. Today the district courts exercise general original jurisdiction.
One of the problems encountered by the district court system has been the increasing size of the nation and the population. Districts once designated as encompassing whole states have often become too large and too populated to administer effectively. One such example is the district of Texas. Prior to 1857, the entire state of Texas was served by one federal district court located in Galveston. But because of its size, Congress was forced to divide Texas into four districts for the purposes of the federal court system and to allot multiple locations for the convening of federal courts. Currently Congress is more willing to appoint additional federal judges within the same district than to multiply the districts themselves. Another solution has been to subdivide the districts into divisions to allow for the easier selection of court sites and juries.
The appointment of federal judges has traditionally been a matter of political patronage. The President generally appoints to the bench members from his own party. The appointment and selection of federal judges in the early years of the federal courts can be characterized as the sole responsibility of the President of the United States.
Today, however, the selection of potential judges is frequently left up to the United States Senators. The President passes on the names of recommended candidates to the Senate in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 133, which states: "The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, district judges for the several judicial districts."
The jurisdiction of a United States District Court today includes controversies in federal questions, unfair competition and state claims, diversity cases where the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, admiralty cases, criminal cases falling under federal laws, the appeals of bankruptcy issues, patent cases, copyright cases, trademark cases, civil rights cases, cases in which the United States is plaintiff, cases falling under the Federal Tort Claims Act, cases involving the postal service, cases where consuls and vice-consuls are defendants, proceedings by the United States involving condemnation, cases involving an Act of Congress related to commerce or antitrust regulations, naturalization, suits by seamen under the Jones Act, cases involving suits under the Securities Exchange Act, suits related to the Public Utility Holding Company Act, Social Security review cases, as well as other areas of jurisdiction not previously mentioned.
In New Hampshire, district court sessions were held alternately in Exeter and Portsmouth four times a year. In 1881 the circuit and district courts were transferred from Exeter to Concord.
Click thumbnail image to enlarge
The first official act performed by New Hampshire's Federal District Judge John Sullivan was to appoint his son-in-law, Jonathan Steel, as Clerk of Court, November 10, 1789. This document, containing the nomination and appointment, reads,
John Sullivan Judge of the District Court in and for New Hampshire DistrictThe first actual day of court was held in Portsmouth on March 16, 1790. The Marshal provided a jury (12 people) for the court and prepared for trial by appointing a foreman. Ironically, no one appeared or even filed a claim in court. It seems that the court automatically summoned a jury before there was even a case scheduled to be heard. The court opened its doors and waited for litigants with a full jury in the same fashion as a store opens for business and waits for customers. This is the second entry in the Clerks Docket. It reads,To all who shall see these presents greeting.
Know ye that reposing special trust and confident in the wisdom, uprightness and learning of Jonathan Steel of New Hampshire, Esquire, I have nominated and do appoint him Clerk of the District Court in and for New Hampshire District, and do authorize and empower him to execute and fulfil the duties of that office according to the laws of the United States; and to have and to hold the said office with all the power, privileges and emoluments to the same appertaining unto him the said Jonathan Steele during please. In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of said courts to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand the tenth day of November in the year of our Lord on thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
Click thumbnail image to enlarge
At the District Court begun and held at Portsmouth within and for the District of New Hampshire on the third Tuesday of March, being the sixteenth daty of said month Anno Domini 1790.The second and third sessions of court, July 13, 1790 and December 21, 1790, were just as uneventful as the first. No cases were filed or tried. Again the clerk wrote: "The court met, and the grand Jurors were called, sworn and charged; but no business appearing before the Court, it was adjourned without day."Before - the Honorable John Sullivan Esq. } Judge of said Court.
The Court met and received a return from the Marshal of the following persons to serve as petite juror in said Court. Viz. Benjamin Dearborn, Stephen Hardy, William Hart, Edward Hart, Samuel Sharkford, Stephen J. Thomas, James Peavey, Richard Webster, Job Chapman, Nathaniel Haines, Simeon Norton, and Jonathan Lock, who were called and Benjamin Dearborn apported foremen, but there appearing to be no business before the Court it was adjourned without day.
Attest Jonathan Steele Clerk.
It was not until June 7, 1791, two years after the court was created, that a case was heard. It was an admiralty case dealing with coffee that was apparently brought into the port of Portsmouth without being accounted for properly. The coffee was distributed and auctioned to the public.
The coffee case was Judge Sullivan's first case; it would also be his last. From September 1791 until April 1795 the District Court of New Hampshire heard no cases. For that period the clerk writes: "Judge of said court sick and unable to attend at the place aforesaid, no court was or could be held."
In April 1795 Judge John Pickering took over the Federal District Court of New Hampshire. Before his appointment to the federal district court, John Pickering had served as Chief Justice to the New Hampshire Superior Court for three years. In 1793 or 1794 he became sick with a nervous disorder which caused him to neglect his duties in the state Superior Court. The state tried to dismiss him as a judge, but political infighting caused him to stay. Looking for a compromise to a difficult problem, the state persuaded President Washington to appoint Pickering judge for the Federal District of New Hampshire. Pickering assumed this position left vacant by Judge Sullivan's death. This appeared to be an equitable compromise.
Pickering successfully carried out his duties as district judge, initially. It was not until 1800 that serious problems started to develop. Judge Pickering stopped appearing for court. The clerk's records say: "This court was adjourned, in absence of Judge."
In an effort to compensate for Judge Pickering's inability to hear cases, court personnel sent this letter to the circuit court requesting a subsitute to sit on the bench:
To the Honorable the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit now sitting at Portsmouth within and for the District of New Hampshire this 25th day of April Anno Domini 1801 - Humbly sheweth the Subscriber - that the District Judge of the District Court for said derangement - is at this time incapable of performing the duties of his office. Wherefor he suggests to this Honorable Court the necessity of directing one of the Circuit Judges of said Court to perform the duties of said District Judge within and for said District Judge within and for said District during the period the inability of said District Judge shall continue. As a temporary emergency measure, Jeremiah Smith, the circuit court judge, sat as district court judge for the September 1801 session of the court. When Judge Pickering returned to the court in March 1802 he adjourned the court until the next day but evidently failed to appear.
The antics of Judge Pickering which attracted the most attention occurred during the case of the United States v. Eliza. In this case, the ship Eliza had been seized in violation of revenue laws. The owner of the ship and his lawyer were Federalists, the arresting officer and the district attorney were Republicans. The case immediately took on a political complexion and brought about a political battle between the Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson and the Federalists. Pickering's judgement is described by R. Ellis,
Pickering found for the claimant (Eliza), and when the district attorney pointed out that the judge had not yet heard the witnesses for the government side, Pickering is said to have jeered, 'You may bring forty thousand & they will not alter the decree.' Judge Pickering was allegedly intoxicated during the trial and yelled and raved profanities throughout the course of itPickering's impeachment became an issue between the Federalists and Republicans. The only provision for a judge's removal is "impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (U.S. Const. Art. II, § 4) Although Pickering was allegedly insane, the Constitution did not provide for removal of a federal judge whose disabilities rendered him unfit to perform his duties. The only solution was for Pickering to resign, but he refused.
A political battle ensued in Washington between the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans. The Federalists believed the administration was plotting to overturn the Constitution. They believed the Republicans had already started by repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801. Were the Republicans to force a judge out of office, it would weaken the judiciary's independence and upset the carefully planned balance of power between Congress and Court. In addition, if Pickering was impeached, his successor in all likelihood would be District Attorney John Samuel Sherburne, a Republican; thus further weakening the Federalist's presence in the government.
On February 4, 1803 Jefferson sent evidence to the House of Representatives, calling for the impeachment of Pickering. A month later the Republican House voted to impeach Pickering. The trial before the Senate was not scheduled until the following session.
The trial took place during the first two weeks of March 1804. It was common knowledge that Pickering was insane, but the Republican Senate tried to argue that either Pickering was still aware of his actions or that a man mentally incompetent was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." "The dilemma is," observed John Quincy Adams, "between the determination to remove the man on impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, though he be insane . . . ."
A short debate ensued on wording for the final vote asking if John Pickering was guilty. The Senate adopted a less specific form: "Is John Pickering, District Judge of the District of New Hampshire, guilty as charged in the article of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives?"
Of the 34 senators, 26 voted. Nineteen Republicans pronounced Pickering guilty on every charge; seven Federalists voted for his acquittal. A bare minimum of two-thirds of the voting senators found Pickering guilty. The Federalists suspected the most insidious intentions behind the impeachment of Pickering. They were aroused even more by Pickering's impeachment than they had been by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801.
The court did not meet from June 15, 1802, through Pickering's impeachment in March 1804. When the trial was over, John Samuel Sherburne, the Republican district attorney, was appointed to replace Pickering. He heard his first case on June 19, 1804.
In 1826 Judge Sherburne became incapacitated by illness. Upon an "order in the nature of Certiorari", Justice Joseph Story came to the court and ordered all cases in the jurisdiction of the district court to be moved indefinitely to the Circuit Court of New Hampshire.
The district court did not meet from 1826 through 1831. The first entry in the court's records in 1830 is written by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States. "I Andrew Jackson President of the United States nominated Matthew Harvey as the New Judge of the United States for the District of New Hampshire. Signed by Andrew Jackson & M. Van Buren, Secretary of State, December 16, 1830" The court had made it through a shaky start.