DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: John Marshall statue:
- Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.
- Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific folks (or other stuff) and I haven't labeled them, please identify them for the world. Click the little pencil icon
underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.
- Copyrights: All pictures were taken by amateur photographer Bruce Guthrie (me!) who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the [Creative Commons] definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. (Commercial use folks including AI scrapers can of course contact me.) Feel free to use in publications and pages with attribution but you don't have permission to sell the photos themselves. A free copy of any printed publication using any photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.
- Accessing as Spider: The system has identified your IP as being a spider.
IP Address: 3.15.190.144 -- Domain: Amazon Technologies
I love well-behaved spiders! They are, in fact, how most people find my site. Unfortunately, my network has a limited bandwidth and pictures take up bandwidth. Spiders ask for lots and lots of pages and chew up lots and lots of bandwidth which slows things down considerably for regular folk. To counter this, you'll see all the text on the page but the images are being suppressed. Also, some system options like merges are being blocked for you.
Note: Permission is NOT granted for spiders, robots, etc to use the site for AI-generation purposes. I'm sure you're thrilled by your ability to make revenue from my work but there's nothing in that for my human users or for me.
If you are in fact human, please email me at guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can check if your designation was made in error. Given your number of hits, that's unlikely but what the hell.
- Help? The Medium (Email) links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]
|
[1] SCXJM_130208_04.JPG
|
[2] SCXJM_130208_09.JPG
|
[3]
 SCXJM_130208_14.JPG
|
[4] SCXJM_130208_18.JPG
|
[5] SCXJM_130208_23.JPG
|
[6] SCXJM_130208_28.JPG
|
[7]
SCXJM_130208_34.JPG
|
[8]
SCXJM_130208_40.JPG
|
[9]
SCXJM_130208_46.JPG
|
[10]
SCXJM_130208_51.JPG
|
[11] SCXJM_130208_70.JPG
|
[12]
SCXJM_130208_75.JPG
|
- Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
- SCXJM_130208_14.JPG: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
-- Marbury v Madison, 1803
A constitution is framed for ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it. Its course cannot always be tranquil.
-- Cohens v Virginia, 1821
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
-- McCullough v Maryland, 1819
Never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.
-- McCullough v Maryland, 1819
The people made the Constitution, and the can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.
-- Cohens v Virginia, 1821
- SCXJM_130208_34.JPG: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
-- Marbury v Madison, 1803
"A Constitution is framed for ages to come and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it. Its course cannot always be tranquil."
-- Cohens v Virginia, 1821
"Let the end be legitimate. Let it be within the scope of the Constitution and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."
-- McCullough v Maryland, 1819
"-- Never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."
-- McCullough v Maryland, 1819
"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will and lives only by their will."
-- Cohens v Virginia, 1821
- SCXJM_130208_40.JPG: Marbury v Madison, 1803
Widely recognized as one of the most significant in this history of the Supreme Court, this case arose from the political controversies swirling around the transition of power in 1801 from Federalist President John Adams to Republican President-elect Thomas Jefferson. The two factions were bitterly divided. Fearing the effects of the new Republican administration, Federalists pushed Adams to make last-minute appointments of judges and justices of the peace to secure these positions for those presumably more favorable to the Federalists.
Among those appointments was a commission naming William Marbury of Washington as a justice of the peace. The commissions were turned over to John Marshall, who was still acting as Secretary of State, but they were not delivered. When Marbury was not allowed to assume his new duties, he went to court to obtain an order, called a write of mandamus, directing the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission to him. Marbury, however, did not go to a lower court, but directly to the Supreme Court, pointing out that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 had authorized the Court to issue such writs.
Writing the opinion for the Court in this case, Chief Justice Marshall found that Mr. Marbury was entitled to his commission as justice of the peace. In addition, a writ of mandamus from the Court would allow him to enforce his right to receive it. Marshall then concluded, however, that the Judiciary Act of 1789 had unconstitutionally expanded the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction -- its authorization to hear cases that had not been heard by a lower court. In other words, Marshall interpreted the Judiciary Act to say that anyone who wanted a writ of mandamus could go straight to the Supreme Court. Under this interpretation, Marshall said, the Act violated the Constitution because the Constitution outlined the limited areas in which the Court could exercise original jurisdiction and issuing such a writ was not one of them. Thus, the Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was null and void because no federal law or act could supersede the Constitution.
This opinion has been scrutinized over the years because the Court did not necessarily have to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional to resolve the case. In fact, it appears that all of the authors of the 1789 Act (including many delegates to the constitutional convention) had meant to say that in a case properly before the Supreme Court, the Court could issue a writ of mandamus. Marshall, however, used his alternative interpretation to assert the Court's authority to strike down laws that contravened the Constitution. Thus, he said, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." He therefore made clear that it was precisely the role of the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal law at issue in a case was in conflict with the Constitution and, if so, to declare it void. This power of the Court has been known ever since as "judicial review."
The Marbury decision also demonstrates Marshall's desire to avoid direct confrontations with the other branches of government, but to maintain a balance of power among them. In declaring that Congress could not expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that provided in the Constitution, Marshall was limiting the authority of the Court. Marshall avoided having to order the executive branch to deliver Marbury's commission, but established the power of the Court to exercise judicial review.
- SCXJM_130208_46.JPG: McCullough v Maryland, 1819:
In the early decades of the American republic, the lack of a single national currency was a continual problem. State chartered banks, some cities and towns, and even private companies issued currency, but the face value of the currency varied from place to place. The result was a constant threat of economic chaos. In an attempt to solve this problem, Congress issued a charter for the Second Bank of the United States in 1816; the first Bank had been allowed to dissolve in 1811. The new Bank would issue currency that it would back with gold and silver, presumably bringing order to paper money transactions.
Regional branches of the Bank were opened in several states, but a series of bad loans in 1818 led the headquarters of the Bank to begin calling in loans, requiring payment in gold, silver or the notes of the Bank. Panic ensued as other banks refused to make loans, businesses failed, and a crisis of confidence ensued that was blamed on the Bank. In some states, the legislatures began devising ways to drive the Bank of the United States out of their states. Maryland, as well as several other states, attempted to do so by imposing taxes on the federally chartered Bank. At the Baltimore branch, the new tax was purposely ignored. In response, the state sued the branch cashier, James McCulloch, and the state trial court and appellate court decided in Maryland's favor.
In 1819, the Bank, through McCulloch, appealed the state court decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Counsel for the Bank was the renowned lawyer and orator, Daniel Webster, who argued that the state was illegally attempting to tax the federal government. According to Webster, the power to tax involved the power to destroy and no state had that power with regard to the federal government. On the other side, Luther Martin, the Attorney General of Maryland, argued that Congress simply did not have the power to create the Bank in the first place. He said Congress had exceeded its powers because the Constitution did not expressly authorize it to create a bank. After nine days of argument, the Court adjourned to make its decision.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall declared that Congress did, indeed, have the power to charter the Bank of the United States. The Constitution, he said, grants Congress certain specific powers, but it also gives Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its specific enumerated powers. Congress had acted properly, Maryland had not, and the Court ruled that the state's actions were "unconstitutional and void."
In the opinion, Marshall wrote, "we must never forget that it is a constitution were are expounding... a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." Although the decision reiterated the supremacy of the Constitution over the laws of the states, it did not end the debate over the Bank. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Bank in 1832, forcing it to close when its original charter expired in 1836. It should be noted that despite the Second Bank's controversial role, it was an important factor in the national economy during its twenty-year history.
- SCXJM_130208_51.JPG: Cohens v Virginia, 1821:
The issue of "states' rights" often dominated political discussions in the early years of the American republic. At various times, the debate took on ominous tones, and threats of dissolving the Union were heard in Congress and elsewhere. Emotions and political discord were reaching a fever pitch in 1820, as discussion centered on whether Missouri should enter the Union as a "slave state" or "free state." While the Missouri Compromise promised some relief, the reality was that sectional differences were increasing and many issues remained unresolved. In this highly charged atmosphere, a seemingly trivial and unrelated event led to a tense legal confrontation: the sale of lottery tickets.
In 1819, the Virginia legislature passed a law prohibiting the sale of unauthorized lottery tickets as of January 1, 1820. The same year, Cohen's lottery firm, based in Baltimore, opened a branch office in Norfolk, Virginia. In June, Philip and Mendes Cohen were accrued of selling six tickets in the Grand National Lottery, authorized by the United States Congress under an 1802 statute that incorporated the District of Columbia. Convicted of breaking the new Virginia law, the Cohens were fined $100.
In what was arguably a "test case" to see if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear such cases, the Cohen brothers, represented by David H. Ogden and William Pinkney, appealed the Norfolk court decision directly to the Supreme Court. They claimed that their sale of lottery tickets was authorized by the congressional statute, which suspended the law of Virginia. On the other side, the counsel for the state of Virginia, Philip P. Barbour and Alexander Smyth, claimed that the Eleventh Amendment forbade the Supreme Court from even hearing the Cohens' appeal. In reality, Virginia was trying to use this case to continue the battle over the supremacy of the federal government over state sovereignty that had been central in the Court cases of Fairfax's Devisee v Hunter's Lessee (1813), Martin v Hunter's Lessee (1816) and McCulloch v Maryland (1819).
Marshall's opinion, for a unanimous Court, reiterated federal judicial authority to decide federal questions. That is, Marshall found that state courts were free to interpret state laws, but when a federal issue arose, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a federal court from deciding the issue, even when a state was a party to the case. The Cohens, therefore, had a right to be heard in federal court. In another example of Marshall's careful exercise of the Cohen's case. The Court ruled that Congress intended the authorization for the Grand National Lottery to apply only in the District of Columbia. The decision of the Norfolk court was affirmed, but not before Marshall had again declared the primacy of federal courts to decide federal issues.
The debate over the Cohens case continued in the newspapers for almost two years. It was arguably one of the most controversial decisions handed down by the Marshall Court. Ultimately, the decision marked the decline of the "compact theory" supported by Virginia; that the Constitution was formed through a compact of the states. The opinion firmly supported the belief that it was the Constitution, derived from the will of the people, which created the Union of states. Marshall wrote, "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." The sectionalism underlying the debate surrounding the Cohens case continued, however, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
- SCXJM_130208_75.JPG: On July 7, 1835, the day after John Marshall died, the Bar of Philadelphia agreed to commission a statue to be placed in Washington to honor the late Chief Justice. It was not until May 10, 1884, after the project had languished for nearly half a century that the statute was formally unveiled on the west plaza of the United States Capitol. It remained there until 1981, when the statue was moved for the first Presidential Inaugural to be held on the west side of the Capitol. The next year, the statue was relocated to the Supreme Court Building where it was rededicated on February 1, 1982.
Originally, two marble reliefs with allegorical themes on the development of the Constitution were incorporated into the base of the statue (see below and across hall). The sculptor of all three pieces, William Wetmore Story, provided the following description of the relief below, "Minerva [the Roman Goddess of Wisdom] dictating to Young America, seated at a table, the Constitution, while beyond Minerva, to the right ate two seated figures representing Philosophy and Jurisprudence, and Infant America. On the other side are Commerce, Education bringing forward a young boy -- 8 figures in all."
Today, the john Marshall statue and its marble reliefs stand as those who erected them intended: "In perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence, and the love which the people of his country bear to the great Chief Justice."
- AAA "Gem": AAA considers this location to be a "must see" point of interest. To see pictures of other areas that AAA considers to be Gems, click here.
- Description of Subject Matter: The John Marshall Statue:
On July 7, 1835, the after John Marshall died, the Bar of Philadelphia agreed to commission a statue to be placed in Washington to honor the late Chief Justice. It was not until May 10, 1884, after the project had languished for nearly half a century, that the statue was formally unveiled on the west plaza of the United States Capitol. It remained there until 1981, when the statue was moved for the first Presidential Inaugural to be held on the west side of the Capitol. The next year, the statue was relocated to the Supreme Court Building where it was rededicated on February 1, 1982.
Originally, two marble reliefs with allegorical themes on the development of the Constitution were incorporated into the base of the statue. The sculptor of all three pieces, William Westmore Story, provided the following description of the relief: "Victory bringing forward Young America to swear allegiance at the altar on which she deposits her sword and lance -- while on the other side of the altar stands Religion pointing upward, and beyond her is Justice and Equity. Beyond there: Age, a dignified old man, seated, and Youth, a young girl leading upon his shoulder; on the other side and beyond America is the seated figure of an Indian, sadly contemplating the former -- representing aboriginal inhabitants over which Victory and America have triumphed."
Today, the John Marshall statue and its marble reliefs stand as those who erected them intended. "In perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence, and the love which the people of his country bear to the great Chief Justice."
- Bigger photos? To save server space, the full-sized versions of these images have either not been loaded to the server or have been removed from the server. (Only some pages are loaded with full-sized images and those usually get removed after three months.)
I still have them though. If you want me to email them to you, please send an email to guthrie.bruce@gmail.com
and I can email them to you, or, depending on the number of images, just repost the page again will the full-sized images.
- Connection Not Secure messages? Those warnings you get from your browser about this site not having secure connections worry some people. This means this site does not have SSL installed (the link is http:, not https:). That's bad if you're entering credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information. But this site doesn't collect any personal information so SSL is not necessary. Life's good!
- Photo Contact: [Email Bruce Guthrie].
