An introduction and a large selection of documents can be found at:
http://www.teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000107/html/t107.html
If
a user name and password are requested, use use tahmd, tahmd!
For Wharton v. Wise, use the web site http://www.mdag.net, user name stoops, password stoops!
Because this is a Federal case, the original papers in the case are located in Philadelphia at the regional archives of the National Archives. For instructions on how to get there and to use the records see:
Note that these instructions were prepared for another class, but the steps to find and use the records are the same.
For documents in this case see:
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/ecp/45/00029/00003/html/cover.html
the username is aaco and the password is aaco#
For an introduction to the case see:
the username is acco and the password is aaco#.
See: http://mdag.net/description.cfm?item=257&series=16
for the introduction to this case and links to the original papers. Explore this web site for additional
materials using the user name of stoops
and the password of stoops!
See also: http://ecpclio.net/databasebrowse.cfm?series=120, user name: appeal; password: appeal!
OVERVIEW: The water damage to the insureds' property attributable to the sprinkler system was covered under the insurance policy because the steam boiler explosion was the proximate, or "immediate," cause of that water damage.
OVERVIEW: An act under which defendant was indicted was not unconstitutional because the regulation of the use of tenements for the manufacture of garments was for the protection of the public health and safety and was within the state's police power.
For the Turner case, see the uncatalogued manuscripts from the Federal Court Archives available at: http://ecpclio.net/description.cfm?item=8&serno=74, user name: appeal; password: appeal!:
See: : http://ecpclio.net, user name: appeal, password: appeal!,
Search for ‘Warren’ for relevant cases.
A cd containing useful secondary sources will be supplied on request.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Judgment
Record) State of Maryland v. Mrs. Henry G. Wharton, 1871, Folio 97, MSA
C92-3, MdHR 12,068
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Judgment Record) State of Maryland v. Mrs. Henry G. Wharton, 1873, Folio 220, MSA C92-3, MdHR 12,068
See also: http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/ecp/45/00029/html/harrell.html
For both urls the user name: aaco, and the password: aaco#, will be required to view the documents.
See: an essay on the case by Jed Shugerman: http://www.law.upenn.edu/conlaw/issues/vol5/num1/shugerman.pdf
In Whittington v. Polk the
Maryland courts struggled with the right of judicial review before it ever got
to the Supreme Court and did so on what some might argue are firmer
constitutional grounds than the Supreme Court did in Marbury v. Madison[9] Rather than argue the
merits of the case, which Jed Shugerman, a graduate student at Yale has done
admirably in a recent essay (5 U. PA.
J. CONST. L. 58 (2002))in which he used all the available records he could
find, attention should be focused here on not just the importance of preserving
the original record linked to the printed report, but also to the significance
of the participants, particularly the judges, particularly the political
opposites on the court, Jeremiah Townley Chase, the chief judge, and judge
Gabriel Duvall. Chase served as an elector for John Adams in 1800, Duvall for
Jefferson, but both had also served in the 9th Convention in the summer of 1776
(Duvall as Clerk), wrote the first State Constitution for Maryland. Both knew
first hand what the intent of the framers was with regard to Judicial review of
legislation. While they would disagree on how the case should ultimately be
decided (Duvall would write a brief dissent, illustrated below in which he
argued Whittington was not entitled to the office), it was no wonder that both
came out so strongly for the right of the court to determine the
constitutionality of a law (a right it did not have to exercise until the
Dashiell case in 1824[10]). Indeed the Maryland
General Assembly paid such heed to the Whittington decision that it did what it
had to the right way the next time it addressed the reorganization of the
judiciary. It followed constitutional guidelines (and thus also the court’s in
Whittington) by amending the constitution, rather than simply passing a
statute. This is advice that had not been strictly adhered to and in all
likelihood is a fundamental reason why the Mount Vernon Compact of 1785, today
the meaning of which is so much a bone of contention between Virginia and
Maryland over the use of the waters of the Potomac, has always been
constitutionally invalid.[11] Papenfuse: http://teachersmd.net/georgetown.htm
(last accessed 2004/09/06)
The following cases are found, certified by the clerk, Thomas Spicer, in the British National Archives, PRO/FO5/910/ff. 70-100, and are posted on line at Federal Records series 74, http://ecpclio.net/databasebrowse.cfm?series=74, user name: appeal; password: appeal! Search for the cases.
Carpenter, Claimant of one box of Dry Goods vs. the United States (In the Circuit Court of The United States on Appeal), July 3, 1863, Judge Taney. See: The Baltimore Sun, Sept. 23, 1861, not officially reported, as cited in Carl B. Swisher, Volume V The Taney Period 1836-64, The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974, p. 956, n. 119.
The United States vs Schooner Arcola (Libel in a prize case), July 17, 1863, Judge Giles
The United States vs The Schooner F. W. Johnson, July 23, 1863, Judge Giles. See: The Baltimore Sun, June 20, 1863. Not officially reported, as cited in Carl B. Swisher, Volume V The Taney Period 1836-64, The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974, p. 880, n. 10. Swisher reverses the initials of the ship’s name.
