Vol. 1 No. 6 (August, 1991), pp. 79-84
FEDERAL JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA: THE COURT OF OGDEN HOFFMAN, 1851-
1891 by Christian G. Fritz. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1991. 324 pp.
Reviewed by Charles H. Sheldon, Department of Political Science,
Washington State University.
Ogden Hoffman presided over the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for forty years. His extended
tenure as the first and only trial judge for the district during
the formative stages of federal law in California make him an
ideal subject for study.
For such a study two steps are necessary, assuming that the
archival and personal materials are available. The first step
requires gathering materials on several aspects of the judicial
process. The legal disputes brought to the court begin the
process and are viewed as reflections of the setting in which the
judge is located (context). The judge (attitudes) interacts with
litigants, lawyers, interested groups, etc. (roles) and resolves
(style) the disputes. Society, which generated the dispute,
reacts (impact). The task is to determine what effect the judge
had on the process. The next and the most crucial step is to
compare the effect of the judge with that of other judges.
Explanations for the differences or similarities between one
judge and another are suggested by the particular mix of the
political context, judicial role, decisional style, judicial
attitudes and societal impact. The Christain Fritz study of Judge
Ogden Hoffman has taken a credible first step.
The book, developed from a dissertation at the University of
California, Berkeley, is, according to Fritz, "neither a
biogra- phy nor an institutional study." The "interplay
between Hoffman the person and Hoffman the trial judge is the key
to understand- ing his judgeship," but such understanding is
incomplete without knowing the "social, political and
economic context." (p.xiii) The author does well in
describing the complexities of Judge Hoffman and his times.
Ogden Hoffman came from a prominent New York family. His
grandfather and father moved with ease among the political and
legal elite of the Empire State. Young Ogden Hoffman absorbed his
father's liking for the genteel life as well as his inability to
accumulate the where-with-all to support such a life. Throughout
his career, Ogden Hoffman attached great importance on
appearances. In his dealings with people inside and outside the
courtroom the Judge's pride if not arrogance was evident. After
graduation from Harvard Law School and apprenticeship in law
offices, Hoffman toured the Continent emersing himself in Europe-
an cultures and languages. Upon his return, he practiced in his
father's law office, but hardly with the diligence which charac-
terized his work as a judge. For yet unknown reasons, Hoffman
left New York for San Francisco in 1850. While his New York ties
were instrumental in his district court appointment, the higher
judicial offices to which he aspired eluded him.
Page 80 follows:
Hoffman was not prepared for the intense competition and
"the relative lack of observance of social
distinctions" in the hustle of San Francisco. Struggling to
make a living, Hoffman dreamed of but never achieved financial
success. Apparently a major factor in his accepting the district
court appointment was its financial security and prestige.
Factors which led to Hoffman's appointment were typical of the
times. Social class, family connections, and partisanship played
their roles. The senior Hoffman's friendship with Presi- dent
Fillmore's secretary of state, Daniel Webster, proved to be the
crucial connection leading to young Ogden's selection. In
February, 1851, Ogden Hoffman, at the age of 29 and with but four
years law practice to his credit, was confirmed by the U.S.
Senate as California's first district judge.
Fritz focuses on admiralty, criminal, land and immigration cases
in order to form an impression of the Judge. He argues
successfully that Hoffman's handling of admiralty litigation --
and San Francisco was second only to New York City as a shipping
center -- tells us much about Hoffman. The judge managed to avoid
the pro-business leanings assumed to motivate nineteenth century
jurists. In the passenger cases and tort claims Judge Hoffman
"displayed a great deal of sensitivity to libellants and
rendered many decisions contrary to the interests of
business." (p.98) However, throughout his tenure he enjoyed
the support of business, largely due, according to Fritz, the
predictability of his decisions.
The fluctuations in the criminal docket in the Northern District
were attributed to the interests of the U.S. Attorneys and to the
administration that appointed them. Consequently, the judge`s
views of crime and the law were unclear. However, Fritz develops
a fair understanding of the U.S. Attorneys who prosecut- ed cases
in Hoffman's court. When provided with the opportunity, Hoffman
successfully balanced competing values represented by the
litigants and by his own conflicting sympathies.
Hoffmans' rulings concerning the legal status of California land
grants pulled the Judge more into the national limelight. The
disputes were between claimants to parcels of lands and between
them and the public domain claims of government. The U.S. Supreme
Court entered the fray and eventually adopted Hoffman's view even
while reversing his rulings. The Judge's restraintist style
accounted for much of his land claims rulings.
Hoffman's handling of the Chinese immigration issue ran counter
to his earlier racial biases and conservative politics. Fritz
writes that the Judge insisted "on the right of the Chinese
to come before his court through writs of habeas corpus,"
and Hoffman consistently applied "general principles of
evidence in adjudicating their petitions." These actions
stemmed from the Judge's "commitment to the equal
application of fundamental civil rights irrespective of
race." (p.241) The idea of legal equality apparently did not
conflict with Hoffman's rejection of social equality.
Page 81 follows:
Fritz records a number of intriguing contradictions that compound
but stimulate the search for explanation. In part Hoffman's
"upbringing and personality" are reflected in the his
rulings. His "pride and sense of social status became part
of his judicial persona" (p.251) and "he brought his
own biases and political predelections into the courtroom."
(p252) But "his role as a federal judge prompted him to
subordinate many of his personal biases and prejudices."
(p.251) Hoffman's political conservatism and legal training
compelled him not to "ignore or criticise precedent, much
less to blaze new doctrinal law." (p.253-4) However, that
was "precisely what he did as a judge." (p. 251) He
"overcame the contraints of precedent with consider- able
doctrinal ingenuity." (p.254) The judge was not burdened by
"prior conceptualization," although his "most
pervasive judicial characteristic was his
contemplativeness." (p.252). Sometimes Hoffman's style
seemed to be an example of "formalism" and at other
times he clearly was an "instrumentalist."
Fritz's explanation for these contradictions is intriguing if not
wholly satisfying. Since Hoffman spent forty years of his 69
years on the trial bench " it seems likely that beyond
Hoffman's background, education, and attitudes, what significant-
ly shaped him as a judge was the fact that he served as a trial
judge." (p.254) Interacting directly with trial bench
partici- pants -- witnesses, lawyers, juries, defendants,
litigants -- "produced a profound difference in the judicial
world inhabited by trial judges." Trial jurists must mix the
law, process and politics of judging "with the specific
circumstances and problems of individual litigants...."
(p.254) In line with "New Institu- tionalism" or what
some of us would call "Old Institutionalism", Fritz
concludes:
Although strength of character and adherence to judi- cial ideals
certainly prompted [Hoffman's] admirable behavior, we need to
take into account the way in which the judicial process and the
nature of trial judging influenced and molded imperfect men into
better judges than they otherwise might have become."
(p.256)
Perhaps so, but given the uniqueness of the disputes brought to
Hoffman, his singular personality and the varied interests of the
attorneys and the litigants, perhaps the context of the trial
bench shaped Hoffman and Hoffman alone. Can we attribute similar
institutional explanations to the ambivalent behavior of other
trial judges? Fritz needed to take the next step in his study and
add a comparative dimension. What were the experiences of the
Federal Judge in the Southern District of California? How did the
roles and styles of other federal judges -- Matthew P. Deady,
Lorenzo Sawyer or Matthew Hall McAllister -- evolve in their
respective jurisdictions? The contrasts Fritz draws between
Justice Stephen Field and Hoffman should have been expanded to
include a clear appellate/trial contrast.
However, our enterprise is cooperative and progressive. Christian
Fritz has given us a fine start with one judge and court. It is
for others to replicate his work in other jurisdictions.
Copyright 1991