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