Chase was born April 17, 1741, in Somerset County, Maryland. His father, Thomas Chase, was a British-born clergyman of the Church of England. His mother, Matilda Walker Chase, died at Chase’s birth. In 1744 the family moved to Baltimore where Chase grew up and received a classical education under his father’s supervi- sion. Chase studied law in Annapolis, Maryland, at the office of Attorney John Hall from 1759 until he was admitted to the bar in 1763. In 1762 Chase married Ann Baldwin. They had seven children, three of them dying in infancy. Ann died sometime between 1776 and 1779 and in 1784 Chase married Hannah Kitty Giles, with whom he had two daughters. Chase established a successful law practice in Annapolis, the colonial capital and later the state capital of Maryland. He also became prominent in colonial politics. In 1764 he was elected to the lower house of Maryland’s colonial legislature as a representative of Annapolis and by the early 1770s he had become well-known as a skillful legislator and outstanding leader, earning the nickname the Maryland Demosthenes after the ancient Greek orator and politician. He represented Maryland in the Continental Congresses from 1774 to 1778 and 1784 to 1785 and in 1778 served on as many as 30 committees in his tireless efforts to advance the cause of independence from Britain. He advocated a BOYCOTT of Britain and a political confederation of the colonies. He denounced those who opposed such policies as “despicable tools of power, emerged from obscurity and basking in proprietary sunshine.” Together with BENJAMIN FRANKLIN and Charles Carroll, Chase traveled in 1776 to Montreal in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade Canada to join the American colonies in their revolt against England. He signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and worked for its acceptance in Maryland. Chase helped draft the Maryland Constitu- tion in 1776. He served in the Maryland House of Delegates for all but a year and a half between 1777 and 1788. When the U.S. Constitution came before the Maryland Convention for RATIFICATION Chase was in the minority of delegates who voted against it. He was an ardent Anti-Federalist at the time and argued that the Constitution concentrated power in the hands of the central government at the expense of the common individual. “I consider the Constitu- tion,” he wrote to a friend, “as radically defective in this essential: the bulk of the people can have nothing to say to it. The government is not a government of the people.” He also argued that the Constitution failed to protect the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS and the right to trial by jury. His opposition to the Constitution cost him his state legislative seat in 1788. The same year, Chase also went bankrupt after several of his speculative business ventures failed. These business risks had also damag ed his political career, which had been plagued with charges that he used his office for personal gain. In 1778 he had been dismissed from the Continental Congress for two years for allegedly attempting to corner the flour mar ket and profit from speculation on prices. Dogged by BANKRUPTCY and charges of corruption, Chase sought refuge in the position of a local judge in Baltimore County in 1788. In 1791 he was concurrently appointed chief judge of the Maryland General Court. The state Samuel Chase 1741–1811 ❖ ❖ 1741 Born, Somerset County, Md. 1764 Elected to Md.'s colonial legislature 1811 Died, Baltimore, Md. 1763 Established law practice in Annapolis ◆ ◆ ◆ 1788 Lost reelection to House of Delegates; appointed to Baltimore County judgeship 1774–78 Represented Md. in the first Continental Congress ◆ ◆ 1796 Nominated to U.S. Supreme Court by President Washington 1805 Senate acquitted Chase by one vote ◆ ◆ ◆ 1776 Signed the Declaration of Independence 1775–83 American Revolution 1777 Elected to serve in Md. House of Delegates 1791 Appointed judge of Md. General Court; served concurrently with Baltimore judgeship 1800 Thomas Jefferson elected president 1804 U.S. House voted to impeach Chase ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 18001800 18251825 17251725 17501750 ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 338 CHASE, SAMUEL assembly, upset with his behavior on the bench and his holding two positions as judge, tried unsuccessfully to remove him from both positions. Chase might seem to have been an unlikely choice for a Supreme Court justice. However, President GEORGE WASHINGTON nominated him to the Supreme Court on January 26, 1796. Over the years Washington had been impressed by Chase’s legal skills; he also admired the zeal with which Chase had worked for American inde- pendence during the Revolutionary War as well as Chase’s efforts in support of Washington in the Contin ental Congress. James McHenry of Maryland, the secretary of war and a friend of Washington’s, strongly recommended Chase to Washington. Moreover, the Supreme Court was not very powerful or prestigious at the time and it was difficult to find a lawyer who would accept a position on it. The job did not pay well and justices had to travel long distances to preside over circuit courts. Chase took his seat on the Court on February 4, 1796. He was an Anti-Federalist at the time of the Constitution’s ratification but during his tenure on the Court he became a persuasive advocate for the federal judiciary’s power to review legislation. Two cases from Chase’s first session on the Supreme Court— Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 171, 1 L. Ed. 556, and Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 199, 1 L. Ed. 568, both decided in March 1796— stand out. In Hylton v. United States, the Court for the first time reviewed a law passed by Congress. Although the Court refrained from declaring its ability to void acts of Congress on constitutional grounds, its review nevertheless paved the way for MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), which established the right of the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. At issue in Ware v. Hylton was whether a treaty decided by the federal govern- ment could take precedence over state laws. The U.S. governme nt had made a treaty with Great Britain following the Revolutionary War that provided for the payment of debts owed to Great Britain. The states, meanwhile, had passed their own laws on this issue, many of which enabled U.S. citizens to forgo repaying their debts to British citizens. JOHN MARSHALL, future chief justice of the Court, argued the case before the Court for the debtors. The Court ruled that the national treaty had precedent over state law. Of Chase’s opinion in this case, constitutional scholar EDWARD S. CORWIN wrote in 1930 that it “remains to this day the most impressive assertion of the supremacy of national treaties over State laws.” In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386, 1 L. Ed. 648 (1798), Chase wrote a highly influential opinion for the Court. He defined a constitu- tional interpretation of ex post facto laws—that is, retroactive laws, or laws that affect matters occurring before their enactment. Chase decid- ed that the Constitution’s PROHIBITION of such laws extended only to criminal statutes that make prior conduct a crime, not to civil statutes. Chase also set a precedent by arguing that any law “contrary to the great first principles of the social compact” must be declared void. In his opinion, Chase emphasized that the Consti- tution limits the ability of legislators to disturb established property right s even when it does not expressly set forth such rights. Described by Presser as the natural-law basis of the Constitu- tion, this argument broadened the Court’s ability to test the constitutionality of legislation. In United States v. Callender, Chase’s Trial 65, Whart. St. Tr. 668, 25 F. Cas. 239, No. 14, 709 (C.C. Va.) (1800), Chase further defined the powers of the Court when he ruled that a jury could not decide the constitutionality of a law: [T]he judicial power of the United States is the only proper and competent authority to decide whether any statute made by congress (or any of the state legislatures) is contrary to, or in violation of, the federal constitution…. I believe that it has been the general and prevailing opinion in all the Union, that the power now wished to be exercised by a jury, belongs properly to the Federal Courts. Chase also found himself embroiled in highly publicized political controversy for his actions both on and off the bench. For example, he made partisan speeches in 1796 for JOHN ADAMS , the Federalist party candidate for presi- dent, even after he had taken the position of Supreme Court justice. He also pushed for passage of the Alien and SEDITION Act, 1 Stat. 596 (1798), which outlawed “false, scandalous, and malicious” attacks on the government, the president, or Congress. The law was designed largely to discourage criticism of President Adams by the rival DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY , whose most well-known leader was THOMAS JEFFERSON.InCIRCUIT COURT de cisions in 1799 and 1800 Chase imposed harsh sentences GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHASE, SAMUEL 339 The Samuel Chase Impeachment Trial O B riginally an anti-Federal ist opposed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on grounds that it deprived the states of their independence and sovereignty, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase changed his tune about the propriety of a strong central government once he saw the anarchy and madness wrought by the French Revolution. By the time he was seated on the nation’s high court, Chase had earned a reputation for his zealous defense of the Federalist Party and his harsh criticism of the Republican Party. Generally speaking, the Federalist Party favored a strong national government, promoted legislation that advanced mercantile interests, supported the creation of a national bank, and believed that the federal government should be run by the most well- educated and affluent Americans. The Republican Party generally favored stronger and more indepen- dent state governments, promoted legislation that advanced agricultural interests, opposed the crea- tion of a national bank, and believed t hat the federal government should be run as a popular democracy, with its power being directly and closely derived from everyday, avera ge Americans. Chase’s political beliefs endeared him to the White House while Federalist John Adams was in office. But in 1800 Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams to become the third president of the United States, and his Republican Party took control of both houses of Congress. Chase had rankled Republicans even before Jefferson took office. The beginning of the fall term of the Supreme Court in 1800 had to be postponed several weeks until Chase finished campaigning for John Adams in Maryland. After Jefferson took office, Chase b egan openly assailing the presid ent and his policies. Chase even took to condemning the Republicans from t he bench. In reading a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in May 1803, Chase unleashed what one contemporary observer called “atiradeagainst Republican legislation.” Dismayed that Jefferso- nians in Maryland had established universal male suffrage, Chase suggested to the g rand jurors that “the country … [was] headed down the road to mobocracy, the worst of all popu lar governments” and that, if left in power, Jeffersonian Republicans would eliminate “all security for property, and personal liberty.” The “modern doctrine … that all men in a state of society are entitled to equal liberty and equal rights,” Chase warned, will bring “mighty mischief upon us.” Finally, Chase said that congres- sional Republicans had gravely compromised the independence of the judiciary by repealing t he Judiciary Act of 1801, which lame-duc k Federalist lawmakers had passed to create extra federal judgeships for President Adams to fill. When Jefferson learned of Chase’s grand jury charge on May 13, 1803, he immediately wrote Joseph Nicholson, one of his party leaders in the House of Representatives, suggesting action against Chase: “Ought this seditious and official act on the principles of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, to go unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions for your consideration, for myself it is better that I should not interfere.” Nicholson quietly alerted his Republicans colleagues as to Jefferson’s suggestion. Less than a year later, on March 12, 1804, the U.S. House of Representative voted to impeach Chase by a 73 to 32 margin, naming John Randolph, a cousin of Jefferson and a mercurial politician in his own right, to head the House Managers responsible for prosecuting Chase in his trial before the Senate. The eight artic les of impeachment centered on three charges. The first charge arose from Chase’s remarks before the Ba ltimore grand jury. The second charge stemmed from his conduct in the 1800 treason trial of John Fries. The third charge focused on Chase’s conduct in the 1800 s edition trial of James Callendar. Together, the House managers argued, these thre e charges represented judicial misconduct amounting to impeachable high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution provides that the federal judges “shall be removed from Office on Impea chment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Brib ery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The least serious of the cha rges concerned Chase’s conduct i n the Fries tria l. Fries was accused of treason for leading a riot over a dwelling tax in Pennsylvania in 1799. At the outset of the Fries trial, Chase had delivered a written opinion in which he defined the meaning of treason GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 340 CHASE, SAMUEL as a matter of law, without ever hearing argument from the lawyers in the case. Fries’ attorneys were flabbergasted. They withdrew from the case because, they contended, Chase’s conduct had irrevocably tainted the jury pool and made a fair trial impossible. Without counsel, Fries was easily convicted. In defense of his actions, Chase told the Senate that before the jury began deliberating in the Fries case, he had instructed the jurors that they had the final word on the definition of t reason and the final say on how that definition would be applied to the facts of the case. The most serious charge concerned Chase’s conduct at the Callender trial. Callender had been indicted under the provisions of the Sedition Act for publishing a book accusing John Adams of being a British toady and a monarchist. Passed in 1798 by a Federalist Congress, the Sedition Act made it a crime to speak or write in such a way as to bring the president or Congress “into contempt or disrepute.” Jeffersonians viewed the act as a political tool that the Adams administration used to muzzle its opponents. During the impeachment trial, the House Managers presented evidence that Chase had prejudged the Callendar case. They offered testi- mony that Chase, upon first reading Callendar’s book, had expressed the intent to present the offending passages to a grand jury himself and obtain an indictment against the defendant. Chase admitted threatening such action but denied following through on t he threat and argued that the threat by itself did not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. The House Managers also presented evidence that Chase failed to exclude a juror from sitting on the jury, even though the juror had f ormed an unfavorable opinion about Callendar. Chase admitted that one juror indi cated having formed such an opinion, but Chase said that the same juror also said he had not formed an opinion about the specific charges against the defendant. The trial began on February 9, 1805, and the House Managers took ten full days to present the testimony of more than 50 witnesses. Chase did not testify during the proceedings but instead read a prepared statement that attempted to refute the charges. Closing arguments started on February 20 and lasted several days. Martin Luther, one the country’smost able and respected lawyers, represented Chase. Seven House Managers, led by Randolph, spoke for the prosecution. Thirty-Four senators weighed the evidence, 25 Republicans and 9 Federalists. Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice president, presided over the proceedings. Twenty-two votes, or two-thirds of the Senate, were necessary for conviction. On Marc h 1, 1805, the Senate announced its verdicts. Chase was acquitted on all counts. The closest vote was 19–15 in favor of convicting Chase for his anti-Republican remarks to the Baltimore grand jury. Contemporary observers and historians have given Martin Luther a lion’s share of the credit for the acquittals. His closing argument de eply impressed the Senate with ide as that Chase was a wronged man and that the integrity and indepen- dence of the federal judiciary would be imperiled by conviction. John Randolph’s closing argument, by contrast, was described as so ineffective, di sorga- nized, shrill, and blatantly partisan that even Thomas Jefferson was alienated. The failure of the Senate to convict allowe d Chase to return to the Supreme Court and serve six more years as an associate justice. More impor- tantly, the acquittal d eterred the House of Repre- sentatives from using impeachment as a partisan political tool. Some historians have suggested that the Chase impeachment trial was just a test case for House Republicans who would have pursued other impeachments more aggressively. The Chase impeachment is also said to have left a lasting impression on Chase’s friend, Chief Justice John Marshall, who spent much of his later career attempting to demonstrate that the nation’shigh court was separate from and even above party politics. In the final analysis, these two results represent flip sides of the same co in: one result increased the independence of the federal judiciary from interference by the legislative and executive branches, while the other result revealed the danger to that independence created by unelected federal judges w ho publicly attack the popular policies of democratically elected lawmakers. FURTHER READINGS Presser, Stephen B. 1991. The Original Misunderstanding: The English, the Americans, and the Dialectic of Federalist Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. Rehnquist, William H. 1992. Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. CROSS REFERENCE High Crimes and Misdemeanors. B GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHASE, SAMUEL 341 on Democratic-Republicans who had published opinions critical of Adams’s Federalist adminis- tration. In several cases Chase worked to keep Anti-Federalists off juries. In the case of John Fries of Pennsylvania, a strong supporter of Jefferson who had led rebellions against federal excise taxes, Chase sentenced the accused to death. President Adams subsequently set aside the sentence. In 1800 the political atmosphere in Washing- ton, D.C., changed when Jefferson defeated Adams for the presidency of the United States. In 1803 Chase got into trouble with the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans when he severely criticized their policies in front of a Baltimore GRAND JURY. Chase explained that he objected to recent changes in Maryland law that gave more men the privilege of voting. Such changes as these advanced by Democratic- Republicans, Chase exclaimed, w ould rapidly destroy all protection to property, and all security to personal liberty, and our Republican Constitution [would] sink into mobocracy, the worst of all possible govern- ments…. The modern doctrines by our late reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty MISCHIEF upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly destroy progress, until peace and order, freedom and property shall be destroyed. This angered Jefferson and other Democrat- ic-Republicans and in 1804 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase on charges of misconduct and bias in the sedition cases and of seditious criticism of Jefferson in the 1803 Baltimore grand jury charge. In 1805 the Democratic-Republican–controlled U.S. Senate moved to impeach Chase. Democratic- Republican sen ators charged that Chase had been guilty of judicial misconduct and that his partisan acts showed that he lacked political objectivity. Federalists defending Chase argued that he had committed no crime and that he could not be convicted under the constitutional definition of HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. The Senate failed to achieve the two-thirds major ity necessary to impeach Chase and he remained on the Court until his death. Chase’s acquittal set an important precedent for the Court—no Supreme Court justice could be removed simply because of his or her political beliefs. The failure to impeach Chase allowed Chief Justice Marshall to assert and define the powers of the Court in future decisions with more confidence. It was thus a step in the process of defining the independence of the Supreme Court as one of the three primary branches of U.S. government. Chase avoided controversy in his subse- quent work on the Court. His near impeach- ment served as a warning both to him and to other justices to be careful in their choice of words while in office. As Chase suffered in later years from declining health, Marshall became the most vocal justice and assumed Chase’s position as the lightning rod for the Court. Chase died June 19, 1811, in Baltimore. He was interred in St. Paul’s Cemetery. FURTHER READINGS Dilliard, Irving. 1995. “Samuel Chase.” In The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volumes I–V. Leon Friedman, and Fred L. Israel, eds. New York: Chelsea House. Haw, James. 1996. “Samuel Chase.” In The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995, 2d ed. Claire Cushman. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Kindig, Thomas. “Samuel Chase.” Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Available online at http://www. ushistory.org/Declaration/signers/chase.htm; website home page: http://www.ushistory.org (accessed August 29, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Constitution of the United States “Federalists vs. Anti- Federalists ” (In Focus); Fries’s Rebellion. CHATTEL An item of personal property that is movable; it may be animate or inanimate. Chattels are synonymous with goods or PERSONALTY. CHATTEL MORTGAGE A transfer of some legal or equitable right in personal property as security for the payment of money or performance of some other act. Chattel mortgages have generally been superseded by other types of secured transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a body of law adopted by the states that governs commercial transactions. The rights of the lender who gives a chattel mortgage are valid only against others who know or should know of the lender’s security interest in the property. Because the borrower possesses the property, others cannot realize that a chattel MORTGAGE exists without notice. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 342 CHATTEL Chattel Mortgage PROMISSORY NOTE This document is to be used as a guideline only. HowStuffWorks does not guarantee that this document is suitable, or legally accurate, for all situations, and is not liable for any deficiencies in the document's content. Borrower Information: Name: Date: Street Address: Date of Birth: City: Area code/Telephone Number: State: Driver's License Number: Zip: Social Security Number: Lender Information: Name: Area code/Telephone number: Street Address: If paying by check, make check payable to: City: Send payments to: State: Zip: Loan Information: Loan Amount: Loan Period: Interest Rate: Payment Schedule: 1. Promise to Pay. For value received, _____________________________________________________ (Borrower) promises to pay _________________________ (Lender) $ ___________________ and interest at the yearly rate of __________% on the unpaid balance as specified below. 2. Installments. ٗ Borrower will pay __________ payments of $ ________ each at monthly/yearly/ ___________ intervals on the ___________ day of the month. ٗ Borrower will pay one lump payment on _____________________________________ date. Borrower will pay ____________ payments of $ __________ each at monthly/yearly/ ______________ intervals with a final ٗ balloon payment of ___________________ at the end of the loan term on _____________________________ date. 3. Application of Payments. Payments will be applied first to interest and then to principal. 4. Prepayment. Borrower may prepay all or any part of the principal without penalty. 5. Loan Acceleration. If Borrower is more than _________ days late in making any payment, Lender may declare that the entire balance of unpaid principal is due immediately, together with the interest that has accrued. 6. Security. ٗ This is an unsecured note. ٗ Borrower agrees that until the principal and interest owed under this promissory note are paid in full, this note will be secured by a security agreement and Uniform Commercial Code Financing statement giving Lender a security interest in the equipment, fixtures, inventory and accounts receivable of the business known as _________________________________. ٗ Borrower agrees that until the principal and interest owed under this promissory note are paid in full, this note will be secured by the ٗ mortgage ٗ deed of trust covering the real estate commonly known as __________________________________ ٗ and more fully described as follows: ___________________________________________________ 7. Collection Costs . If Lender prevails in a lawsuit to collect on this note, Borrower will pay Lender's costs and lawyer's fees in an amount the court finds to be reasonable. [continued] A sample chattel mortgage. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHATTEL MORTGAGE 343 Each state, therefore, has developed a system for recording instruments showing the existence of chattel mortgages for particular items of property; these records are usually located in the county clerk’s office. If a recording system is in existence a buyer is presumed to know about a mortgage. Once, therefore, the mortgage is properly recorded, the buyer obtains the debt in addition to the property. CROSS REFERENCE Recording of Land Titles. CHATTEL PAPER A writing or writings that evidence both a monetary obligation and a security interest in or a lease of specific goods. In many instances chattel paper will consist of a negotiable instrument coupled with a security agreement. When a transaction is evidenced both by such a security agreement or a lease and by an instrument or a series of instruments, the group of writings taken together constitutes chattel paper. CROSS REFERENCE Secured Transactions. v CHÁVEZ, CÉSAR ESTRADA César Estrada Chávez, the son of Mexican American farm workers, became a well-known labor leader, founding the United Farm Work- ers (UFW) union, which led a massive grape BOYCOTT across the Unite d States during the 1960s. Chávez won wage increases, benefits, and legal protections for migrant farm workers in the western United States and fought to have dangerous pesticides outlawed. Chávez was born March 31, 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, one of five children in a family that lived on a small farm for a time. When he was a child, the family was pushed onto the road as migrant laborers when Chávez’s parents lost the family farm during the Great Depression. Later, he often spoke of what he felt was the unjust way in which his family had lost their property through foreclosure. Chávez never went beyond the eighth grade, and he once said that he had attended over 60 elementary schools because of his family’s constant search for work in the fields. Chávez was exposed to labor organizing as a young boy, when his fath er and uncle joined a dried-fruit industry union during the late 1930s. The young Chávez was deeply impressed when the workers later went on strike. At age 19, Chávez himself picketed cotton fields but watched the union fail in its efforts to organize the workers. After serving in the U.S. Navy during WORLD WAR II , he returned to California, where he married a woman named Helen Fabela. In 1952 A sample chattel mortgage (continued). ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Chattel Mortgage The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of _________________________________. Witnessed:_______________________________________ Date: __________________________ Witnessed:_______________________________________ Date: __________________________ Witnessed:_______________________________________ Date: __________________________ Witnessed:_______________________________________ Date: __________________________ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 344 CHATTEL PAPER the Los Angeles headquarters of organizer Saul Alinsky’s COMMUNITY SERVICE O rganization (CSO) decided to set up a chapter in San Jose, California, to work for CIVIL RIGHTS for the area’s Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants. A parish priest supplied several names to CSO organizer Fred Ross, including that of Chávez, who was then living in one of San Jose’s poorest and toughest neighborhoods — Sal Si Puedes (leave, if you can). Ross believed that Chávez could be the best grassroots leader he had ever encountered, so he sought Chávez out and eventually convinced him to join the group’s efforts. Chávez began as a volunteer in a CSO voter registration drive and a few months later was hired as a staff member. He spent the next ten years leading voter registration drives throughout the San Joaquin Valley and advo- cating for Mexican immigrants who complained of mistreatment by police officers, IMMIGRATION authorities, and welfare officials. Chávez believed that unionizing was the only chance for farm workers to improve their working conditions. He resigned in 1962, increasingly frustrated because the CSO would not become involved in forming a farm work- ers’ union. He immediately established the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the UFW, an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor and Cong ress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). At the UFW’s first meeting in September 1962, in Fresno, California, Chávez’s cousin, Manuel Chávez, unveiled the flag that he and Chávez had designed for the new union—a black Aztec eagle in a white circle on a bold red background. The banner soon became the symbol of the farm workers’ struggle. When Chávez founded the UFW, field workers in California averaged $1.50 per hour, received no benefits, and had no methods by which to challe nge their employers. Under Chávez’s leadership, the UFW won tremendous wage increases and extensive benefits for farm workers, including medical and unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. A strict believer in nonviolence, Chávez used marches, boycotts, strikes, fasts, and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE to force growers in California’s agricultural valleys to the bargaining table. In 1968 Filipino grape pickers in Delano, California, struck for higher César Chávez. AP IMAGES César Estrada Chávez 1927–1993 ❖ 1927 Born, Yuma, Ariz. 1939–45 World War II ◆ ❖ ◆ 1962 Organized the National Farm Workers Association 1970 UFW signed contracts for higher wages with grape growers 1958 Became director of the Community Service Organization 1950–53 Korean War 1975 California passed Agricultural Labor Relations Act 1993 Died, Yuma, Ariz. 1968 UFW boycott of California grapes began 1961-73 Vietnam War 1944–45 Served in U.S. Navy during World War II 1966 United Farm Workers (UFW) formed ▼▼ ▼▼ 19251925 20002000 19751975 19501950 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHÁVEZ, CÉSAR ESTRADA 345 wages; several days later, the UFW joined the strike and initiated a boycott of California grapes. More than 200 union supporters traveled across the United States and into Canada, urging consumers not to buy California grapes. The mayors of New York, Boston, Detroit, and St. Louis announced that their cities would not buy nonunion grapes. By August 1968, California grape growers estimated that the boycott had cost them about 20 percent of their expected revenue. The boycott brought Chávez to the attention of national political leaders, including U.S. Senator ROBERT F. KENNEDY, who sought the DEMOCRATIC PARTY nomination for president before his ASSASSINA- TION in 1968. Kennedy described Chávez as a heroic figure. In 1970, after its successful boycott, the UFW signed contracts with the grape growers. In 1975 Chávez had a great success when the strongest law ever enacted to protect farm workers, the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Cal. Lab. Code § 1140 et seq. [West]), was passed by the California Legislature. This law gave workers the right to bargain collectively and the right to seek redress for unfair labor practices. Other regulations banned the use of tools that caused crippling back injuries, such as the short-handled hoe, and required growers to give workers breaks and to provide toilets and fresh water in the fields. Chávez was among the first to link workers’ health problems to pesticides. He negotiated union contracts that prohibited growers from using DDT, and he targeted five lead ing pesticides that cause birth defects or kill upon contact. At its peak during the 1970s the UFW had more than 70,000 members. During the early 1980s, the UFW’s influence began to wane and union membership dipped below 10,000. Chávez blamed the dec line in part on the election of Republican governors, who sided with the growers. In addition, Chávez decided to turn his efforts toward conducting boycotts rather than organizing workers, a move that was widely criticized and caused a split among the union’s members. Chávez was also forced to defend himself against lawsuits stemming from UFW actions taken years before. In 1991 the union lost a $2.4 million case when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal. The case stemmed from a 1979 Imperial Valley strike in which a farm worker was shot and killed (Maggio, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of America, 227 Cal. App. 3d 847, 278 Cal. Rptr. 250 [Cal. App. 1991], cert. denied, 502 U.S. 863, 112 S. Ct. 187, 116 L. Ed. 2d 148 [1991 ]). In April 1993 Chávez returned to San Luis, a small town near his native Yuma, Arizona, to TESTIFY in the retrial of a lawsuit brought by Bruce Church, Inc., a large Salinas, California– based producer of iceberg lettuce. At the time Chávez testified, Bruce Church had extensive landholdings in Arizona and California, includ- ing the acreage east of Yuma that Chávez’s parents had once owned. The company had won a $5.4 million judgment for alleged damage caused by union boycotts, but an appellate court overturned the judgment and sent the case back to the trial court (Bruce Church, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of America, 816 P. 2d 919 [Ariz . App. 1991]). On April 22 Chávez finished his second day of TESTIMONY in Yuma County Superior Court. He returned to spend the night at the home of a family friend and died in his sleep. Following Chávez’s death, Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, described the leader as instrumental in organized labor’s efforts to improve the lot of the worker. “Always, César had conveyed hope and determination, espe- cially to minority workers, in the daily struggle against injustice and hardship,” Kirkland said. “The improved lives of millions of farm workers and their families will endure as a testimonial to César and his life’s work.” In a 1984 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Chávez said, “Regardless of what the future holds for our union, regardless of what the future holds for farm workers, our accomplishment cannot be un- done. The consciousness and pride that were raised by our union are alive and thriving inside millions of young Hispanics who will never work on a farm.” FURTHER READINGS Etulain, Richard W., ed. 2002. Cesar Chavez: A Brief Biography with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Houle, Michelle, ed. 2003. Cesar Chavez. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven. Matthiessen, Peter. 2000. Sal Si Puedes (Escape if You Can): Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution. Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. CROSS REFERENCES Agricultural Law; Labor Union. OUR STRUGGLE IS NOT EASY … BUT WE HAVE SOMETHING THE RICH DO NOT OWN .WE HAVE OUR BODIES AND SPIRITS AND THE JUSTICE OF OUR CAUSE AS OUR WEAPONS . —CÉSAR CHÁVEZ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 346 CHÁVEZ, CÉSAR ESTRADA CHECK A written order instructing a bank to pay upon its presentation to the person designated in it, or to the person possessing it, a certain sum of money from the account of the person who draws it. A check must contain the phrase “pay to the order of.” A check differs from a draft in that a check is always drawn on a bank, whereas a draft is an order for payment drawn on anyone, including a bank, a person, or a trading account with a company. A blank check is one that the drawer signs but omits filling in the space for the name of the payee, the person in whose favor a check is drawn, or neglects to fill in the space for the amount to be paid. A cashier’s check is one that the bank draws on itself and is signed by an authorized bank official. The bank lends its credit to the purchaser of the check in order to facilitate its immediate use in commercial transactions. It is a direct obligation of the bank. A personal check is one that the individual draws on his or her own account. A postdated check is one that bears a date after its date of issuance, and is payable on the stated date. A traveler’s check is one purchased from a bank, express compan y, or other financial institution in various denominations, and is signed immediately by the purchaser in order to establish the form of his or her signature. The check cannot be treated as cash because of this first signature, but it is treated as cash upon the purchaser’s second signature when he or she uses it. The ge nuineness of the second signature is established by comparing it to the initial signature. A traveler’s check is similar to a cashier’s check of the issuer. CHECKOFF A system whereby an employer regularly deducts a portion of an employee’s wages to pay union dues or initiation fees. The checkoff system is very attractive to a union because the collection of dues can be costly and time-consuming. It prescribes the manner in which dues are paid by deductions in earnings rather than through individual checks sent directly to the union. Unions are thereby assured of the regular receipt of their dues. A dues checkoff system is only lawful when voluntarily authorized by an employee. Unions have attempted to make alternatives to checkoff more onerous by requiring such practices as in- person delivery of dues checks to out-of-state locations. The NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD has held that this type of inducement to checkoff is unlawful, however, as is the attempt by a union to collect assessments extending beyond periodic dues. CROSS REFERENCES Labor Law; Labor Union. CHEROKEE CASES With the creation of the U.S. Constitution and a national government, political and legal policy- makers had to determine how to deal with Native American tribes that resided on lands granted to them by treaties. By the 1820s, U.S. policy toward what was regarded as the “Indian problem” was one of forced removal and resettlement to lands to the west. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act (4 Stat. 411) and appropriated $500,000 for that purpose, signaling a determination to affect great changes. The Cherokee, faced with growing hostility to their presence in the state of Georgia, were the first group of Native Americans to press their legal rights all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court issued decisions in two cases that are commonly known as the Cherokee Cases: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832). These are landmark cases that have continued to shape judicial analysis of disputes between tribal governments and state and federal governments. A key issue in both cases was the legal and political status of Native American tribes. The Cherokee claimed they were an independent, sovereign state, akin to a nation such as France or Great Britain. The Supreme Court rejected this claim in the first case but developed a different theory of SOVEREIGNTY in the second decision. In Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee asked the Court for an INJUNCTION that would prevent Georgia from executing laws that the tribe contended were being used to drive them off their land and to “annihilate” their existence as a political society. Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHEROKEE CASES 347 . president 1804 U.S. House voted to impeach Chase ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 18001800 1 825 1 825 1 725 1 725 17501750 ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 338 CHASE, SAMUEL assembly, upset with his behavior. which he defined the meaning of treason GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 340 CHASE, SAMUEL as a matter of law, without ever hearing argument from the lawyers in the case. Fries’. World War II 1966 United Farm Workers (UFW) formed ▼▼ ▼▼ 1 925 1 925 20 0 020 00 19751975 19501950 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHÁVEZ, CÉSAR ESTRADA 345 wages; several days