Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P23 pdf

McCaffrey, Stephen C. 1996. “The Harmon Doctrine One Hundred Years Later: Buried, Not Praised.” Natural Resources Journal 36, no. 3 (fall). v HARRISON, BENJAMIN On March 4, 1889, Benjamin Harrison was sworn in as the twenty-third PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES . Forty-eight years to the day earlier, his grandfather, WILLIAM H. HARRISON, had become the ninth U.S. president. His grandfather’s presidency ended after only one month when he died from complications due to a pneumonia he developed after delivering his inaugural address in the rain. Harrison’s presidency lasted a full four-year term, ushering in sweepi ng legislative changes, signaling a return of the REPUBLICAN PARTY to the White House, and laying the groundwork for the foreign policy of the late 1800s. Harrison was born August 20, 1833, in Ohio. After graduating from Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio, he moved to Indianapolis to practice law. There he became involved in Republican politics, serving as city attorney, secretary of the Republican state committee, and supre me court reporter for Indiana. During the Civil War, he joined the Union Army. Within a month he was promoted to colonel and commanding officer of the Seventieth Indiana Regiment. He fought under General William T. Sherman and was promoted to brevet brigadier general in February 1865. After the war he returned to Indianapolis to pursue his legal career. Harrison lost the race for governor of Indiana in 1876, but made a successful bid for a Senate seat in 1881. He held his Senate position for only one term, failing to win reelection in 1887. This loss did not deter ardent Republican supporters who wanted to see Harrison in the White House. In 1888 Harrison ran against the incumbent Democratic president, Grover Cleveland. Har- rison was the surprise nominee of the Repub li- can party, a second choice after James G. Blaine, who declined to run again after having lost to Cleveland in 1884. Following a very close race, Harrison won 233 elec toral votes; although Cleveland took the popular vote, he won only 168 electoral votes. In the 1888 elect ion, the Republican party gained control of Congress. During the first two years of Harrison’s presidency, Congress enacted into law almost everything contained in the 1888 Republican platform. This was one of the most active Congresses in history. The Benjamin Harrison. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Benjamin Harrison 1833–1901 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18251825 19001900 18751875 18501850 ❖ 1833 Born, North Bend, Ohio ◆ 1852 Graduated from Miami University of Ohio 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1862–64 Served in Union Army, including the battle of Bowling Green and Atlanta Campaign 1879–81 Served on the Mississippi River Commission 1881–87 Represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate 1889–93 Served as 23rd president of the United States ◆ 1889 Signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act into law ◆ 1897 This Country of Ours published ❖ 1901 Died, Indianapolis, Ind. THE BOTTOM PRINCIPLE OF OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTROL BY THE MAJORITY . E VERYTHING ELSE ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT IS APPENDAGE , IT IS ORNAMENTATION . —BENJAMIN HARRISON GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 208 HARRISON, BENJAMIN central themes of Harrison’s campaign had been nationalism and tari ff protection. The Demo- crats favored tariff reduction, whereas the Republicans steadfastly favored a system of protection. The tariff existing at the time Harrison took office produced more income than was needed to run the government and was the cause of much bipartisan debate. In 1889 Harrison signed the McKinley Tariff Act, which raised CUSTOMS DUTIES to an ave rage of 49.5 percent, higher than any previous tariff. The act contained more than 400 amendments, including provisions for reciprocal trade agree- ments. It found favor with few Republicans, causing a rift within the party. One issue in Harrison’s term that enjoyed bipartisan support was antitrust legislation. During the late 1800s, business combinations known as trusts were created and began taking over large shares of the market. Both Repub- licans and Democrats perceived trusts as destructive of competition, and each party’s platform was antimonopoly in 1888. In 1889 Senator JOHN SHERMAN introduced antitrust legislation to restrain interstate trusts. On July 2, 1889, Harrison signed the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT into law. This was the first major piece of legislation enacted during his term, and it remains in effect more than 120 years after its adoption. Historians view the Sherman Anti- Trust Act as the most important piece of legislation of the Fifty-first Congress. During Harrison’s term legislation provid- ing for federal supervision of all congressional elections was defeated several times. The legislation had been drafted to ensure the voting rights of blacks as mandated by the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT . Harrison was a strong supporter of the bill and also of legislation to ensure education for southern blacks, which was also defeated. These were the last significant attempts to provide these CIVIL RIGHTS until the 1930s. With regard to foreign policy, Harrison had an aggressive attitude and little patience for drawn-out diplomatic negotiations. He helped convince several European countries to lift their restrictions on the importat ion of U.S. pork products, thus increasing U.S. exports of pork from approximately 47 million pounds in 1891 to 82 million pounds in 1892. Harrison also played a part in solving disputes between the United States, Eng land, and Canada regarding seal hunting in the Bering Sea. And his tenacity proved successful in avoiding a war with Chile in 1892. Harrison’s attitude towar d foreign relations was emulated by THEODORE ROOSEVELT and other politicians. When Harrison sought reelection in 1892, Cleveland once again opposed him. This time Cleveland emerged the victor. Harrison has been described as an aloof loner, lacking in personal magnetism, but a man of great intellect. After he failed to secure a second term as presi dent, he was revered as an elder statesman, giving lectures and acting as chief counsel for Venezuela in a boundary dispute with British Guiana. After a bout with pneumonia, Harrison died March 13, 1901, in Indianapolis, Indiana. FURTHER READINGS Lyle, Jack. 1996. “Benjamin Harrison First ISBA President.” Res Gestae 39 (January). Moore, Chieko, and Hester Anne Hale. 2006. Benjamin Harrison: Centennial President. New York: Nova. Socolofsky, Homer E., and Allan B. Spetter. 1987. The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas. v HARRISON, ROBERT HANSON Robert Hanson Harrison was a lawyer and judge who was one of George Washington’s original six appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Harrison w as born in 1745, in Charles County, Maryland. Though little has been written about his upbringing and education, it is known that he established a successful law practice in Alexandria, Virginia, where Washington became a client and close friend. Harrison later served as Washington’s personal secretary throughout much of the Revolution- ary War. He resigned from this post in March 1781 to become chief justice of the General Court of Maryland. On September 24, 1789, President Washing- ton signed the JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 into law. This act established the Supreme Court, con- sisting of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also established lower federal circuit and district courts and gave the Supreme Court the power to review, as well as affirm or reverse, the rulings of those courts. On the day the law was enacted, Washington nominated his longtime friend Harrison to the Court. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HARRISON, ROBERT HANSON 209 The Senate confirmed Harrison’s nomina- tion two days later with little debate. Harrison initially declined the appointment because of poor health, but Washington persuaded him to accept the seat. A week after Harrison depart ed for New York City to begin work on the Court, he was stricken with a sudden illness and was forced to again decline the appointment. Washington eventually appointed JAMES IREDELL to the seat intended for Harrison. Despite illness, Harrison remained chief justice of the General Court of Maryland until his death on April 2, 1790. During his tenure on the Maryland court, Harrison dealt mainly with real estate law and other legal matters; he had little opportunity to write about more sweeping issues of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. As a result, his legal record indicates little about the effect he would have had if he had been able to serve his appointed term on the U.S. Supreme Court. FURTHER READINGS Congressional Quarterly. 2004. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Degregorio, William A. 2009. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Barricade. Elliott, Stephen P., ed. 1986. A Reference Guide to the United States Supreme Court. New York: Facts on File. v HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY William Henry Harrison was the ninth presi- dent of the Unite d States. He served the shortest term of any U.S. president, dying just a month after assuming office. Harrison was born February 9, 1773, in Charles City County, Virginia, the youngest of seven children in a distinguished plantation family. His father, BENJAMIN HARRISON V, served in the House of Burgesses before the American Revolution, was later a member of the CONTI- NENTAL CONGRESS , and was a signer of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Harrison was tutored at home in his early years. In 1787, at age 14, he entered Hampden-Sydney College for premedical studies, intending to beco me a doctor. In 1791 he enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School to study under Dr. BENJAMIN RUSH, a noted physician. Later that year, following his father’s death and without funds to continue school, Harrison decided to enlist in the Army and was commissioned an ensign in the First Infantry, serving in the Northwest Territory. Robert H. Harrison. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Robert Hanson Harrison 1745–1790 ▼▼ ▼▼ 17501750 18001800 17751775 ❖ 1745 Born, Charles County, Md. ◆ 1769 George Washington first hired his Alexandria, Va., neighbor as counsel on a legal matter 1775–83 American Revolution 1775–81 Served as General Washington's personal secretary 1781–89 Presided as chief justice of the General Court of Md. 1789–90 Returned to service as chief justice of General Court in Md. ◆ 1789 Nominated by Washington as one of original six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; declined due to illness ❖ 1790 Died, Charles County, Md. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 210 HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY Harrison rose quickly through the ranks of the military, becoming a lieutenant in 1792 and acting as aide-de-camp to Major General Anthony (“Mad Anthony”) Wayne, who was responsible for pacifying the Ottawa, Chippewa, Shawnee, and Pottawatomie tribes. At the Battle of Fallen Timbers, in August 1794, Harrison was responsible for holding the line against the tribes and received an official commendation from General Wayne for his efforts. He was later promoted to captain, but in 1798 resigned from the Army. Following his distinguished military service, Harrison was appoin ted territorial secretary of the Northwest Territory by President JOHN ADAMS . The position paid well ($1,200 per year), but Harrison did not find it particularly challenging. In 1799, he was appointed the territory’s first delegate to Congress, a nonvot- ing position that authorized him only to introduce legislation and participate in debate. Harrison made the most of his office, introduc- ing and lobbying for passage of the Harrison Land Act of 1800, which opened the Northwest Territory to settlers and offered land for sale in small, affordable tracts and on reasonable credit terms. In 1800 Harrison was appointed governor of the Indiana Territory. In his twelve years in the post, Harrison successfully negotiated a number of Indian treaties that opened to white settlers millions of acres in southern Indiana and Illinois. Despite the treaties, the threat of uprisings continued, and in November 1811 Harrison led a force of a thousand men, largely militiamen and volunteers from Kentucky and Indiana, against the Indian CONFEDERACY. Harrison’s troops, taken by surprise, were attacked by the confederacy forces in an early morning raid. In more than two hours of intense fighting, Harrison’s men beat back their opponents, suffering more than two hundred casualties. The conflict, known as the Battle of Tippecanoe, put an end to Native American resistance to white settlement in the region—and earned Harrison the nickname Old Tippecanoe. Soon after the WAR OF 1812 broke out, Harrison was again on the front lines of a major military operation. He was commissioned a major general of the Kentucky MILITIA, then made a brigadier general in command of the William Henry Harrison. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS William Henry Harrison 1773–1841 ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 18501850 18251825 18001800 ❖ 1773 Born, Charles City County, Va. 1775–83 American Revolution ◆ 1787 Entered Hampden- Sydney College ◆ 1794 Battle of Fallen Timbers 1791 Entered University of Pa. Medical School ◆ 1791–98 Served in Army 1800–12 Served as governor of the Indiana Territory 1798–99 Served as territorial secretary of the Northwest Territory ◆ 1811 Led militia and volunteer forces in the Battle of Tippecanoe 1812–14 War of 1812 1816–19 Served in U.S. House 1819–21 Served in Ohio senate 1825–28 Served in U.S. Senate 1828–29 Served as minister to Colombia ◆ 1840 Elected ninth president of the United States; first presidential campaign to include advertising and slogans ❖ 1841 Inauguration in bad weather resulted in pneumonia; died one month later, Washington, D.C. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY 211 Northwest frontier. In 1813 he was promoted to major general. Harrison’s biggest battle of the war was at the Thames River, in Ontario, where he defeated a force of seventeen hundred British troops and secured the Northwest for the United States. Harrison was proc laimed a national hero and left the military to resume a career in politics. In 1816 Harrison won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served as chairman of the Militia Committe e, advocating universal military training and sponsor ing a relief bill for veterans and war widows. He also opposed laws that would restrict SLAVERY.In 1819 Harrison left the House to serve as an Ohio state senator. After a year in office, he ran for the U.S. Senate but was defeated. He also lost a close election for the U.S. House in 1822. In 1825 he was elected to the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Harrison once again focused on mili- tary issues, using his influence as chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs to lobby for increases in Army pay and an expansion of the Navy. After three years in the Senate, Harrison turned to foreign service, accepting an appoint- ment as minister to Colombia. Harrison’s tenure in South America was brief, because of political instability within Colombia and con- cerns within the U.S. government that he was sympathetic to revolutionaries plotting to over- throw the Colombian president. He was recalled to Washington, D.C., in 1829. After returning to the United States, Harri- son retired to his farm in Ohio and suffered a series of financial setbacks and family tragedies, including the death of his oldest son. But he remained interested in politics. In 1836 he ran unsuccessfully for president, losing to MARTIN VAN BUREN . In 1840 he again ran against Van Buren, with JOHN TYLER as his running mate. The race has been viewed by historians as the first modern presidential campaign, one with adver- tising and slogan s, including the famous Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too, a reference to Harrison’s strong military record on the frontier. Harrison and Tyler won the election with 53 percent of the popular vote. Harrison was inaugurated amid great en- thusiasm and gave one of the longest inaugural speeches in history (nearly an hour and a half) outdoors in early March without a hat, gloves, or an overcoat. He soon came down with a cold, which grew progressively worse and eventually developed into pneumonia. He died less than a month later, on April 4, 1841, in Washington, D.C., at age 68. FURTHER READINGS Calhoun, Charles William. 2005. Benjamin Harrison: The 23rd President 1889–1893. New York: Macmillan. Degregorio, William A. 2009. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Barricade. Green, Meg. 2007. William H. Harrison. Breckenridge, CO: Twenty-First Century. v HASTIE, WILLIAM HENRY William Henry Hastie was one of the twentieth century’s leading African American lawyers and jurists. He served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1949 to 1971, becoming the first African American to sit on a federal appellate court. Hastie also distinguished himself as an educator, a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney, and a public servant. He successfully argued major CIVIL RIGHTS CASES before the U.S. Supreme Court and was a leader in the effort to desegregate the U.S. military during WORLD WAR II. With CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON , his second cousin, Hastie dramatically improved the standing and repu- tation of Howard University Law School during the 1930s and 1940s. Hastie was born in Knoxville, Tennessee, on November 17, 1904. In 1916 his family moved to Washington, D.C., so that he could attend Dunbar High School. Thus began an education at the same schools Houston had attended before him. Hastie gra duated from Dunbar as class valedictorian in 1921 and went on to distinguish himself at Amherst College, where he graduated in 1925, again as valedictorian. After college Hastie spent two years teaching mathematics and science at a New Jersey school, then enrolled at Harvard Law School. There he served on the editorial board of the Harvard LAW REVIEW , becoming only the second African American to do so. He received a bachelor of laws degree from Harvard in 1930 and a doctor of jurisprudence degree in 1933. Hastie then joined Houston’s Washington, D.C., law firm. He also worked as an instructor at Howard University Law School, where Houston served as vice dean. Together, Hastie and Houston mentored scores of young black lawyers, including THURGOOD MARSHALL, who SEE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ACQUIRE TOO MUCH POWER .KEEP A CHECK UPON YOUR RULERS .DO THIS, AND LIBERTY IS SAFE. —WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 212 HASTIE, WILLIAM HENRY would become a leading civil rights lawyer and a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Hastie worked as an activist for African American civil rights. In 1933 he founded the New Negro Alliance, a group that organized pickets and boycotts of white businesses to force increased hiring of African Americans. He worked with Houston, Marshall, and other members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP) to devise legal strategies to fight racism in employment, housing, and education. With regard to segregation in schools, Hastie and his NAACP colleagues focused first on graduate education. Hastie unsuccessfully argued one of the first SCHOOL DESEGREGATION cases, Hocutt v. Wilson (N.C. Super. Ct. 1933), unreported, which involved the attempt of a student, Thomas R. Hocutt, to enter the University of North Carolina. In 1933 Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes recruited Hastie to work for the INTERIOR DEPARTMENT as assistant solicitor. While in that position, Hastie fought against segregated din- ing facilities in the department and helped draft the Organic Act of 1936 (48 U.S.C.A. § 1405 et seq.), which restructured the government of the Virgin Islan ds and gave that territo ry greater autonomy. In 1937, as a result of this work, he was appointed to the federal district court of the Virgin Islands, becoming the first African American to be named a federal judge. Hastie left this position in 1939 when he was named dean of Howard University Law School. A year later he returned to government service as civilian aide to the secretary of war. Charged with rooting out racial discrimination in the military, Hastie identified and attacked discrim- ination against African Americans such as unequal promotion, segregation in unequal training facilities, and violent assaults by police officers and civilians. Unsatisfied with the government response to his proposals to eliminate discrimination, Hastie resigned from his position in protest in 1943. However, his reports on racism in the military attracted national notice, and in 1944 the Army high command ordered that African American officers be trained alongside white officers. Following his work in the military, Hastie continued to practice law and plead civil rights cases for the NAACP. Hastie and Marshall won several key cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S. Ct. 757, 88 L. Ed. 2d 987 (1944), Hastie and Marshall persuaded the Court that the practice of holding all-white party primaries, which effectively denied African Americans the right William H. Hastie. AP/WORLD WIDE PHOTOS William Henry Hastie 1904–1976 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1900 1975 1950 1925 ❖ 1904 Born, Knoxville, Tenn. 1914–18 World War I ◆ 1916 Family moved to Washington, D.C. ◆ 1925 Graduated valedictoran of his class from Amherst ◆ 1933 Earned J.D. from Harvard Law School; founded New Negro Alliance; appointed assistant solicitor at Department of the Interior 1937 Appointed to federal district court of the U.S. Virgin Islands as the first African American federal judge 1939 Named dean of Howard University Law School 1940–43 Served as civilian aide to U.S. secretary of war 1939–45 World War II ◆ 1944 With Marshall, argued Smith v. Allwright before Supreme Court 1946–49 Served as governor of the Virgin Islands 1950–53 Korean War 1950–71 Served on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ◆ 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decided ◆❖ 1961–73 Vietnam War 1976 Died, Philadelphia, Pa. 1968 Became chief justice of the Third Circuit 1967 Thurgood Marshall appointed to U.S. Supreme Court ◆ ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION HASTIE, WILLIAM HENRY 213 to vote, was unconstitutional. The case set a vital precedent for later Supreme Court civil rights decisions. Hastie and Marshall won another major victory in Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373, 66 S. Ct.1050, 90 L. Ed. 1317 (1946), inwhich the Court struck down aVirginia law (Virginia Code of 1942, §§ 4097z–4097dd) requiring racial segregation on buses. Hastie and Marshall argued that the law imposed an improper burden on interstate commerce. Despite this ruling DE FACTO (actual) segregation continued on buses in the South. From 1946 to 1949 Hastie served as governor of the Virgin Islands. In 1949 President HARRY S. TRUMAN appointed Hastie to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was sworn in as an interim appointee that year and was con- firmed by the Senate in 1950. In 1968 Hastie was named chief justice of the court of appeals. After retiring from the court in 1971, Hastie devoted himself to public interest law, including pro- grams to provide legal aid for consumers, environmentalists, and minorities. He died April 14, 1976 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hastie was awarded more than 20 honorary degrees, including ones from Amherst and Harvard. He received the NAACP’s Spingarn Medal in 1943 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1952. FURTHER READINGS Cohen, Mark S. 1986. Review of William Hastie: Grace under Pressure by Gilbert Ware. Michigan Law Review 84 (February–April). Tushnet, Mark V. 1985. “Being First.” Review of William Hastie: Grace Under Pressure by Gilbert Ware. Stanford Law Review 37 (April). Ware, Gilbert. 1984. William Hastie: Grace under Pressure. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. HATCH ACT Enacted in 1939, the HATCH ACT (5 U.S.C.A. 7324) curbs the political activities of emplo yees in federal, state, and local governments. The law’s goal is to enforce political NEUTRALITY among civil servants: the act prohibits them from holding public office, influencing elec- tions, participating in or managing political campaigns, and exerting UNDUE INFLUENCE on government hiring. Penalties for violations range from warnings to dismissal. The law’s restrictions have always been controversial. Critics have long argued that the act violates the FIRST AMENDMENT freedoms of government employees. The U.S. Supreme Court has dis- agreed, twice upholding the law’s constitution- ality. Congress has amended the Hatch Ac t several times since 1939. In 1993, a number of amendments to the act sought to limit the effects of political patronage in federal hiring. The Hatch Act grew out of nineteenth- century concerns about the political activities of federal employees. As early as 1801, President THOMAS JEFFERSON issued an executive order that said federal workers should neither “influence the votes of others, nor take part in the business of electioneering.” He saw such activities as “inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitu- tion.” Jefferson was primarily concerned with what government employees did while in office; subsequently, concerns developed in another area. Throughout the ninetee nth century, appointments to the federal burea ucracy were viewed as the natural spoils of political success. The prevalent awarding of jobs for political loyalty created a so-called spoils system and, ultimately, a reaction against it. The long process of neutralizing politics in federal employment continued into the twenti- eth century. Attempts began with the Pendleton Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403), a comprehensive anti-patronage law named after its sponsor, Senator GEORGE H. PENDLETON, who argued that “the spoils system needs to be killed or it will kill the republic” (14 Cong . Rec. 206 [1882]). The law sought to eliminate patronage by insulating federal employees from coercion. It provided that they could not be fired for refusing to work on behalf of a candidate or for choosing not to make campaign contribu- tions. In 1907, President THEODORE ROOSEVELT instituted even broader controls through Exec- utive Order 642. Its two major prohibitions addressed employees in the executive CIVIL SERVICE and the larger class of federal civil servants. The former were forbidden to use their authority to interfere in elections , and the latter were barred from taking part in political management or campaigning. This order marked the first time that federal employees had limits placed on their First Amendment right to engage in political speech. ThepassageoftheHatchActin1939 combined the prohibitions of earlier e xecutive orders and the Pendleton Act. The act include s restrictions on political activity for the whole ALWAYS BE PREPARED .YOUR OPPONENT WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF COLORLESSNESS . —WILLIAM HENRY HASTIE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 214 HATCH ACT federal bureaucracy. The act stated, “[N]o officer or employee in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the Federal government, or in any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political cam- paigns” (ch. 410, § 9(a)). The measure received bipartisan support in a response to concern about the New Deal—President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ec onomic p rogram for relieving the effects of the Great Depression—which signifi- cantly increased the ranks of federal employees. Congress wanted to rein i n Roosevelt’spower, especially following allegations that he had used Works Progress Administration employ- ees to influence the 1938 congressional elec- tions. Opponents of patronage in general and enemies of Roosevelt in particular thought the NEW DEAL represented an opportunity for the president to meddle with elections while perpetuating his hold on the White H ouse. Congress increased the scope of the Hatch Act in 1940 by extending its restrictions to employees of state and local governments that receive federal funds (Act of July 19, 1940, ch. 640, 54 Stat. 767), although it cut back certain applications of this measure in 1974. At various times it has also increased or decreased the penalties for Hatch Act violations—notably, by including suspe nsion without pay as a lesser penalty. In 1993 Congress made yet more changes aimed at curtailing patronage in jobs: Amendments to 5 U.S.C.A. § 3303 restricted elected officials from making unsolicited recommendations for job applicants seeking federal employment. States, meanwhile, have broadly incorporated the principles of the Hatch Act in their own statutes, which have also undergone revision over time. Debate over the Hatch Act has been vigorous since its inception. Critics have portrayed it as an unfair restriction on the First Amendment rights of government employees, especially violative of their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to engage in political speech. This argument formed the basis of an early suit that the U.S. Supreme Court heard in 1947, United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S. Ct. 556, 91 L. Ed. 754. In sustaining the legality of the Hatch Act, the Court balanced individual speech rights against the “elemental need for order,” and found the latter more important. The Court rejected another challenge to the law in 1973 in United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S. Ct. 2880, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796. Opponents continued to attack these rulings throughout the 1990s. “Unfortunately for those individuals who have chosen a career in the federal public service,” argued author Michael Bridges in a 1993 LAW REVIEW article, “the Court has found that Congress may place an asterisk beside their First Amendment rights.” FURTHER READINGS Bridges, Michael. 1993. “Release the Gags: The Hatch Act and Current Legislative Reform.” Capital Univ. Law Review (winter). Feinstein, Andrew A., and Douglas K. Nelson. 1988. “Hatch Act Reform.” Federal Bar News and Journal (July/ August). Gely, Rafael, and Timothy D. Chandler. 2000. “Restricting Public Employees’ Political Activities: Good Govern- ment or Partisan Politics?” Houston Law Review 37 (fall). Available online at http://www.houstonlawre- view.org/archive/downloads/37-3_pdf/HLR37P775.pdf; website home page: http://www.houstonlawreview.org (accessed Polley, James D. 1994. “Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993.” Prosecutor (September/October). Segal, Lydia. 1997. “Can We Fight the New Tammany Hall?: Difficulties of Prosecuting Political Patronage and Suggestions for Reform. Rutgers Law Review 50 (winter). HATE CRIME A crime motivated by racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other prejudice. Hate crim es are based, at least in part, on the defendant’s belief regarding a particular status of the victim. Hate-crime statutes were first passed by legislatures in the late 1980s and In 2002, Green Party candidate Roger Merle, a U.S. Postal Service employee, challenged the Hatch Act in an unsuccessful attempt to win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION HATE CRIME 215 early 1990s in response to studies that indicated an increase in crimes motivated by prejudice. By 2009, 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have some form of hate- crime statute. (Only Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wyoming do not have hate-crime laws.) Many localities have also enacted their own hate-crime ordinances. The precise definition of HATE CRIME varies from state to state. Some states define a hate crime as any crime based on a belief regarding the victim’s race, RELIGION, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. Some states exclude crimes based on a belief regarding the victim’s sexual orientation. Others limit their definition to certain crimes such as harassment, ASSAULT, and damage to property. In all states, the victim’s actual status is irrelevant. For example, if a victim is attacked by someone who believes that the victim is gay, the attack is a hate crime whether or not the victim is actually gay. The federal government’s hate- crime statute limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion, or national origin. In April 2009 the House of Representatives, at the urging of President BARACK OBAMA, passed an amendment that would broaden the law to include attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical ability. As of May 2009, the Senate had not voted on the measure. Generally, there are four types of hate-crime statutes. One type criminalizes hate crime, one type enhances criminal sanctions, another provides a civil CAUSE OF ACTION for victims, and the last mandates only the collection of hate crime data. One version defines a hate crime as a discrete offense and provides stiff punish- ment for the offense. Under Ohio’s statute, for example, any person who commits menac- ing, aggravated menacing, criminal damage or criminal endangerment, criminal mischief, or telephone harassment “by reason of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group of persons” is guilty of the hate crime termed ethnic intimidation (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2927.12 [Baldwin 1996]). The gravity of ethnic intimidation is always one degree higher than a base offense. For example, menacing is a MISDEMEANOR of the fourth degree, but menacing based on ethnicity is a more serious offense, classified in Ohio as a misde- meanor of the third degree. Another type of hate-crime law enhances punishment for certain offenses that are moti- vated by hate. In Wisconsin, for example, defendants who intentionally select their victims based at least in part on the victims’ race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry are subject to more severe penalties than they would receive in the absence of such hate-based intent (Wis. Stat. § 939.645 [1995]). Thus in Wisconsin, for a class A misdemeanor based on hate, the maximum fine is $10,000, and the maximum period of imprisonment is two years in jail or prison (Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.645(2)(a)), whereas an ordinary class A misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or up to nine months in jail, or both (§ 939.51(3)(a)). For a class B misdemeanor, a less serious crime, the maximum fine is $1,000, and the maximum imprisonment is 90 days in jail. If the class B misdemeanor is a hate crime, the maximum fine is $10,000, and the maximum sentence is one year in jail. There are laws in 31 states that allow a victim to file a civil lawsuit for injuries caused ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Hate Crime TYPES OF OFFENSES REPORTED IN HATE CRIME INCIDENTS IN 2007 Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 2,915 Robbery or burglary 3 Arson 40 Larceny or motor vehicle theft 243 Other a 44 Crimes against property 3,579 a Includes offenses other than those listed that are collected in the National Incident-Based Reporting System SOURCE: FBI, Hate Crime Statistics 2007. Crimes against persons 5,408 Murder 9 Forcible rape 2 Aggravated assault 1,116 Simple assault 1,684 Intimidation 2,565 Other a 32 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 216 HATE CRIME by a hate crime. It is possible that the perpetrator of a hate crime will serve time behind bars and be legally required to pay the victims thousands of dollars in damages. A third type of hate-crime statute simply requires the collection of statistics. At the federal level, the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-275, 104 Stat. 140 [28 U.S.C.A. § 534 (1990)]) requires the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to collect statistics on crimes that manifest evi- dence of prejudice. Data must be acquired for crimes based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The purpose of the act is to provide the data necessary for Congress to develop effective policies against hate-motivated violence, to raise public awareness, and to track hate-crime trends. Laws against hate crimes might conflict with rights under the FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. Generally, the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to the free expression of thoughts. However, the courts have ruled that First Amendment rights may give way to the greater public good. For example, there is no First Amendment protection for someone who falsely yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because such speech endangers the safety of others. Such expression might give rise to a DISORDERLY CONDUCT charge or similar charge. In determin- ing the constitutionality of hate-crime legisla- tion, one primary question is whether the prohibited speech deserves First Amendment protection. In 1997 the federal government documen- ted 9,861 hate crimes based on the victims’ religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. More than half of these crimes were motivated by racial bias, and over 1,000 were based on sexual orientation. These statis- tics were illustrated in a pair of hate crime s that drew national attention. The deaths of Jame s Byrd Jr. and Matthew Shepard appeared to be quintessential hate crimes. Byrd was walking along a street in his Jasper, Texas, community late at night in June 1998 when he was given a ride by t hree white meninapick-uptruck:Themenbeathimand chained him by his ankles (with a towing chain) to the back of their truck and dragged him for nearly three miles. Byrd was decapi- tated and dismembered as he was dragged behindthetruck.Hehadbeenaliveand conscious when it all began. All three of the perpetrators were on parole at the time and had extensive criminal records. It was alleged that at least two of the men had affiliations with racist groups, such as the Aryan Nation and the KU KLUX KLAN,anddisplayedwhite- supremacist tattoos. All three were convicted of MURDER, and two were sentenced to death. Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old college student at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. On October 12, 1998, he died, in part, because he was a homosexual. On October 6, 1998, two men in their early twenties entered a local bar, where Shepard was already drinking. The men, pretending to be gay, approached Shepard who eventually left with them. The men then drove him to a deserted area, where they tied him to a fence and pistol-whipped him until his skull collapsed. They took his wallet and shoes and obtained his address so that they could rob his apartment. Shepard was discov- ered 18 hours later, still tied to the fence. He never regained consciousness. The pair were charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated ROBBERY. Both men pleaded guilty to the charges and were sentenced to serve two consecutive life sentences, escaping a possible death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the constitutionality of hate- crime laws. In 1992 the Court struck down a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance on the ground that it violated the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 [ 1992]). In R.A.V. several juvenile defendants were tried and convicted after they allegedly assembled a crude, wooden cross and Rev. Larry Hill looks over the remains of his Greenville, N.C., church in 1996. During the 1990s, arsonists targeted African-American churches in a rash of church burnings classified as racial hate crimes. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION HATE CRIME 217 . Harrison. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Benjamin Harrison 1833–1901 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18 251 8 25 19001900 18 751 8 75 1 850 1 850 ❖ 1833 Born, North Bend, Ohio ◆ 1 852 Graduated from Miami University of Ohio 1861– 65 U.S. Civil. the William Henry Harrison. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS William Henry Harrison 1773–1841 ▼▼ ▼▼ 17 751 7 75 1 850 1 850 18 251 8 25 18001800 ❖ 1773 Born, Charles City County, Va. 17 75 83 American Revolution ◆ 1787 Entered Hampden- Sydney. OF COLORLESSNESS . —WILLIAM HENRY HASTIE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 214 HATCH ACT federal bureaucracy. The act stated, “[N]o officer or employee in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of