Dartmouth Decision

[courtland87]

I know that Justice John Marshall believed in a strong central government, so how did the Dartmouth decision relate to this belief?

[jasper]

It is indeed a pleasure to receive your question although my area of expertise is presidential and congressional politics, not judicial politics. However, I will attempt to respond to your question of the Dartmouth case from a historical-analytical perspective.

LEGAL SUBJECT

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward(1819) was indisputably a “landmark” case for the Marshall Court. Consequently, it must be noted that a precedent had already been established in Fletcher v. Peck(1810), which declared that contracts no matter how procured cannot be invalidated by state legislation or statutory law. “Dartmouth” concerned the Contract Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It states as follows:  “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” Federalist Paper Number 10 also addresses the issue of the application of the Contract Clause. This clause was applied because New Hampshire was "impairing the obligation of a contract" which is expressly prohibited by this constitutional clause.

HISTORY

The legislature of New Hampshire attempted to invalidate Dartmouth's charter in 1815 for the purpose of converting the school from a private to a public institution. The trustees of the College objected, and thus sought to appeal the actions of the legislature by having the act declared unconstitutional.

The trustees retained a Dartmouth alumnus, Daniel Webster, later a renowned statesman. Webster’s opposing counterpart was William Woodward, the state appointed secretary of the new board of trustees. Webster's presentation in defense of Dartmouth is believed to be so moving that it allegedly brought tears to Chief Justice Marshall's eyes.

DECISION

The Marshall Court ruled in favor of the College and invalidated the act of the New Hampshire legislature; which, consequently, permitted Dartmouth to operate as a private institution and reclaim its property, buildings, seal, and charter. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Marshall. This again affirmed Marshall's belief in the sanctity of a contract.

“Dartmouth” was a highly controversial and unpopular decision in its day, which caused a public outcry to ensue. State courts and legislatures, supported by the people, declared that states’ rights provided those governments an absolute right to amend or repeal a corporate charter.

“Dartmouth” has evolved as a paramount judicial precedent, strengthening the Contract Clause and limiting the power of the states to interfere with private institutions' charters, thus disabling their ability to revoke charters arbitrarily and capriciously. States cannot have a monopoly on chartering institutions of higher education, and even in a wider scope of virtually any private charter. This decision protects contracts against specifically state encroachments. More recently it has had the effect of safeguarding business enterprises from state governments’ domination.

I sincerely hope this answers your question, and I invite you to write me again.