Cooper v. Telfair
Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to set aside a Georgia statute on the ground of its alleged repugnancy to the state's constitution.[1] By the Confiscation Act of Georgia, a 1,000 sterling ($4,285.70) debt due to the plaintiff, Basil Cooper, on bond dated 14 May 1774 by a citizen of the State of Georgia, Edward Telfair, had become forfeited to the state, Cooper having been attainted by an act of the legislature of Georgia for adhering to the British cause in the American Revolutionary War.
| Cooper v. Telfair | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued 7-8 February, 1800 Decided 13 February, 1800 | |
| Full case name | Basil Cooper v. Edward Telfair |
| Citations | 4 U.S. 14 (more) 4 Dall. 14; 1 L. Ed. 721 |
| Holding | |
| that the Confiscation Acts of Georgia were valid | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Seriatim | Washington |
| Seriatim | Chase |
| Seriatim | Paterson |
| Seriatim | Cushing |
The case was argued 7-8 February and decided 13 February 1800.[2]
Confiscation Act
On 4 May 1782, an act was passed by the Legislature of the State of Georgia entitled 'An act for inflicting penalties on and confiscating the estate of such persons as are therein declared guilty of treason, and for other purposes therein mentioned,' by which it was among other things enacted and declared, "that all and every the persons named and included in the said act are banished from the said state, and that all and singular the estate real and personal of each and every of the aforesaid persons which they held, possessed, or were entitled to in law or equity on 19 April, 1775, and which they have held since or do hold in possession or others holding in trust for them or to which they are or may be, entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, hold, or be possessed of in right of others, together with all debts, dues and demands of whatsoever nature that are or may be owing to the aforesaid persons or either of them be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this state."
Opinions
The justices delivered their opinions seriatim. Justice Washington asked, "The Constitution of Georgia does not expressly interdict the passing of an act of attainder and confiscation by the authority of the legislature. Is such an act, then, so repugnant to any constitutional regulation as to be excepted from the legislative jurisdiction by a necessary implication?"
Justice Chase agreed with him, "Before the plaintiff in error could claim the benefit of a trial by jury under the Constitution, it was at least incumbent upon him to show that the offense charged was committed in some county of Georgia, in which case alone the Constitution provides for the trial."
Justice Paterson stated that "to authorize this Court to pronounce any law void, it must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication."
Justice Cushing stated, "The right to confiscate and banish in the case of an offending citizen must belong to every government. It is not within the judicial power, as created and regulated by the Constitution of Georgia, and it naturally as well as tacitly belongs to the legislature."[3]
Judicial review
In this case, Justice Chase noted that "it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point." This would not be explicitly stated until the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.[4]
References
- Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800).
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf
- Cooper, 4 U.S. at 20.
- http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/marbury-v-madison-1803/
External links
- Text of Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800) is available from: Justia Library of Congress