ILNews

SCOTUS history on display

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys and history buffs alike may want to consider a detour to the law library at Indiana University Maurer School of Law next time they are in or near Bloomington.

Extremely rare documents and signatures of U.S. Supreme Court justices are on display for public viewing on the second floor of the school’s law library, located at 211 S. Indiana Ave. in Bloomington.

scotus-15col A pleading by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall regarding a defaulted promissory note was donated to I.U. Maurer School of Law. (Photo courtesy of IU Maurer School of Law)

Among the items in the collection are 74 signatures of U.S. Supreme Court justices who served from 1789 to present; a pleading by Chief Justice John Marshall, who served 1801-35, in the case of Blackwell v. Sydon over a defaulted promissory note, dated Nov. 24, 1785; a letter written by the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who served 1789-95; a slip opinion for Heller v. New York signed by the entire 1973 court; and signatures of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served from 1902-32; Roger Taney, who served 1836-64; Salmon Chase, who served 1864-73; Louis Brandeis, who served 1916-1939; and many others.

Also included are an 1889 Currier & Ives print of President Benjamin Harrison and his cabinet, with appended signatures of Harrison and the cabinet members; a 1963 letter from Justice William O. Douglas, who served from 1939-75, declining an invitation to write an article for Teacher’s College Journal, sent to professor Joseph R. Ellis at Indiana State College, now Indiana State University; and a two-page letter written by Judah P. Benjamin, the first Jewish member of the U.S. Senate, who later was appointed attorney general, secretary of war, and secretary of state for the Confederacy.

Many of these items are in the law library display, while the Marshall pleading is displayed inside the dean’s suite in the main law building, according to a news release from the law school.

The items were donated by collector, IU Maurer School of Law alumnus, and Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Ezra Friedlander. Judge Friedlander, who graduated with a BA in history and government from IU in 1962, told Indiana Lawyer that, while adding to his collections of sports memorabilia and art glass, he discovered an auction house had SCOTUS memorabilia among its other items. That occurred over a decade ago, and he has been collecting SCOTUS items since.

“I started with the Marshall piece, then decided to collect as many signatures as I could,” he said of the SCOTUS collection.

After collecting SCOTUS memorabilia for about 10 years, the judge realized that he was ready to stop. He wanted the law school to have the collection so others could see the items.

When collecting, regardless of the category, Judge Friedlander cautioned collectors to be certain of the provenance of the items they buy or bid on because there are many fakes and forgeries that are sold by less reputable dealers.

The issue of fakes and forgeries was also a concern of military collector and Indiana Military Museum founder Knox Superior Judge Jim R. Osborne.

Judge Osborne has collected military memorabilia since he was a young child and said that collectors and potential collectors must do their research and not always take things at face value, especially items on Internet auction sites like eBay.

To assist future owners and maintain historical significance, it is important for current owners to keep track of the provenance of an item.

“Even if an item is from a family member of a renowned person, I try to get letters or other proof from the family member to keep on file with those items. It’s important from a curator’s standpoint. It’s easy for me to say that belonged to so and so, but it’s very, very important to keep track of this for the future,” Judge Osborne said.

The Indiana Military Museum was featured in the Dec. 8 – 21, 2010, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

“Authenticity is a big issue,” Judge Friedlander said. “It’s why I only deal with auction houses instead of online. It’s the same for sports memorabilia. Auction houses will verify signatures. They have people who are experts who can authenticate signatures. If you buy online, you’re buying something blindly, I wouldn’t do that. The item may be good or may not be good, but there’s no sure way of knowing.”

The judge’s experience looking for signatures of sports figures helped in seeking out SCOTUS signatures.

“You can go to places that sell autographs, where you can pay a retail value for them,” he said. “You can also sign up for updates from auction houses.”

Judge Friedlander said while at one time he would receive up to 10 catalogs each month, many of the items are now posted online before auctions take place.

“It just takes time and patience,” he said of the collecting process.

One piece that stood out to him was the 1963 letter from Justice Douglas because of its connection to the school now known as Indiana State University. Not only was it an item related to the SCOTUS, but also Indiana.

“I’m pleased that the law school wanted it. … When you collect stuff, you don’t have an exit strategy, for lack of a better term, unless there’s someone in particular who’s interested in your family who expresses an interest in the collection. … Other people can now enjoy it and take a look at it,” Judge Friedlander said.

The school appreciates the collection as well.

“We are honored and delighted that Judge Friedlander chose to donate his collection to the IU Maurer School of Law,” said Dean Lauren Robel. “The collection gives us all an opportunity to feel directly connected to the rich history of the American legal profession.”

Judge Friedlander serves on the IU dean’s advisory board of the College of Arts and Sciences, including as chairman of the committee on directors. He also serves on the board of directors of the Indiana University Foundation, previously chaired its committee on directors, and was a member of the foundation’s executive committee.

Judge Friedlander is a member of the Maurer school’s Academy of Law Alumni Fellows, the highest honor the school can bestow upon its graduates, and he was previously the president of the school’s alumni board. He has also endowed a scholarship at the IU Maurer School of Law.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT