William Moody - Profile of a Public Man

Paul T. Heffron

In his seven years as President, Theodore Roosevelt appointed three men to the Supreme Court: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., William Rufus Day, and William Henry Moody. Holmes is a legendary figure. Day is known to diplomatic historians for his service as President McKinley's Secretary of State, and has been the subject of a judicial biography.[1] Moody in contrast has been buried in obscurity.

Taking his seat on the Court in 1906 at age fifty-three, Moody could have reasonably looked forward to a tenure of fifteen to twenty years. In less than four full terms, however, his public career came to a tragic end. A breakdown of the central nervous system turned Moody into a helpless cripple, forcing him to retire in 1910. For seven years he lived on in his Haverhill, Massachusetts, home; in his own words as one of the "crucified dead."[2] Despite a distinguished career in state and national politics as district attorney, Congressman and Cabinet member, the Boston Herald commented editorially at the time of his death: "Many people who read in the newspapers of his death yesterday morning doubtless expressed to themselves surprise that he was still living, if indeed they remembered him at all."[3]

Moody, of course, is only one of many Justices neglected by historians. Of the more than 100 men who have sat on the Court, a comparatively small number have been the subjects of full length studies. Various reasons account for this gap in our legal history; brief service on the Court is certainly one of them. "With rare exceptions," said Felix Frankfurter, "the great reputations on that Court have been partly a function of time."[4] It was Frankfurter's opinion that in the history of the Court, only three Justices who had served short tenures left a lasting impression: Benjamin R. Curtis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, and William H. Moody.[5]

The Early Years

The social origins of judges is a subject of interest to scholars. Like his judicial brother Holmes, Moody's roots ran deep into the New England soil. He was in a direct line of descent from William Moody, who with a small band of Puritans founded Newbury, Massachusetts, in 1635.[6] Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries the family name was imprinted on the religious and educational institutions of frontier New England communities. His branch had remained in Newbury, however, as simple dirt farmers and were not prominent. Here in the 200 year old family farm house in the Byfield parish section of the town he was born on December 23, 1853, to Henry Lord and Melissa Emerson Moody. His earliest recollections were wearing a Lincoln-Hamlin badge, working on his father's dairy farm in neighboring Danvers, and delivering milk in Salem. The family was neither rich nor poor, he said, but of sufficient means to send him to the best schools New England could offer. They were Phillips Academy in Andover and Harvard College.

Moody studied classics at Andover for three years and entered Harvard College in 1872. He was an indifferent student, barely surviving the first two years. In his junior year he began courses with Henry Adams. This experience transformed his intellectual life. Inspired by Adams' seminar in medieval institutions, he wrote a thesis and received honors at commencement in 1876.

In his Harvard Class Lives Moody wrote: "I shall probably study law."[7] He enrolled in Harvard Law School in September, 1876, but withdrew abruptly in January to take up an am aprenticeship in the Boston law office of Richard Henry Dana, author of Two Years Before the Mast, and a founder of the Free Soil Party in Massachusetts. Probably he saw this route as a short cut to the bar. In any case, he remained in Dana's office for fifteen months. Years later he remembered this period as an important step in his education. "I was a boy and he an old man, and so the relations between us were not intimate, but I profited immensely by my contact with him. It is always well to get near to men of genius. The very air in which you live is an inspiration."[8]

At the end of his apprenticeship, Moody had studied law scarcely a year and a half. It was not, even then, considered sufficient preparation for admission to the Massachusetts bar. There was no officially prescribed period, but the general understanding was that a candidate should have had a total of three years study in a law school or lawyer's office. Nevertheless, Moody presented himself for the examination in Salem in April, 1878. Examinations were administered orally in each county by a board of three lawyers appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court. The story of Moody's performance became a tradition of the Essex bar. At first the board refused to hear him because of his brief legal training, but finally gave in to his pleading that he be given a chance. At the end of the questioning the board rated his answers the best they had ever heard. On April 7, 1878, he inscribed his name in the "Book of the Bar," and the following month was formally admitted to practice by Chief Justice Horace Gray in the old Salem court house.

At the Essex Bar

From 1878-1895 William Moody was engaged in the public profession of the law in Haverhill. He served also during these years in elective office: on the school committee, as city solicitor, and district attorney of Essex County. That he was a lawyer of more than ordinary talent was apparent from the beginning. In his first appearance before the Supreme Judicial Court at age twenty-six, he. argued a case involving complex questions of real property law. At the conclusion of the argument, Chief Justice Gray, in an unusual gesture, left the bench to personally congratulate the young attorney for his searching analysis of the subject. That evening at a social gathering in Salem, Judge Endicott who had sat in the case, also remarked on the display of legal learning he had heard that day in court. The story circulated around the country and Moody himself confirmed it in a letter to his brother: "At the conclusion of my argument I received very high compliments from the Chief Justice and later from other of the Judges. What they said I do not care to repeat."[9]

This was not the only occasion that the Supreme Judicial Court was impressed by Moody's arguments. Holmes was on the state bench at this time and later wrote: "I saw his legal career almost from the beginning. On what must have been at least one of his first appearances before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, with Mr. Boyd B. Jones on the other side I said to my associates that those were the two ablest men of their age in the state."[10] In all, Moody made some seventy appearances before this court.

There were countless other cases large and small through which Moody developed his legal skills in these formative years. Two cases especially brought his name to state wide and national attention. While district attorney he was called in to assist the prosecution in the celebrated murder trial of Lizzie Borden, accused of murdering her father and step-mother with an axe. Though Lizzie escaped conviction, Moody's opening statement and his arguments on the admissibility of certain evidence won praise from such authorities on the rules of evidence as John H. Wigmore[11]

The case for which Moody was best remembered in Haverhill and around the county, however, was that of the so-called "boodle aldermen." As district attorney he had the painful duty of prosecuting some of his friends, who as members of the Haverhill Board of Aldermen, were accused of taking bribes in return for granting liquor licenses. Moody secured a conviction, but an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court where one of the main contentions was that Moody's comment on the fact that the defendants had invoked the privilege against self-incrimination before the grand jury, vitiated the trial. The Court, which included Holmes, unanimously upheld the conviction. In an age when the self-incrimination privilege was less highly valued, it ruled that when the defendants elected to take the stand at the trial, they thus waived any privilege against being questioned about their grand jury testimony.[12]

This period of Moody's life also provides an interesting footnote to Supreme Court history. Harlan Fiske Stone was then teaching chemistry and physics at Newburyport High School. The future Chief Justice later wrote of Moody's influence on his life. "After a year I left my work and delightful associations there with genuine regret. But the law was beckoning to me. Perhaps a friendship which I had formed with a brilliant young district attorney who used to attend court at the courthouse on the mall just across from the old high school building may have stimulated my interest in the law. His name was Moody, and he afterward became Mr. Justice Moody, one of the ablest judges of the United States Supreme Court."[13]

We have Moody's own testimony that the five years as county prosecutor were an important phase of his training. "The District Attorneyship was the best single experience of my life. That kind of practice is to a lawyer what a surgeon or physician gets in a hospital.[14]

National Politics

Moody entered national politics as a Republican when he was elected to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives in 1895. He served in the House from the 54th through part of the 57th Congress. It was a period when America entered upon the world stage; for Moody these years were important personally for it was then that he met Theodore Roosevelt, a circumstance which led ultimately to his appointments to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

In the House, Moody made his mark as a master of parliamentary procedure and for dogged attention to the details of legislation in committee and on the floor. He was Uncle Joe Cannon's chief lieutenant on the Appropriations Committee and according to Henry Cabot Lodge had "more influence with Cannon than any one."'[15] He was also close to Thomas B. Reed and even mentioned as a possible successor when the Speaker retired.

Although he followed the Republican Party program on the large matters of currency, tariff, and immigration controls, Moody asserted his independence at times on constitutional issues and foreign affairs. He moved reluctantly to vote for war with Spain, first voting with a small group against recognizing Cuban belligerency. As a member of the Insular Affairs Committee, he was a chief author of the bill for the civil government of Puerto Rico. He did not believe the Constitution of its own force followed the flag, but argued that its fundamental guarantees of religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and due process of law did extend to the peoples of the newly acquired territories.

Moody was a strong advocate of civil service reform, the eight-hour day for government workers₅ and favored direct election of United States Senators. He spoke out against southern disenfranchisement of the Negro and with a minority of fellow Republicans urged an investigation of the voting practices of the southern states. By the end of his congressional service he was considered a leading progressive Republican.[16]

The Cabinet

Within a few months of assuming the Presidency, Roosevelt named Moody to be Secretary of the Navy. The President said he was looking for a New Englander, a Cabinet officer who could work harmoniously with Congress, and who could explain administration policies on the political hustings. Moody's two years in this office coincided with the initiation of Roosevelt's shipbuilding program, a program designed to produce a navy second only to Great Britain's. They also witnessed confrontation with foreign navies in the Caribbean and a revolution in Panama. Moody's standing in Congress was helpful in achieving the President's goals. During his administration Congress accepted the concept of the large battleship, substantial increases of officers and men were made, and a major naval base at Guantanamo was established. Moody also sowed the seeds for a much needed administrative reform of the Department. Roosevelt was largely his own Secretary, but the office brought out Moody's capacity for effective administrative management.[17]

When Philander Knox resigned as Attorney General in June, 1904, to take a seat in the Senate, Roosevelt moved Moody into this position. As a member of the Cabinet he had followed Knox's anti-trust prosecutions closely. He had his own ideas on, the subject, one being that the criminal provisions of the Sherman anti-trust law should be used in prosecuting the trusts, something Knox had declined to do. The administration's anti-trust program reached its peak during Moody's two and a half years as Attorney General. He initiated some eighteen cases, eleven of them being criminal prosecutions. Favorable judgments were secured against the paper trust, the coal trust, the fertilizer trust, the drug trust, the beef trust, and several of the major railroads.[18]

The case which excited the greatest public interest was the beef trust trial in Chicago which Moody argued himself in the Federal District Court. He was determined to put the chief officers of the packing companies in jail for criminal conspiracy, but was frustrated by the judge's ruling that they had acquired immunity by giving information to the Bureau of Corporations. He was successful, however, in persuading the Supreme Court that the companies were in the stream of interstate commerce and could be enjoined permanently from rigging meat prices.[19]

Moody personally argued four cases before the Supreme Court. In Clyatt v. United States,[20] he was pitted against Senator Bacon of Georgia in a dramatic duel over the constitutionality of the federal anti-peonage law. The Court sustained the act and Justice Harlan was so moved by Moody's exposition of the 13th Amendment that he wrote to the Solicitor General: "Of course I cannot say anything about the merits of the case, but I can say that the case of the Government was magnificently presented by the Attorney General. It was an argument of rare power and eloquence."[21]

Moody's nearly five years in the Cabinet were undoubtedly the happiest of his life. Beyond the challenging work of administering two great departments of government and counseling the President, he enjoyed a close friendship with his colleagues Elihu Root and William Howard Taft. In an unusual spirit of camaraderie they became known in Washington circles as the Musketeers, even assuming the names of Dumas' characters. Root became Athos; Taft took on Porthos; and Moody was Aramis.

Appointment to the Court

Theodore Roosevelt's third opportunity to name an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court came on March 3, 1906, when Henry Billings Brown called at the White House to tell him he would retire at the end of the term. Brown suggested William Howard Taft as his replacement; but the President replied he was presidential timber and not available. The Justice then recommended Philander C. Knox. That very day, after consulting with Root, Taft, and Moody, Roosevelt offered the seat to Knox. Knox declined, preferring to stay in the Senate to which he had been recently elected.[22]

The President took special interest in the Court, indeed in the entire federal judiciary. Aware that over the next two decades the Court would be called upon to decide the constitutionality of much far-reaching social legislation, he was anxious to appoint men possessed of the "right" economic and social philosophy. For the next several months the vacancy was constantly on his mind. Despite his remark to Justice Brown, Roosevelt's choice now was Taft. Taft, however, was reluctant to go on the bench, except as Chief Justice, and his family, especially Mrs. Taft, was strongly opposed. However, he had another candidate. It was Horace Harmon Lurton, a former colleague on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Throughout the summer and into the fall he was unceasing in his efforts to put Lurton on the Court. By late summer Roosevelt had virtually made up his mind to appoint Lurton, telling Henry Cabot Lodge that he was "right on the Negro question; he is right on the power of the Federal Government; he is right about corporations; and he is right about labor."[23]

Lodge was agitated that his friend was to place a Democrat, an ex-Confederate, and in his view a "strict constructionist," rather than a Hamiltonian on the Court. His candidate was Moody. Lodge's opposition bothered the President and he began to waiver. The turning point came when Moody received a letter from E. A. Mosely, Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in answer to a request of the Attorney General to investigate Judge Lurton's decisions in cases involving interstate commerce. "With one exception," he reported, "Judge Lurton has decided against the contention of the Government in every case under the Interstate Commerce Law which has come before him."[24] Moody forwarded this information to the President and the jig was up for Lurton.

There is no written record of the exact circumstances in which Roosevelt offered the appointment to Moody. He told Holmes that the President had not spoken to him about the possibility.[25] To another Massachusetts friend he gave an oral account. After Lurton's rejection, Moody had begun to go over a list of other candidates with the President, when suddenly he stopped him, grinned and said: "Is it possible you do not know whom I am to appoint to this position? You, and you only are the man. [You are] (sic) entirely our kind of a Judge."[26]

Moody took his seat on the Court on December 17, 1906. He was no stranger to the brethren. Chief Justice Fuller welcomed him, writing to a Chicago lawyer friend that he liked the way Moody argued cases. Justice Day told Roosevelt that Moody would be a tower of strength from the moment of going on the bench.[27] The Court was certainly in need of strength. Both Justices Brewer and Peckham were in ill health, and the Chief Justice and Justice Harlan were seventy-three. It was rather a melancholy period in the Court's history, and Moody's service was destined to be all too brief. He left, however, a record of his constitutional and judicial philosophy not only in the reports, but also in remarkable letters to Roosevelt while a sitting Justice.

Moody followed what he called the Wilson-Hamilton-Marshall theory of national power. An occasion for relating this theory to current conditions arose in the fall of 1907 when the President with little regard for the separation of powers sent him a draft of a speech he was soon to deliver in St. Louis. "This is a letter that I naturally could not write to any other member of the Court."[28] The speech was an attack on conservative judges for striking down social legislation, and in it he referred to a speech of federal judge Charles Amidon of North Dakota, given before the American Bar Association. Amidon had railed against the strict constructionists and spoke of the necessity at times of bending or breaking the Constitution.

Moody agreed with Roosevelt's theme, but cautioned against the use of expressions which would alarm the conservatives and the bar whose opinion "is still wonderfully potent." The Wilson-Hamilton-Marshall view that the national government should be allowed the widest choice of means in controlling the economy, was, he said, "now in peril." He regarded any word spoken authoritatively of a constitution which could be bent or broken as unfortunate and tending to strengthen the strict constructionists. "Do not my dear Mr. President, speak or endorse it. The true and I believe the adequate statement is that while the constitution is unchanged and unchangeable, the conditions to which it is to be applied have undergone a change which is almost a transformation, with the result that many subjects formerly within the control of the states have come under the control of the nation." The future depended upon the spirit in which the courts approached the questions which would be unfolding. His final words to the President did not discourage further communication. "I cannot tell you how much as an individual I wish to be of service now and at all times."[29]

In subsequent letters Roosevelt replied: "You have given me just the information I need," and "I hope you will like your speech at St. Louis? You will agree with most of it, I guess, for the excellent reason that most of it is taken from your letter."[30] Roosevelt retained the reference to Amidon's speech, he said, to shake up the judges, and Moody wrote back: "I have no doubt I shall like the St. Louis speech even if you do not share my respect for terminology. We are both bound for the same spot, I am going over the public highway and I do not want you to jump the fences for the sake of a short cut, and get arrested for trespass."[31]

An exchange of correspondence along the same lines continued into Moody's second term. In December, 1908, Roosevelt forwarded for comment a letter from William Allen White in which the Kansas editor castigated conservative judges, saying he would like to have the power to "name some judge who would hand down an opinion declaring that courts had only judicial and not political power."[32] Moody agreed with White's "apprehension of the gravest consequences if the judiciary does not stick closely to its own task," but felt that his condemnation was too indiscriminate, citing Holmes and Day as judges who stuck to their last.[33]

Moody's full reply, however, was a frank recognition that judges were all too frequently abusing the power of judicial review by striking down laws because they conflicted not with the Constitution, but with their own predelictions. "For many years we have been taught the slavish doctrine, that the courts are infallable and the protest against this doctrine has been, in the main, inarticulate until you gave it voice." Moody "abhorred" the doctrine and "sympathized with the thought that courts were as much subject to criticism as any other branch of government." The greatest danger in his mind was not executive or legislative usurpation. There were adequate political and legal safeguards to restrain the other branches. "But if the Supreme Court is thought to exceed its authority, our system places no power over it to inquire into or correct the errors. More accurately, that Court in legal theory can do no wrong, because its judgment of what is right is final."[34]

With apologies for immodesty, Moody went on to cite three of his recent opinions as examples of judicial restraint. The first was St. Louis, Iron Mountain, and Southern Railway v. Taylor,[35] in which Moody had spoken for the Court in giving a broad construction to the Safety Appliance Act. "Some of the circuit courts," he informed the President, "had whittIed away the law by saying that Congress could not have intended so radical a measure, imposing such great hardships upon the railroads…. the kind of reasoning that makes anarchists." In the opinion Moody had answered that it was quite conceivable that Congress had intended to place the burden of injuries upon those who could control their causes, instead of upon those who were helpless in that regard.

The second case he referred to was Twining v. New Jersey,[36] which stood as a landmark until overruled in 1964. Here the Court had held that the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the self-incrimination provision of the Federal Bill of Rights. Reminiscent of Justice Frankfurter's views of many years later, Moody was reluctant to deny states the leeway to devise their own rules of criminal procedure. If the people of New Jersey were dissatisfied with the law, they should seek to change it through the political process.

Moody went on in his letter to confess that: "my test will come not when there is before me a law in which I believe, but when there are laws before me which I think are unwise and disastrous in their consequences." He thought he had met that test in Berea v. Kentucky,"[37] where he and Holmes had concurred silently in Brewer's opinion upholding a law which prohibited integrated education; a law he labeled "vicious and unjust." The President sent this letter to White with the notation that Moody "is entirely our kind of a judge. If they were all like him we would have no trouble."[38]

The fullest exposition of Moody's views on the extent of the national commerce power came in his dissent in the Employers' Liability Cases.[39] At stake was the constitutionality of the recent act making common carriers liable to its employees for injuries resulting from negligence or defects in their cars, appliances, and tracks. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had invalidated the act and the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of five to four. It was a curious decision. Justices White and Day admitted that Congress under the commerce clause had the power to regulate the subject, but read the law as also extending to intrastate commerce. Justices Peckham, Brewer, and the Chief Justice maintained that Congress lacked totally the power to regulate the employer-employee relationship.

In his dissent, Moody reiterated Marshall's views on the scope of the commerce clause, quoted Madison's Federalist 42, and his notes on the Constitutional Convention. The statute could clearly be read as authorizing Congress to exercise its power only where it had power, i.e., over interstate commerce. It was decisive for him that the act was silent as to any power over intrastate commerce, and the Court should assume that the other branch would stay within its own boundaries. "This is more than a canon of interpretation, it is a rule of conduct resting upon considerations of public policy."

Moody was at odds with the Court in other commerce clause cases. In Penn Railroad Company v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company,[40] he dissented from the decision which overturned an Interstate Commerce Commission ruling that a carrier had given preference to shippers who used tanks rather than barrels for transporting oil. He dissented again in General Oil Company v. Crain,[41] against a Tennessee tax on oil which only briefly came to rest in the state. "The single consideration that the property enjoys in Tennessee the protection of the laws of the State cannot be enough to justify state taxation. If that were so, all property in the course of interstate transportation would be subject to state tax in every state through which it should pass."

Disagreeing once more in Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Larabee,[42] Moody stated that the commerce power even though unexercised precluded state action. "A power clearly withdrawn from the State and vested in the Nation, can no longer be exercised by the States, even though Congress is silent." That he was not unaware of the necessity of a state police power, however, is evidenced in his opinion for the Court in Asbell v. Kansas,[43] upholding a law requiring animals entering the state to be inspected. Here he quoted Marshall to the effect that both nation and state may on occasion act upon the same subject, but on the basis of different powers.

Despite his nationalism, Moody was not a foe of state power. He was ready to sanction it when it was exercised in the interest of the community. Thus in Rochester Company v. City of Rochester,[44] he held that the company was bound to pay for the pavement of the streets through which its tracks ran, even though the company it had taken over did not have this obligation. Privileges of the preceding corporation did not pass by implication to its successor. Again in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York v. City of New Orleans,[45] he spoke for the Court in upholding the right of a state to tax loans made by the company on its policies in Louisiana, even though the notes were sent to the home office in New York. The statute was not arbitrary, but a legitimate exercise of legislative power and discretion.

One of Moody's major opinions in this area came in City of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Company,[46] a case concerning the constitutionality of a city ordinance fixing maximum water rates. The company claimed that the rates fixed were so low as to be confiscatory and thereby took its property for public use without compensation in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed with the company on the basis of a finding by a special master.

Moody possessed special knowledge of municipal water works problems; his largest fee had been $14,000 from the city of Haverhill for negotiating the transfer of a private aqueduct company to public ownership. Whether the Court would have examined the special master's findings de novo and overturned them, as it did, without such expertise at hand, is doubtful. In any case Moody was assigned the opinion and he went into great detail in exposing several errors in the method of fixing the value of the property, the fatal flaw being that depreciation of the property had not been considered. But the function performed in this case was not one courts should assume. With ever greater frequency, Moody concluded, regulation of public service corporations would occur, and the responsibility for setting valuations ought to be borne by legislatures and subordinate governmental bodies.

From these representative samplings Moody's jurisprudence can be characterized by its adherence to judicial restraint, a spacious view of the national commerce power, and a deference to state power when exercised for social ends.[47] He was thus at the threshold of a distinguished tenure when tragedy struck. His illness prevented him from sitting during the 1909 term, and on November 20, 1910, he resigned his seat. It was probably the saddest year in the Court's history; Justice Peckham died in October 1909, Justice Brewer in March 1910, and on July 4, 1910, the kindly Chief Justice passed on. Theodore Roosevelt too was gone from the White House, and the reconstituting of the Court fell to a President with quite different ideas about the judiciary.

Endnotes

1. Joseph E. McLean, William Rufus Day: Supreme Court Justice from Ohio (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946.
2. Mabel Boardman to W. H. Taft, July 8, 1917. Taft Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
3. Boston Herald, July 3, 1917.
4. Philip Elman, ed., Of Law and Men (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1956), p. 200.
5. Frankfurter to author (interview), December 27, 1961.
6. Joshua Coffin, A Sketch of the History of Newbury, Newburyport, and West Newbury (Boston: Samuel G. Drake, 1845).
7. Harvard Class Lives, 1876, Harvard University Archives.
8. Interview in Boston Globe, November 11, 1906.
9. William Moody to Andrew Moody, November 17, 1879. Hampton L. Carson Collection, Free Library of Philadelphia.
10. Holmes to Boyd B. Jones, March 22, 1919. This letter was in the possession of Miss Eleanor Jones of Haverhill, Massachusetts, when used by the author. It was later given to Professor Mark Howe to add to the Holmes papers in the Harvard Law School Library.
11. John H. Wigmore, "The Borden Case," American Law Review, v. 27 (1893), pp. 819-845.
12. 164 Mass. 544.
13. Harlan F. Stone to Editor, March 4, 1937, Newburyport Daily News.
14. Interview in Boston Globe, November 11, 1906.
15. Lodge to Roosevelt, November 1, 1901. Roosevelt Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
16. Moody's congressional career may be followed through the daily press, especially Boston Evening Transcript, and in the Congressional Record.
17. See Paul T. Heffron, "Secreatry Moody and Naval Administrative Reform: 1902-1904," American Neptune, v. 29 (1969), pp. 30-48.
18. See Homer Cummings and Carl McFarland, Federal Justice (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), pp. 332-336 for a summary of Moody's work as Attorney General.
19. Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).
20. 197 U.S. 207 (1904).
21. Moody to Roosevelt, December 17, 1904, Roosevelt Papers.
22. See Paul T. Heffron, "Theodore Roosevelt and the Appointment of Mr. Justice Moody," Vand. L. Rev., v. 18 (1965), pp. 545-568, for a detailed account of Moody's appointment.
23. Roosevelt to Lodge, September 4, 1906, Roosevelt Papers.
24. E. A. Mosely to Moody, October 22, 1906, Roosevelt Papers.
25. Moody to Holmes, November (n.d.) 1906, Haverhill Historical Society.
26. Proceedings at the Meeting of the Essex Bar in the Supreme Judicial Court in Memory of Honorable William Henry Moody (1919).
27. Roosevelt to Moody, December 16, 1906, Roosevelt Papers.
28. Roosevelt to Moody, September 3, 1907, Roosevelt Papers.
29. Moody to Roosevelt, September 9, 1907, Roosevelt Papers.
30. Roosevelt to Moody, September 11, 1907; September 21, 1907, Roosevelt Papers.
31. Moody to Roosevelt, September 26, 1907, Roosevelt Papers.
32. W. A. White to Roosevelt, November 27, 1908, Roosevelt Papers.
33. Moody to Roosevelt, December 3, 1908, Roosevelt Papers.
34. Ibid.
35. 210 U.S. 281 (1907).
36. 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
37. 211 U.S. 45 (1908).
38. Roosevelt to White, November 30, 1908, Roosevelt Papers.
39. 207 U.S. 463 (1907).
40. 208 U.S. 208 (1907).
41. 209 U.S. 211 (1907).
42. 211 U.S. 612 (1908).
43. 209 U.S. 251 (1907).
44. 205 U.S. 236 (1906).
45. 205 U.S. 395 (1906).
46. 212 U.S. 1 (1908).
47. See James F. Watts, Jr. "William Moody," The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, Leon Friedman & Fred Israel, eds. 4 v. (New York: Chelsea House, 1967) v. 3, pp. 1801-1821, for an analysis of Moody's opinions.