Last updated: December 27, 2023
Article
The Courts in Old City Hall
NPS photo
[Old] City Hall housed a variety of courts in the 1790s - Mayor's Court, Alderman's Court, District Court for Pennsylvania, Middle Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Construction for this home for city government was underway when the federal government relocated to Philadelphia in 1790. The first floor of this newly-constructed building boasted a large courtroom, one that served multiple levels of government for the next nine years.
Construction for this home for city government was underway when the federal government relocated to Philadelphia in 1790. The first floor of this newly-constructed building boasted a large courtroom, one that served multiple levels of government for the next nine years.
The Mayor's Court
The Mayor's Court heard all felonies, except for capital crimes, misdemeanors, and nuisances within the city limits. Crimes included larceny, assault and battery, forgery, and riots. The Mayor, a Recorder (a chief judicial officer) and two of the several city Aldermen presided over the quarterly sessions. Grand juries and trial juries passed verdicts.The Mayor's Court also appointed Overseers of the Poor, confirmed constables in each ward of the city, regulated tippling and disorderly houses (taverns), and heard cases pertaining to apprentices.
Replaced with a court of five judges during the American Revolution, the Mayor's Court resumed in 1789. The Act of March 19, 1838 abolished it forever, and a Court of Criminal Sessions was established in its place.
Examples of Mayor's Court rulings in the 1790s
1792 – William Simmons, accountant of the War Department, was fined five shillings and court costs for assaulting a gentleman named James Roney.
1798 – William Duane, newspaper editor, was found guilty of assault and battery upon William Bradford.
1798 – Joseph Martin was sentenced to six months at hard labor for “larceny in stealing books of the value of $7.25” from the noted newspaperman, William Cobbett.
1798 – William Duane, newspaper editor, was found guilty of assault and battery upon William Bradford.
1798 – Joseph Martin was sentenced to six months at hard labor for “larceny in stealing books of the value of $7.25” from the noted newspaperman, William Cobbett.
Alderman's Court
The court consisted of three of the aldermen (members of the Select Council for the city); any two of them achieved quorum. Appointed by the mayor and recorder, these particular aldermen had civil jurisdiction in causes and matters where the debt or demand amounted to forty shillings, but did not exceed ten pounds. The court convened twice a week in this courtroom, and did not empanel any juries.
Example of an Alderman's Court case
The court consisted of three of the aldermen (members of the Select Council for the city); any two of them achieved quorum. Appointed by the mayor and recorder, these particular aldermen had civil jurisdiction in causes and matters where the debt or demand amounted to forty shillings, but did not exceed ten pounds. The court convened twice a week in this courtroom, and did not empanel any juries.
Example of an Alderman's Court case
In 1816, Alderman Michael Reppele consulted with several prominent Philadelphia lawyers on the law governing the status of children born in Pennsylvania to a woman named Letty, believed to be a fugitive from slavery. Alderman Reppele wrote:
“Letty… is acknowledged to have been the Slave of Betty Chitton of … the state of Virginia…(Letty) absconded from the Service of her Mistress about seven years ago and came to this State (Pennsylvania) and has had three children born in the State…“The Question is: are the Children Slaves or Free?“ In this case, Alderman Reppele turned to the Pennsylvania Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (1780), deciding that at least one child was free. Read more about the case on the Historical Society of Pennsylvania's website.
“Letty… is acknowledged to have been the Slave of Betty Chitton of … the state of Virginia…(Letty) absconded from the Service of her Mistress about seven years ago and came to this State (Pennsylvania) and has had three children born in the State…“The Question is: are the Children Slaves or Free?“ In this case, Alderman Reppele turned to the Pennsylvania Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (1780), deciding that at least one child was free. Read more about the case on the Historical Society of Pennsylvania's website.
Federal District Court of Pennsylvania
The District Court mainly heard cases on customs seizures, crimes on the high seas, and naturalization. They opened their first session here on May 10, 1791, but they also sat in other venues across the region. About half of the District Court's meetings took place in Old City Hall in the 1790s.Originally, there were thirteen districts with one judge presiding in each state. In Pennsylvania, Judge Richard Peters, a former secretary of the Board of War and authority in maritime law, presided from 1792 to well after 1800.
Examples of cases heard before the District Court
During the Quasi War with France, the court determined the disposition of several ships, including the capture of the French Le Croyable by The Delaware on July 7, 1798. This was the first capture made by an American ship during this undeclared war. The District Court declared Le Croyable a lawful capture and the Americans renamed the ship USS Retaliation.
The Court presided over naturalization proceedings. Many refugees fleeing the tumult of war-torn 1790s Europe sought to become naturalized citizens in this room.
The Court presided over naturalization proceedings. Many refugees fleeing the tumult of war-torn 1790s Europe sought to become naturalized citizens in this room.
Court of the Middle Circuit
The Circuit Courts, originally comprised of two Supreme Court justices and one federal District Court judge, held supreme jurisdiction for capital cases. There were three circuits - Eastern, Middle, and Southern. The Middle Circuit court heard most of its cases here in this courtroom beginning in April 1792.Examples of Middle Circuit Decisions
United States v. Mitchell (1795) and United States v. Vigol (1795)
An excise tax on whiskey led to an uprising in the western parts of the nation in 1794. Although twenty-three defendants were tried for their involvement in the Whiskey Tax Rebellion, only two men - Mitchell and Vigol - were found guilty by the Middle Circuit Court. President Washington later pardoned both men.
United States v. John Fries (1799 and1800)
A direct tax levied on land, enslaved people, and houses throughout the country led to Fries Rebellion in Eastern Pennsylvania. Intended to to raise monies necessary for preparation for war with revolutionary France, this tax proved unpopular in some areas in Pennsylvania where citizens harrassed and intimated tax assessors. Of the insurrectionists taken to Philadelphia for trial, only John Fries, Anthony Stahler, and Frederic Hearny faced treason charges. The Middle Circuit Court found all three men guilty and sentenced them to hang. President Adams later pardoned these men and granted amnesty to all those charged with lesser crimes.
An excise tax on whiskey led to an uprising in the western parts of the nation in 1794. Although twenty-three defendants were tried for their involvement in the Whiskey Tax Rebellion, only two men - Mitchell and Vigol - were found guilty by the Middle Circuit Court. President Washington later pardoned both men.
United States v. John Fries (1799 and1800)
A direct tax levied on land, enslaved people, and houses throughout the country led to Fries Rebellion in Eastern Pennsylvania. Intended to to raise monies necessary for preparation for war with revolutionary France, this tax proved unpopular in some areas in Pennsylvania where citizens harrassed and intimated tax assessors. Of the insurrectionists taken to Philadelphia for trial, only John Fries, Anthony Stahler, and Frederic Hearny faced treason charges. The Middle Circuit Court found all three men guilty and sentenced them to hang. President Adams later pardoned these men and granted amnesty to all those charged with lesser crimes.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the U.S. usually held session in this courtroom in August and February each year, beginning in August 1791. (There are a few exceptions where they sat upstairs or elsewhere on this block).Examples of cases heard here
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
The Supreme Court decided a case based on the creditor of one state trying to recover a debt owed by another state. The Court concluded a state can be sued by a citizen of another state. However, this decision made by the Supreme Court was controversial, leading to the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, and, thus, overturning the Court’s decision.
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
This was a case dealing with state confiscation of property belonging to a Loyalist who moved to Britain after the Revolutionary War. British creditor Samuel Brailsford made a loan to a group of Americans before the Revolution. Before the debt could be paid, independence was declared. Before the war ended, the state of Georgia passed a Confiscation Act which froze payments to British creditors. When Brailsford sought relief before the Supreme Court, the Court empaneled a twelve-man jury for the first time to decide the case. The jury found in favor of Brailsford.
Ware v. Hylton (1796)
The Court decided that a state law that tried to supersede a treaty violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. This is also a case involving a British creditor. Virginia enacted a law during the Revolution that allowed debtors to forego their debts when the creditor was an “alien enemy.” The British creditor found relief in the Supreme Court which struck down the Virginia law. The justices based their decision on this clause in Article Four of the 1783 Treaty of Paris: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
Hylton v. U.S. (1796)
The Court decided that the U.S. Congress had the right to tax a carriage used for personal use. The lawyer for Daniel Hylton argued the tax was a direct tax and must be apportioned among the states as stated in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Court delivered opinions stating the tax was not a direct tax (a tax on land is an example of a direct tax) and so did not meet with the apportionment requirements. This was an important decision because the early Court determined the definition of a direct tax. For the first time, the Court applied judicial review to a law passed by Congress.
The Supreme Court decided a case based on the creditor of one state trying to recover a debt owed by another state. The Court concluded a state can be sued by a citizen of another state. However, this decision made by the Supreme Court was controversial, leading to the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, and, thus, overturning the Court’s decision.
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
This was a case dealing with state confiscation of property belonging to a Loyalist who moved to Britain after the Revolutionary War. British creditor Samuel Brailsford made a loan to a group of Americans before the Revolution. Before the debt could be paid, independence was declared. Before the war ended, the state of Georgia passed a Confiscation Act which froze payments to British creditors. When Brailsford sought relief before the Supreme Court, the Court empaneled a twelve-man jury for the first time to decide the case. The jury found in favor of Brailsford.
Ware v. Hylton (1796)
The Court decided that a state law that tried to supersede a treaty violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. This is also a case involving a British creditor. Virginia enacted a law during the Revolution that allowed debtors to forego their debts when the creditor was an “alien enemy.” The British creditor found relief in the Supreme Court which struck down the Virginia law. The justices based their decision on this clause in Article Four of the 1783 Treaty of Paris: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
Hylton v. U.S. (1796)
The Court decided that the U.S. Congress had the right to tax a carriage used for personal use. The lawyer for Daniel Hylton argued the tax was a direct tax and must be apportioned among the states as stated in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Court delivered opinions stating the tax was not a direct tax (a tax on land is an example of a direct tax) and so did not meet with the apportionment requirements. This was an important decision because the early Court determined the definition of a direct tax. For the first time, the Court applied judicial review to a law passed by Congress.
For Further Study
The Historic Structures Reports for Old City Hall contain a tremendous amount of detailed information, including specific meeting locations and dates for the various courts listed above.
Historic Structures Report Part I on Old City Hall, Independence National Historical Park (July 1959)
Historic Structures Report Part II on Old City Hall, Independence National Historical Park (February 1961)
The Historic Structures Reports for Old City Hall contain a tremendous amount of detailed information, including specific meeting locations and dates for the various courts listed above.
Historic Structures Report Part I on Old City Hall, Independence National Historical Park (July 1959)
Historic Structures Report Part II on Old City Hall, Independence National Historical Park (February 1961)