Journal of Supreme Court History

C i t a t o r s B e w a r e : S t y l i s t i c V a r i a t i o n s LKJIHGFED in D i f f e r e n t P u b l i s h e r s ’ V e r s i o n s o f E a r l y S u p r e m e C o u r t O p i n i o n s MLKJIHGFEDCBA J O N O . N E W M A N zyxwvutsrqp It has be e nge ne rally kno wnthat e arlySu p re m e Co u rt o p inio ns as p u blishe d in the U n it e d S t a t e s R e p o r t s do no talway saccu rate ly re fle ct the wo rdso fthe Ju s tice s ’ opinions.1 Of far less moment, but nevertheless an historical curiosity that should interest judges and lawyers who cite these opinions, is the fact that slight variations exist among the published versions of the same opinions, depending upon the identity of the publisher. The variations I have noticed are all only stylistic. However, it is possible that some variations, yet to be noticed, are substantive. The annotator of one version of the early reports, no less an authority than Associate Justice Curtis, acknowledged that his annotated set of the early reports has “correct[ed] such errors of press, or of citation, as a careful examination of the text has disclosed.”2 I . D i s c o v e r i n g t h e V a r i a t i o n s I first became aware of this curious aspect of Supreme Court history when I was alerted to a minor discrepancy between two published versions of ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA United States v. Ferreira, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 40 (1852). In preparing an opinion for a panel ofthe Second Circuit in Lo Duca v. United States, 93 F.3d 1100 (2d Cir. 1996), I cited a passage from Ferreira. When the draft opinion was circulated to the panel, one of Judge Kearse’s characteristically meticulous law clerks, Rochelle Shoretz, called to my at­ tention what she thought was an error in my rendering of the quotation from Ferreira. I had not capitalized “constitution,” and she thought the Supreme Court’s opinion had done so. The word appears on page 48 of vol­ ume 13 ofHoward’s R e p o r t s (originally cited as “13 How.”, later cited as “13 How. (54 U.S.)”, and more recently as “54 U.S. (13 How.)”).31 checked volume 54 of the U n it e d S t a t e s R e p o r t s (13 Howard) in my chambers and confirmed my version (“constitution”). She checked hers and confirmed her version (“Constitution”). I then asked what the title page of her volume revealed and learned that her volume 54 (13 Howard) was published by 2 J O U R N A L O F S U P R E M E C O U R T H I S T O R Y zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYX The Banks Law Publishing Company in 1903; my volume 54 (13 Howard), embossed “53-54” on the spine, was published by Little, Brown, and Company in 1870. I subsequently learned more about the provenance ofthe two volumes she and I were using in our efforts to cite to ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Ferreira. Both volumes are, in some sense, reprints of 13 Howard. Her volume is the second edition of 13 Benjamin C. Howard, MLKJIHGFEDCBA R e p o r t s o f C a s e s A r g u e d a n d A d j u d g e d in t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n it e d S t a t e s , published by The Banks Law Publishing Company in...