Hon. John R. Hazel
Dates of Service: 1900-1931
Born December 18, 1860, in Buffalo, NY
Died October 13, 1951
Federal Judicial Service:
- Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
- Nominated by William McKinley on May 18, 1900, to a new seat authorized by 31 Stat. 175. Confirmed by the Senate on June 5, 1900, and received commission on June 5, 1900. Service terminated on March 5, 1931, due to retirement.
Education:
- Read law, 1882
Professional Career:
- Private practice, Buffalo, New York, 1882-1894
- Commissioner of corporation taxes, State of New York, 1894-1900
Noteworthy Cases and Other Information
(written by Hon. John T. Curtin)[1]Less than one year after Judge Hazel took office, he had the unfortunate duty of swearing in Vice President Theodore Roosevelt after President McKinley was assassinated while visiting Buffalo at the time of the Pan American Exhibition in 1901.
Judge Hazel’s work on the bench reflected the changes that were taking place in Western New York and in the American society as a whole. He became an expert in patent law and decided cases involving automobiles, airplanes, the Kodak film-making process, as well as musical instruments. His many decisions in patent cases exercised considerable influence in that field.
In the early 1900’s, a dispute arose as to whether the “new” musical machines, such as the phonograph and the player piano and the records which accompanied them, should be subject to royalty payments to music publishers. He decided that the copyright law was not broad enough to cover these new devices, and he was sustained on appeal.[2] Judge Hazel ruled on patents which covered the validity of certain inventions of the Wright brothers,[3] as well as those…which related to the business of the Ford Motor Company.[4]
Long and difficult decisions were not foreign to him. Without the aid of a word processor, he wrote an 83-page decision in a suit involving the manufacture of a new axle shaft. Commentators have since noted that his opinion was a veritable treatise on the history of metallurgy and patent law.[5]
Eastman Kodak and George Eastman fared well with their early patents in Judge Hazel’s court. However, Eastman did not have everything his own way. On one occasion, Judge Hazel ruled that a patent held by a New Jersey Methodist minister was infringed by an Eastman device.[6] In another case, he held that Kodak had a monopoly and ordered it to dispose of several of its patents.[7] In the days of the trust-busters, it is interesting to note that Judge Hazel presided over one of the first trials in which Standard Oil was convicted for an antitrust violation.
His career continued through World War I, when espionage cases and violations of the Profiteering Act appeared on his calendar. The Twenties brought a heavy influx of smuggling violations to our border community. Although generally lenient to first offenders, Judge Hazel was particularly severe to violators who hired young boys to run prohibited liquor loads across the Niagara River.
To dispose of the burgeoning prohibition calendar, Judge Hazel resorted to “Bargain Days.” At the beginning of the session, he would announce that all who pled guilty on that day would be fined a certain amount. Critics of plea bargaining may deplore this arrangement, but court management proponents should note, however, that through this device he and his associate, Judge Adler, established a national record for dispositions by 1931…
Judge Hazel continued to handle the business of the court. In 1929, he passed upon the application of the immigration laws to aliens living in nearby Canada. The Jay Treaty of 1794 colorfully stated that “while the grass grows green and water runs downhill,” British nationals might cross and recross the United States-Canadian border. Agreeing with the Immigration Service that this interpretation would destroy the fabric of the law, he held that the treaty had been abrogated in part by the War of 1812 and that only Canadian citizens could cross freely. His decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals but upheld by the Supreme Court.[8]
Other Cases of Note
Judge Hazel also made an important contribution to Indian law, holding in 1921 that federal courts have no jurisdiction to intervene in tribal affairs or to reverse tribal court decisions relating to those affairs.[9]
In his zeal for enforcement of the smuggling laws during the Twenties, he did not forget the importance of maintaining civil liberties—in one case, ordering the return of liquor seized by federal agents without a warrant.[10]
