No history of colorful, and sometimes controversial, local lawyers who have made great contributions to the legal profession would be complete without mention of Chattanooga lawyer David LaFayette Snodgrass, who rose to the position of Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1894 and led the Court during a politically turbulent, but progressive, period following Reconstruction.
Snodgrass was not a native Chattanoogan. Instead, he was born into a prominent family in Sparta, White County, Tenn., on April 6, 1851. His father, Dr. Thomas Snodgrass, was both a successful medical doctor and a licensed attorney. In addition to applying his skills successfully in two distinct professions, Dr. Thomas Snodgrass also served several terms in the Tennessee Legislature prior to the Civil War.
One of eleven children, David LaFayette Snodgrass was educated in the White County public school system and later at the University of Tennessee. In addition to his studies at the University of Tennessee, he studied and read law with various mentors, including his father. Upon completion of his studies and legal training, Snodgrass was admitted to the Tennessee Bar in 1872 at the age of 21. Thereafter, he partnered with his father in the firm of Thomas & David L. Snodgrass in Sparta and quickly became one of the most successful and respected lawyers in the region.
Having gained acclaim for his legal ability, Snodgrass was elected as a Democratic Congressman to the Tennessee Legislature for White and Putnam Counties in 1879. In Nashville, he distinguished himself in large part due to his ability to state his opinion with a combination of eloquence, succinctness, and frankness. Despite his relatively young age, he was a strong voice of leadership during one of the more raucous legislative sessions in Tennessee history, the principal debate being the best method for retiring the immense state debt of $43 million acquired principally due to the construction of the state rail system prior to the Civil War.
Determined to expand his practice and his horizons, Snodgrass moved from Sparta to Chattanooga in 1881. He partnered with his boyhood friend, Attorney Charles D. Clark (who was himself appointed United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee in 1894). Given his preeminent reputation, Snodgrass quickly developed a large and successful practice in Chattanooga. However, because of a lack of intermediate appellate courts, the Tennessee Supreme Court developed a sizeable backlog of cases, and in late 1883, the Tennessee Legislature formed the Commission of Referees, a body of nine members across the state designated to hear civil appeals assigned by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Snodgrass was appointed a member of the Commission. For three years, he served ably in that capacity and came into close contact with other lawyers and jurists across the state who recognized and appreciated his judicial attributes. As a consequence, he was encouraged to seek higher judicial office. In the election of 1886, he ran for and was elected to an eight-year term on the Tennessee Supreme Court. In 1894, Snodgrass was re-elected to an additional term of eight years and was appointed to the position of Chief Justice. While sitting as Chief Justice, Snodgrass made an unsuccessful bid for the United States Senate in 1900.
In 1902, Snodgrass retired from the Court after 16 years of service (eight as Chief Justice) and returned to the private practice of law in Chattanooga with his close friend, T.C. Lattimore. In April of 1905, he was appointed to the position of Clerk of the Federal Courts at Chattanooga and Knoxville by his former partner and friend, Judge Charles D. Clark. He retired from that position in 1915 and died in Chattanooga on October 11, 1917 after a lengthy illness. He is buried in the Forest Hills Cemetery in St. Elmo.
Like many great lawyers, Snodgrass appears to have been something of an enigmatic and polarizing figure. Accounts from friends and acquaintances portray him as unassuming, affable, and sensitive. However, one gets the sense from other historical accounts that Snodgrass took on a wholly different persona when called into the public forum. There, he was known for his frankness and his willingness to courageously, firmly, and eloquently hold to a minority view if he felt it to be more reasonable and logical than the majority position. While obviously ambitious, he stubbornly refused to pander or deviate from his firmly-held and well-considered beliefs. As noted in a Chattanooga Bar Association Memorial Tribute, Snodgrass was not one to “trim his political sails to float with the tide.” Indeed, his unwillingness to bend to popular sentiment is said to be the very thing that cost him his senatorial bid in 1900 when his pro-imperialistic views ran afoul of the majority view of the Democratic party led by William Jennings Bryan, and Snodgrass openly refused to fall in line with his party on this issue.
In keeping with his unwillingness to bend to the pressure of the majority, Snodgrass was known as much for his practical, logical, and well-written dissents as he was his equally masterful majority opinions. He was certainly more prone to follow reason and logic than he was to blindly adhere to the sometimes impractical dictates of stare decisis.
Though by all accounts an extremely generous and religious man, Snodgrass was sometimes quick-tempered and did not suffer what he considered to be foolishness or pretense in other lawyers. As Chief Justice, he could be extremely critical and severe in his dealings with unprepared or unnecessarily long-winded lawyers who came before the Court. To this end, in his Chattanooga Bar Association Memorial Resolution, he is credited with doing more than any other jurist who has ever occupied the bench in “training the lawyers of the State in methods of clear and succinct statement and presentation, a training that has been of incalculable benefit to them and the public.”
Snodgrass’ most noteworthy critique of a fellow lawyer came at great personal and professional embarrassment. On December 16, 1895, The Daily Times ran a copy of a letter to the editor from attorney Col. John R. Beasley. In his letter, Beasley lambasted the Tennessee Supreme Court for its decision in a case he had argued before it in 1887 on behalf of certain Tennessee taxpayers. In that case, the plaintiff taxpayers had challenged the constitutionality of the Funding Act of 1883, which was enacted as part of a legislative compromise to raise funds to help satisfy the immense state debt discussed above. The Supreme Court ended up upholding the dismissal of the case. Beasley attributed certain statements to Justice Snodgrass about the legislative compromise leading to the enactment of the bill and suggested that the Court’s ruling was strictly a “political decision.”
Snodgrass, who was then Chief Justice, took great umbrage with Beasley’s remarks. On the same day as the publication of the letter, Snodgrass visited the Chattanooga offices of Brown & Spurlock in the Times Building (now Dome Building) to speak with Attorney Frank Spurlock. There, he encountered Beasley, who had come to the building to speak with Attorney J.V. Williams. Words passed between Snodgrass and Beasley as to the accuracy of the statements made by Beasley in his letter. Among other things, Snodgrass is said to have called Beasley “an infamous liar.” Accounts vary as to what happened next. Witnesses for Snodgrass claimed that Beasley, after being confronted by Snodgrass, reached into his coat pocket -- ostensibly for a firearm -- and Snodgrass shot at him twice in self-defense with a firearm he happened to carry for personal protection. One shot hit the ceiling of the law office and a second hit Beasley in the arm. For his part, Beasley claimed that Snodgrass attempted to punch him in the face, but Beasley warded off the blow. Then, Snodgrass backed away and fired at Beasley twice with an illegally concealed pistol which hit Snodgrass in the arm. Regardless of the sequence of events leading up to the pull of the trigger, the end result was the same: Beasley was left with a badly wounded arm and Snodgrass’ reputation was sullied in newspapers across the country as a hot-headed scofflaw. Snodgrass was later acquitted by a jury based on a theory of self-defense, but he continued to bear the scorn of the press.
Like many successful lawyers, Snodgrass’ legal career was certainly not without controversy and detractors. The simple fact is that he remains something of an enigmatic figure many years after his death. As best summed up by his fellow Chattanooga Bar Members in a Memorial Resolution presented to the Tennessee Supreme Court upon his death in 1917 and found at 138 Tenn. 7, “Judge Snodgrass was one who acted well his part in the drama of life. He was ambitious, but modest; he was intellectual, but retiring; he was impulsive, but generous; he was a student, but enjoyed social intercourse.” It is certain that whatever his particular flaws might or might not have been, his talents were regarded as immense by his contemporaries and historians alike, and his contributions to the legal profession and to the State of Tennessee during an extremely uncertain and tumultuous time in its history were immeasurable. As such, his life is certainly one worth remembering.