3

I came across the phrase in this article:

And "in this case, the law's terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government," Gorsuch declared, "it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them."

It seems to deal with matters of compunction in public service, e.g. following rules and procedures to the best of one's ability. Another source seems to confirm this, citing a little-known "square corners doctrine." But what does it actually mean, and where does it come from?

My hypothesis is that it's a cousin to "make sure your 't's are crossed and your 'i's are dotted," but catchier and more efficient.

EDIT It seems it could be the opposite of "cutting corners," though closer study of THAT phrase's origin (whether the cater-corner or the hunting explanation) seems to indicate that this is an incomplete answer.

Drew R
  • 131
  • The “square corners” doctrine stands for fairness and full compliance with required procedures and due process. https://publiccontractinginstitute.com/square-corners/ – user 66974 May 04 '21 at 19:34
  • 1
    Possibly this belongs on Politics.SE? – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ May 04 '21 at 19:38
  • 2
    Normally, we cut corners when we take shortcuts, which may shortchange the other party. Don't try that with the Feds. By contrast, better to turn square corners, and they must return the favor. Just pulled that outta my stored assets. – Yosef Baskin May 04 '21 at 19:39
  • 2
    @YosefBaskin I like your answer best so far. I feel like Gorsuch is using it as a turn of phrase rather than legal-ese. The name of the doctrine feels like something borrowed from the language, rather than the other way around-- that's why it's here and not on Politics.SE. – Drew R May 04 '21 at 19:57
  • I would assume that the expression arose among soldiers required to walk a straight line and then turn in a right angle, e.g. from a due-north path to a due-east past, when on parade. It seems to me that you see marching bands do this at halftime shows during football games. – Chaim May 04 '21 at 21:54
  • @user66974's answer is correct, as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. The lexeme associated with the 1920 SCOTUS opinion, which also underlies the doctrine mentioned in Greybeard's answer, has approximate origins in the putative innate virtue of square corners (e.g., in cabin building, etc.), but its proximate origin is in an idiom which saw a lot of use during the rise of US automotive culture, and especially during the decade prior to the 1920 SCOTUS opinion. For example, "I see the jay is yet alive, and on our streets doth try to drive; the jay pedestrian is with us, too, ... – JEL May 05 '21 at 06:51
  • ... and he cuts corners with the crew that cannot learn there is a rule, which everyone should learn at school, that is--turn square corners, do not cut and throw your neighbor in a rut. Keep to the right, do not fail, or some day you'll land in jail." (Galena Weekly Republican, Galena, Kansas, 27 Jan 1911) – JEL May 05 '21 at 06:52
  • @JEL - actually there are earlier usages (see Google Books) which date back to second half 19th c., mainly from legal or other formal contexts. – user 66974 May 05 '21 at 07:01
  • @66974 - I see 18 (55 with duplicates) scattered uses in Google Books before1900, and nothing approaching the bulge of uses associated with autos in the popular press in 1911. The 18 pre-1900 uses are covered by the approximate origin (innate virtue) I mentioned: physical culture, education, agriculture, and prison practices cover the bulk of the incidental subjects in those 18. Yet I'm hoping somebody will actually do the research needed to answer this question. – JEL May 05 '21 at 08:33
  • @66974 - oh, but I see I picked up your user id in error; I intended to direct my comment to the 'answers' (user662852), not to your comment. – JEL May 05 '21 at 08:38

2 Answers2

1

The blog of Bruce D. Greenberg explains the legal concept:

The “Square Corners” Doctrine

Estate of Taylor v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 422 N.J. Super. 336 (App. Div. 2011). In FMC Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 (1985), the Supreme Court announced the “square corners” doctrine.

That doctrine says, in essence, that in dealing with the public, government agencies must “turn square corners,” “comport itself with compunction and integrity,” and not “conduct itself so as to achieve or preserve any kind of bargaining or litigational advantage” over a member of the public. As the Court observed, this means that “government may have to forego the freedom of action that private citizens may employ in dealing with one another.”

Greybeard
  • 41,737
  • This explanation is fine, but it uses the idiom in the definition. It does not illuminate the phrase's origin or meaning. – Drew R May 04 '21 at 20:01
  • In origin, it could be military. West Point cadets may be required to “eat a square meal.” – Xanne May 05 '21 at 01:47
  • @DrewR The definition is there! "to turn square corners" = “To comport itself (oneself) with compunction and integrity, and not conduct itself (oneself) so as to achieve or preserve any kind of bargaining or litigational advantage”. the "square corners" thus implies acting in a straight (straightforward) manner, i.e. not convoluted, devious, or deceptive . – Greybeard May 06 '21 at 15:40
1

It is a direct reference to a Supreme Court precedent written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that acknowledged that people must engage with the government on the government's terms. Holmes is famous for writing that is easy to understand by laypeople -- the idiom "to shout fire in a crowded theater" is also originated by him. Gorsuch is binding the federal bureaucracy to the same standard of formalism to which all other Americans have previously been bound.

Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government. If it attaches even purely formal conditions to its consent to be sued those conditions must be complied with.

From Rock Island C.R.R. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (22 November 1920)

user662852
  • 3,255