A Century of Federal Judicature.
225
can President were unfortunately not realized in consequence of failing health and untimely death. His admirable judicial style is illus trated in Constable v. National Steamship Company, 154 U. S. 51; Lascelles v. State of Georgia, 148 ib. 537, and Pollock v. Far mers' Loan and Trust Company, 158 ib. 601. Turning now to the second group of judges, we may consider, first, the services of Chief Justice Chase and of his two colleagues, Swayne and Strong. In natural ability Chief Justice Chase (186473) was probably the equal of either of his immediate predecessors. But his bent was administrative rather than judicial, and while his pride was undoubtedly flattered by his appointment to the bench, there can be little doubt that the performance of judicial duty failed to enlist the entire energy of his mind, and that he looked forward to and sought the Presidency. This qualified loyalty to his great office at a time when the court was dealing with problems which demanded the undivided application of the highest mental powers has materially affected Chief Justice Chase's repu tation. Yet, notwithstanding his long pre occupation with political affairs, it must be admitted that he discharged the duties of his office with dignity and credit, and certainly with an entire absence of political bias. "Ap parently, as it were, by common consent," as Justice Clifford said, "he seated himself easily and naturally in the chair of justice, and gracefully answered every demand upon the station, whether it had respect to the dignity of the office, or to the elevation of the indi vidual character of the incumbent, or to his 1 Justice Matthews' most admired opinions are Kriiig firmness, purity or vigor of mind." Nothing --. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221; Pritchard v. Norton, 16 could have been more admirable than the Otto 124; Place z'. Norwich Transportation Company, 118 U.S. 468; Hurtado v. State of California, in ib. calm and dignified manner in which he pre 516; New Orleans v. Houston, 119 ib. 265; Vick Wo v. sided at the impeachment trial of President Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; the Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 270; The Great Western, 118 it. 526; Bowman Johnson. And he resolutely maintained the v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, 125 dignity of h;s judicial office by refusing to U. S. 465; Smith 7'. State of Alabama, 124 U. S. 465; Ex-parlt Ayers. 123 ib. 443; The Great Western, 118 ib. hold court in the southern States until all 526; Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, I r i possibility of claim that the judiciary was ib. 228: Carroll County t: Smith, ib. 556; Western Union Telegraph Company v. Hall, 124 ib. 444; Pepper subordinate to the military power had been v. Labrot, 8 Federal Reporter 29.
tice Miller's statement of the views of the majority of the court.1 • Justice Lamar (1888-93) was a lawyer whose undoubted powers had been exercised and developed in the stormy arena of politics, and it was hardly to be expected that on com ing to the bench so late in life he would excel among associates who had devoted their lives to the law. Nevertheless, he displayed marked ability in the discharge of judicial functions. His ablest effort on the bench was his dis senting opinion in the matter of Neagle, 135 U. S. i, arising out of the attempted assas sination of Justice Field. His opinions in Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. i; McCall v. Slate of California, 136 ib. 105; Field v. Clark, Pcnnoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. i: Howard -'. Stillwell Mfg. Co., and Grand Trunk Railway v. Ives, 144 ib. 408, are also worthy of note. Justice Jackson (1893-95) came to the Su preme Court after seven years' able and effi cient service in the United States Circuit Court. From the fifty opinions which consti tute the published record of his service in that position, the cases of the Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Company v. Louisville and Xashville Railroad Company, 37 Fed. Rep. 567; Mclntosh v. Flint and Pere Marquette Railway Company, 34 ib. 582; Lawrence Manufacturing Company v. Tennessee Manu facturing Company, 31 ib. 776, and United States v. Harper. 33 ib. 471, attest his learn ing and grasp of principle and facts. The ex pectations aroused by his very complimen tary appointment at the hands of a Republi-
