to prevent her carrying her belief into prac tice?" Nothing illustrates to better advantage his •freedom from political prepossessions than his conservatism in protecting to the fullest extent the rights and the integrity of the State governments and their authority. It >vould be idle to claim for Chief Justice Waite intellectual preeminence among his predecessors in this great office, or even among his colleagues; but it can be truth fully said that no more upright and consci entious judge has adorned the bench. If his opinions are not conspicuously able, they are brief and business-like, and never overstep the necessities of the occasion.1 Quite as modest a judge as Waite was Justice Blatchford (1882-93), who, through more than a quarter of a century of continu ous service in the Federal courts, fulfilled every requirement of a conscientious, labori ous and competent public servant. To him, as the attorney-general said in his discrim inating eulogy, the discharge of duty was an impulse and toil a habit. "It is not given to every man to be instinct with true genius, to exult in acknowledged intellectual superior ity, to be chief among the chiefs in his chosen calling. Such men are rare, and their ex amples as often provoke despair as excite to emulation. But to every man it is given to make the most of the facultks that he has,
to cultivate them with unflagging diligence, to- make sure that they deteriorate neither from misuse nor disuse, but continue in ever growing strength and efficiency until the in evitable access of years and infirmiites bars further progress. Justice Blatchford was the last man to claim for himself extraordinary gifts. But he had tireless industry, persistent application and a determination to work the powers he possessed to their utmost capac ity. . . . Thus, if not brilliant, he was safe; if he did not make any large contributions to the science of jurisprudence, he won respect by the righteousness of the results reached in actual causes." Justice Blatchford will be re membered for his labors as a specialist. Sit ting so long in the United States courts in the commercial metropolis of the country, he ac quired wide experience in the law of patents^ in admiralty, in bankruptcy, and in the ad ministration of the revenue laws. It may be doubted whether his service on the supreme bench added materially to his reputation. He was never proficient in expression, and toward the end of his judicial service his opin ions became painfully loose and disjointed in style and method. His decision in Gorham
- •. White, 7 Blatchford 513, which was after
wards reversed in the Supreme Court by rt divided court (14 Wallace 513), affords a good opportunity to compare him with his colleagues.2
1 Chief Justice Waite's work may be studied in Rey nolds f. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Neal r. State of Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Munn .'.State of Illinois, 4 Otto 113; Stone?>. State of Mississippi, II it. 814; United States r. Keese, 92 U. S. 214; Unite 1 States v. Cruikshank, it. 542; the Telephone Cases, 126 it. 2; The Harrisburg r. Rickards, no, i/i. 199; State of Louisiana i: Jumel, lo?/'*. 711; New York 7'. Louisiana, 108 it. 76; Antoni?•. Greenhow, 107 it. 769; Hall r. De Cuir, 95 it. 485; 1'ensacola Telegraph Company f. Westt.rn Union Telegraph Company, 96 it. i; Minor 7'. Happersett, 21 Wall 161; the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700; Spring Valley Water Works 7>. Schottler, ill it. 347; Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 116 it. 307; Baldwin r. Franks, 120 it. 678; Mali -<:. Keeper of Jail, 120 it. :; Young v. United States, 97 it. 39; the Headmoney Cases, 112 it. 580; Kennard v. State of Louisiana, 92 it. 480; Ex-parte Curtis, 106 /'*. 371; Spies v. United States, 123 ib. 131.
2 Some of Justice Blatchford 's other well-known cases are Dobson?•. Hartford Carpet Company, 114 U.S. 439; Dobson v. Dorman, 118 U. S. 10; Blatchford r. Palmer, 6 Blatchford 256; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517; Counselman 7. Hitchcock, 142 it. 547; O'Neill r. Ver mont, 144 U. S. 323; United States z<. Bennett, 16 Blatch ford 338; In re Farez, 7 it. 34, 345; Pennsylvania Rail road Company r. Miller, 132 U. S. 15; Ex-parte Phoenix Insurance Company, 118 it. 640; Railway Company v. State of Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418; People r. Com p. Gen. Transatlantique, 10 Federal Reporter 357; Exchange National Bank?•. National Bank of New York, 112 U. S. 276; Manchester -•. State of Massachusetts, 139 it. 240; Marley Sewing Machine Company r. Lancaster, 129 it. 263; Homer 7'. United States, 147/^.446; Hart 7'. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 112 it. 331 : City of Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 it. 173.
