without taking into account his conspicuous services. But it is not within the scope of this article, nor, indeed, would it be within the bounds of propriety, to estimate the ser vices of the present justices, whose careers
194; Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 it. 429; 158 /*. 601; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 ib. 135; In n Cooper, ib. 494; Union Pacific Railway Company ». Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, 163/'*. 564; Roehm гл Horst, 178 ib. 15; The Carlos F. Roses, 177 ib. 655; Cole v. Cunningham, 135 it. 107; Baiz, petitioner, 135 it. 403; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 it. 246; Western Union Telegraph Company p. State of
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.
are still in the making. The following lists will give a fairly accurate idea of the charac ter and extent of their labors. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER: Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100; The Chinese Depor tation Cases 149 ib. 698; United States v. E. C. Knight Company, 156 ib. i; Field?'. Clark, 143 //.649; In re Rapier, 143 ib. no; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 it. 113; MePeerson v. Blacker, 146/6. i; Sanford 7/. Poe, 165 A
Pennsylvania, 128 it. 39; Menendezf. Holt, 128 it. 54; Bank of Washington f. Hume, 128 it. 195; Reynes p. Dumont, 130 it. 354; Moore t: Crawford, 130 it. 122; Inman v. South Carolina Railroad Company, i:y it. 128; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 it. 141; United States î'. Wong Kim Ark, 169 ib. 649; Órnelas r. Ruii, 161 ib. 503; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 it. 347; Petit i'. Minnesota, 177 it. 164; The Pedro, 175 it. 354; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 /*. 146; Central Pacific Kailroad C'c npany v. State of California, 162 it. 91; Taylor -'. Beckham, 178 it. 548.
