John Forrest Dillon
449
York. The Court of Appeals decided that the act under which the com
funding bonds,
pany claimed the authority to con struct the railway was unconstitu tional. The New Park cases (99 N. Y. 569) in which the Court held that the
there might be an effectual recital in municipal bonds against a constitutional
act of the Legislature providing for the acquisition by the City of New York of land in Westchester County for a public park was constitutional. Burton v. United States (196 U. S. 283, 202 U. S. 344). This case was twice before the Supreme Court. On the first appeal the judgment of the lower court was reversed and a new trial ordered, and although on the second appeal the Court upheld the conviction of Senator Burton, there was a strong dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Brewer concurred in by Justices White and Peckham. Ames v. State of Kansas (111 U. S. 449),
and Gunnison County
v. Rollins (173 U. S. 255), holding that
provision.
The latest case argued by
Judge Dillon is that of Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company v. City of Los Angeles, decided April 4, 1910,by the Supreme Court of the United States (217 U. S. 217), in which the city asserted a paramount right to the waters of the Los Angeles river, and was up held by the Court.
It is interesting to notice the fact that Judge Dillon who argued for the defendant freight association the case of United States v. Trans-Missouri
Freight Association at al. (166 U. S. 290) presented the point that the Sher man Anti-trust Act was intended to
involving the validity of the Union Pacific Railroad Consolidation. Tomp kins v. Little Rock 8! Fort Smith Railway
apply only to such contracts in restraint of interstate or foreign trade or commerce in which the restraint is unreasonable, and after the lapse of fifteen years the
Company,
Supreme Court has adopted the rule
known
as
the
Arkansas
State Aid Bond case (125 U. S. 109), in which it was held that the acts of
of reason so strongly urged in the ear lier case.
the Legislature in question authorizing
the State Aid bonds did not create any
When he first began the reading of law he found that from the books he did
lien upon the property of a railroad company for the benefit of which the bonds were issued. Reagan v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, known as the
not get a clear idea of what a mortgage was and, in order to do so, he went to the courthouse and asked permission to look at the register of mortgages and
Texas Railway Commission case (154
to copy one.
U. S. 362), in which was involved the
then he says: "I knew what a mortgage
constitutionality of the Texas
was; I have read it and handled it."
Rail
He copied it in full and
‘‘5%. 5 “ (I
—vb-‘wa-“wtT.-"
way Commission Act. The argument of Judge Dillon in this case is one of his
ablest and most elaborate and the gen eral views expressed in his argument were sustained by the Court. Fall brook Irrigation District v. Bradley
(164 U. S. 112), establishing the validity of
the
California
Irrigation
Laws.
Waite v. Santa Cruz (184 U. S. 302), holding that the city was estopped to dis pute the truth of the recitals in its re
Col. J. H. Benton of Boston related this incident, and in commenting on it said: "This impressed me very much and I used it in my lectures in the law schools as an illustration of the qual ities of mind which make a man a great lawyer; that is what I call the instinct of the concrete." This habit of mind has been ever present in his practice, and in many cases where the rights of rail road or telegraph company or other
