Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/225

 190

cisions are especially able. 1 Green v. Briggs, I Curtis 311, is one of his most important constitutional decisions on circuit.2 A consideration of Judge Curtis' contribu tions to Federal jurisprudence would be in complete without mention of his revision of the court's reports. The then fifty-seven vol umes of reports of the court's decisions had been prepared by five different reporters with varying degrees of care and skill. Curtis re vised and republished these judicial records in a series of twenty-two volumes. This re duction was the result of his marvellously concise statement of the facts involved in each case, of the points actually presented to the court in the argument, and of the points actually decided by the court. Nothing more forcibly illustrates the legal cast of Judge Curtis' mind than the fact that such an eminent lawyer, so deeply immersed in work, should, at his age, apply his mind to this laborious and exacting task. It was, however, his subsequent career at the bar that gave Curtis his preeminent posi tion in the profession. During the seventeen years following his resignation from the bench he argued forty-seven cases in the Su preme Court of the United States, eighty cases in the Supreme Court of Massachu setts, and, besides conducting an extensive practice in the United States Circuit and Dis trict courts and in other State courts, he prepared a volume of opinions as counsel which fill nearly one thousand closely-written folio pages. Many of these cases involved questions of great difficulty, and the remark able acumen and thoroughness which in variably characterized his examination of a subject must have been an invaluable aid to the courts in reaching a well-founded conclu sion. His remarkable argument in defense 1 Hennessey -'. The Versailles, I Curtis 353; The Young Mechanic, 2 i/>. 104: The Larch, it. 427. 2 See, also, Fisher r. Boody, I Curtis 206; Kellum?•. Meerson, 2 /'/». 79; Taylor v. Morton, it. 454, and his charges to juries on flogging in the Navy, I it. 509; on Neutrality, 2 it. 630 and on obstructing progress, it. 627.

of President Johnson is unquestionably his masterpiece as an advocate, and may justly be considered the climax of his professional life. When, as Benjambin F. Butler, his vig orous antagonist, said, Curtis had finished his opening argument in this case, "nothing more was added, although much was said." The variety and extent of Justice Camp bell's early practice at the bar is illustrated by the reports of the Supreme Court of Ala bama from the fifth Porter to the twentyfirst Alabama. As a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States3 he espoused the constitutional theories of the Chief Justice Taney. Although opposed to secession, he believed in the right of a State to secede, and at the outbreak of the Civil War he re signed from the bench to participate in the Southern cause. He served throughout the war in a subordinate civil position, and upon the return of peace resumed the practice of his profession in New Orleans. There his mastery of the civil law soon placed him at the head of the bar, and thenceforth until his death, in 1889, he was one of the ablest and most influential members of the bar of the Untied States Supreme Court. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, in New York v. Louisiana, and many other leading cases of his time, his very powerful arguments exer cised a marked influence upon the court's determinations. His great argument in New York v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76, in which he was opposed by David Dudley Field, was undoubtedly the crowning effort 3 Some of Justice Campbell's notable opinions are Beacon T. Robertson, 18 Howard 480; Philadelphia, ftc. Railroad Company T. Ouigley, 21 it. 202; White Water Valley Canal Company -•. Vallete, 62 U. S. 414: Hodge -•. Woolsey, 13 Howard 331; The Magnolia, 20;/>. ^96; Rowland V. Oreenway, 63 U. S. 491; Carpenter r. State of Pennsylvania, 17 Howard 456; Garrison f. Memphis Insurance Company, 19 it. 312: Taylor -•. Carry!, 20 ib. 583; Anderson r. Bock, 15 it. 323; Kendall t-. Creighton, 64 U. S. 90; Zabriskie i: Cleveland, etc. Rail road Company, 64 it. 381; Benjamin -: Hillard, 64 16. 149; Christ Church v. Philadelphia Company, 65 ib. 300; United States v. Nye, 62 /*. 403; United States v. Hann, Federal Cases, No. 1 5329.