Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/485

 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