ALLOTMENT, ETC., OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS MADE APRIL 22, 1878, UNDER THE ACTS OF Congress of JULY 23, 1866, AND MARCH 2, 1867. NAME OF THE JUSTICE, AND STATE FROM WHENCE AP- NUMBER AND TERRITORY OF DATE OF COMMISSION, AND MR. JUSTICE HUNT, by reason of indisposition, took no part in deciding the cases reported in this volume. MEMORANDA. THE Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States met in the courtroom, in the Capitol, Washington, on Friday morning, Jan. 10, 1879, at eleven o'clock, to pay respect to the memory of the late CALEB CUSHING. The Hon. WILLIAM M. EVARTS was appointed Chairman, and DanIEL WESLEY MIDDLETON, Esq., Secretary. On motion, the Chairman appointed Mr. PHILIP PHILLIPS, Mr. CHARLES DEVENS, Mr. Roscoe CONKLING, Mr. ALBERT PIKE, Mr. A. T. ÅKERMAN, and Mr. GEORGE H. WILLIAMS a committee to draft resolutions expressive of the respect of the members of the Bar for the memory of the deceased. The committee reported the following resolutions: Resolved, That the members of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States have with deep reget been informed of the death of CALEB CUSHING, for many years an able practitioner before the Court. Resolved, That while the memory of Mr. CuSHING deserves to be cherished as a citizen and a soldier, as a scholar and a historian, as a statesman and a diplomatist, the Bar desires especially to remember him to-day as a wise legislator, as an accomplished publicist, and as a profound and learned lawyer, whose services in all these capacities have been most honorable to himself and most valuable to the Republic. Resolved, That the Attorney-General be requested to communicate these resolutions to the Court, and to move that they be entered of record. Resolved, That they be communicated to the family of Mr. CUSHING, with the expression of the earnest condolence of the Bar. The resolutions were unanimously adopted, and the meeting then adjourned. On Jan. 13, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Court as follows: May it please your Honors: I ask a few moments' delay in the regular progress of the business of the Court, that I may bring formally to its attention the decease of CALEB CUSHING, of Massachusetts. The high positions held by him in the service of the country, his eloquence, his learning and ability, so often displayed in the debates of this court, seem to render it proper that we should pause for some notice of the void which has been occasioned by his departure. At the age of twenty-five, Mr. CUSHING was already a distinguished figure in the politics of Massachusetts. Ten years later he came into the National Councils, and from that time was prominent, alike in sunshine and in storm, in the X MEMORANDA. long historic era over which his life extended. How full that life was of important and varied public service will be seen when it is recalled that he was repeatedly a member of the legislature of his native State and of our National Congress, that he was a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, that he was the Counsel of the United States in the Arbitration at Geneva, that he was its Foreign Minister at the Courts of China and of Spain, that he was the Attorney-General of the United States, and that to these civil services he added military service as a General in the Army during the war with Mexico. In private character and in social intercourse Mr. CUSHING was most attractive. His rare powers of conversation, his large and well-digested stores of learning, made him a fascinating companion to all who listened to him, while his readiness and cordial desire to serve others by the multitude of resources at his command were always conspicuous. Of his extended public career, of the political controversies in which he engaged or into which he was thrown, the present is not the time to speak. While one who has filled so large a space in public affairs must be judged as his life shall appear when viewed by the clear light of impartial history, the hour when he departs is not the time to disturb the ashes which have gathered over the slumbering fires of old and, in many instances, forgotten controversies. Nor, were this the time, would this ever be the place for their appropriate dis cussion. Yet it is appropriate to remember here, that so profound was his knowledge of international law, and of politics in the larger sense of the term, that to those administrations with which he was not officially connected, nor even in direct sympathy, as counsellor in matters of a general character as distinguished from those of mere party controversy, he was able to lend an aid that was deemed to be great and valuable. Elsewhere justice will be done to his merits as an accurate observer and a graceful writer, to his accomplishments as a scholar and a linguist, and to his labors for the country as one of its statesmen and diplomatists. Here, and to-day, we would desire to recall him as the wise and profound lawyer, whose learning and ability have contributed to the discussion of many of the most important questions of his time. His judicial career on the Supreme Bench of his native State was brief, but it was long enough to establish his reputation as a courteous, just, and able magistrate. But his true sphere as a lawyer was that of the advocate. His intellect was of the controversial cast, which adapted him for the conflicts of the Bar rather than the calmer and graver duties of the Bench. Yet, while he was an opponent vigorous and persistent, he was always fair and candid. As a debater he was master of every resource, eloquent and adroit, always speaking from a full knowledge of the subject. He spared no labor in preparation, and his ready powers of acquisition enabled him to fortify himself with weapons of attack and defence drawn from every armory ard storehouse of the law. The Reports of this Court furnish the evidence of the ability with which he discussed all matters, whether appearing as counsel for private parties or for the Government. The Opinions of the Attorneys-General attest how much skill and research he brought to those practical questions of administration which as a cabinet officer demanded from him the judgment of a learned and experi enced lawyer. Nor should I fail to remember that as a legislator, alike in his native State and in the Congress of the United States, he, even when deeply engrossed in the public conflicts of his time, contributed wisely and generously |