may be affirmed that notwithstanding his black robe, each of the justices has a good mouth for laughter. An incident or two may illustrate this:

Whenever the court, on hearing the argument of counsel for plaintiff in error, is entirely satisfied that he has no case, the chief justice is apt to say to counsel for defendant in error that the court does not care to hear further argument. At one time Hon. Matthew Carpenter from Wisconsin was counsel for plaintiff in error, and opened the case. Before he was through the court was satisfied that there was nothing in it, and so when he had concluded, and counsel for defendant in error arose, Chief Justice Waite said, "The court does not care to hear any further argument."

Counsel was a little deaf, and although noticing that the chief justice spoke, did not hear what he had said, and turning to Mr. Carpenter, who sat beside him, asked what had been said.

66

Oh, hang it!" replied Carpenter, in tones audible to the bench. "The chief justice said he would rather give you the case than hear you talk."

At another time Hon. C. E. Mitchell, ex-Commissioner of Patents, was arguing in support of the validity of a patent for a collar button. It required no little ingenuity and ability to make manifest the novelty and utility of the supposed invention. A very earnest and forcible argument (one which, I may add parenthetically, finally convinced the court of the validity of the patent) was being made by the excommissioner when one of the justices, who has the appearance of a rector of an Episcopal church, interrupted him by asking, with all due solemnity, whether counsel claimed, as one of the elements of the novelty and utility of the patent, that if the button fell out of a man's shirt, as he was dressing, and rolled under the bed, the owner could find it without swearing? Not expec

ting a question of that kind, Mr. Mitchell was for a moment a little nonplussed, but soon recovered, and disavowed, in behalf of his client, any claim for such an impossible invention.

Among the stories which have come down from the traditions of the court is this about Chief Justice Marshall. He and some of his associates boarded in the same house and took their meals at the same table. At the instance of one of their number, it was agreed that they stop taking wine at their meals, except in case of rain, and then, doubtless, to ward off the prevalent malaria.

The chief justice was fond of his Madeira, and after two or three days without any rain, he said at dinner, "Brother Story, will you go to the window and see if it is raining?"

Justice Story went to the window, examined the heavens, came back, and said that it was not raining, and that there was not a cloud to be seen.

66

66

Well," replied the chief justice, 'our jurisdiction extends over a large extent of territory, and I am sure it must be raining somewhere in our jurisdiction; let us have the Madeira."

While in session the associate justices are seated on either side of the chief justice, in the order of their commissions; the oldest in commission on his right; the next oldest on his left; the third is second on the right and the fourth second on the left, and so on alternately, the youngest in commission occupying the seat on the extreme left.

while

When Justice Field was the senior associate this arrangement produced this curious result: the names of the justices on the right had but a single syllable, Field, Gray, Brown, and White, the names of those on the left had two syllables Harlan, Brewer, Shiras, and Peckham. All were married, but no one of the justices on the right had ever had any children, while each of those on

the left had both children and grandchildren. The colors were all on the right, - Gray, Brown, and White, while the left was colorless.

In 1877 the court was called upon to take part or at least some of the justices were in the famous Electoral Commission, which decided the question of the presidency between Tilden and Hayes. This commission was composed of five members of the House, five members of the Senate, and five justices of the Supreme Court.

The project for such a commission had been for a few days under discussion. The day before the bill therefor was introduced into Congress, or perhaps before its details were known, Justice Clifford, who was the senior associate justice, called the clerk of the court into his room and dictated letters to be sent to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House, positively declining to sit on any such tribunal.