ferred to as the most important case with which Mr. Lincoln was ever connected. That this was a very important case is not denied. It involved consequences which were far-reaching, namely, the constitutionality of the act of the legislature exempting property of the railroad company from taxation in consideration of the payment of a fixed proportion of its earnings to the State. The contentions of Mr. Lincoln and those associated with him on behalf of the company were sustained by the Supreme Court and the decision has been of great value to it, but in the principles involved the case was of no greater importance than the case of The State of Illinois vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company, the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company vs. Morrison, and Hurd vs. Rock Island Bridge Company, and many others which might be mentioned.

Another interesting case in which Mr. Lincoln appeared in the Supreme Court was that of Isaac Smith vs. John H. Smith (shown as No. 161 in Appendix A), as it involved the recovery of an election bet growing out of the defeat of Millard Fillmore as a presidential candidate in 1856.

While many, perhaps a majority, of the cases listed in Appendix A involve controversies which in this day would be deemed of little consequence, it must not be forgotten that many of the principles

involved were then unsettled in Illinois, and these cases, though apparently insignificant, served to settle the law of the State and create precedents for the guidance of the people when similar questions should arise.

It must also be borne in mind that the lawyers of those days traveled the circuit, that their presence was necessary at the various terms of court, and that they tried many trivial cases for which they received little or no compensation, as it was no doubt quite as much to their liking to be engaged in actual trial work as to spend their time in any other way.

Another matter worthy of consideration is the fact that during the greater part of the period prior to 1860 the expense incident to a writ of error, or an appeal from the Circuit to the Supreme Court in Illinois was very slight. The rules of that court did not require the printing of briefs and abstracts of the record, such as are required at the present time. Lawyers usually argued their cases orally before the Supreme Court and contented themselves with citing their authorities during such argument, and perhaps handed to the court a list of the authorities relied upon. Therefore the labor of the lawyer was much less arduous and his remuneration small.

Nearly all of Lincoln's biographers have undertaken to give an account of his connection with the

case of McCormick vs. Manny, which was heard at Cincinnati in September, 1855. One writer, at least, has given an account of the matter as furnished by Mr. George Harding' of Philadelphia who, with Edwin M. Stanton, argued the case on behalf of the defendants, Manny and others. This account was so prepared as to relieve these distinguished lawyers, as far as possible, from criticism. The late John Bigelow, of New York, appointed by President Lincoln as United States consul at Paris, France, and afterwards United States minister at the court of France, knew Mr. Harding well, and Mr. Bigelow related to the writer the story as given to him by Mr. Harding. This account, it is believed, is well worth repeating here.

In September, 1911, the writer, while visiting Mr. Bigelow at Highland Falls, New York, discussed the career of Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Bigelow stated to the writer that, many years before, Mr. Harding had informed him that Mr. Stanton, Mr. Lincoln, and himself had each been retained as counsel for the defendants in the case mentioned, which was pending in the United States Circuit Court at Chicago; that the complainant, McCormick, was represented by Reverdy Johnson, the famous Baltimore lawyer, and E. N. Dickerson of Philadelphia.

1 Tarbell's Life of Lincoln, vol. II, p. 54..