The Washington herald., 1914-07-13
SUPREME court
MAKESARECORD
Disposes Of Biggest Number
Of Suits in Any Term
Since 1890.
535 CASES ON DOCKET
Department of Justice Wins 4o Out Of
70 Actions in Which U. S. Was
Party Before Highest Tribunal.
535 CASES ON DOCKET

The United States Supreme Court in
the term just closed made a record.
Only once in its history. and that IN
1880. have more cases been disposed Of
during a single term. and not In five
years have so few remained over for
consideration at the next term. During
the term just closed $50 cases were dis
posed of, or eight more than during the
previous term. or these, Isl were gov
eminent cases, an increase Of nine.
When the court adjourned for the term.
SIS cases remained on the docket un-
disposed Of. or eighty-one less than a
year ago. There are now on the docket
ninety-one government cases. or twenty
five less than a year ago. OF these, six
have been argued. During the term 52i
cases were docketed or three more than
during the term OF q year ago. or the
cases before the court, those In which
the United States was a party were more
than one-hfth OF the total number. 81
magnificent record was made by the
Department OF Justice during the first
full year under Attorney General Nc
Reynolds. The credit for this is largely
due to Solicitor General John w. Davis,
who Is in charge Of the litigation be-
fore the court.
U. s. Wins Fofty-nIne Suits.
OF the seventy cases In which the gov
was luAtENHNru aS parry NAS
United States was successful in forty
nine or these seventy cases, forty-three
were taken to the Supreme. Court by the
other side. and twenty-seven by the
government. 1t is significant that Of
these brought before the court by the
side opposing the government, only seven
were decided against the government.
A creditable showing also was made by
the government in the matter OF writs
fnr - he alRhfaan Rnad hV
the other side were all denied. Eighteen
cases were dismissed during the term,
twelve on application OF counsel for the
other side. four by tenth rule, and two
on application OF the United States. OF
the forty-nine cases decided in favor OF
the government. one was an original
case. the State OF Louisiana ". Nc
Adoo. OF the remaining forty-eight, the
following thirteen were taken up by the
United States; California Switching
cases; Z. S. V. Antkamnia Chemical
Company: international Rate cases; u.
s. v. Panama Hats; u. S. V. Sandoval;
L. S. v. Davis: Pipe Line cases; L. s. "
ReEan: L. s. ". Young: L. s. v. Bird
sail ct al: q. 8. v. Pelican: johnson v.
Gearlds; L. g. Y. Foster. The following
thrty-hve were taken UP by the other
side: Maibaum v. u. g.: Laplna v. WILL
Jams: Laria V. L. S: Yacht Tax cases:
Graham ". L. s.; Goldberg V. Daniels;
Pronovost v. U. s.: Nadal v. May; Lee
Y. L. s.; Wilson V: U. s.: Bowling v.
L. s.: Miller v L. s.; Grant Bros. V.
U. s.. Diamond Coal Company V. L. s.:
ellison v. L. g.: Lewis ". Frick; Ocampo
v. L. s: d. l. & w. r. R. V. U. s.:
Green v. Menominee Indians and U. s.;
Eliot v. u. s.; Washington Sec. Co,
Y. L. 8: NJ. K. & T. r. R.. ~. u. r.
strattons, Ind, v. HowbertL Lumber Deal
ers case: Pacific Creosoting Company V.
L. s.: Lemon Rate case: Shreveport cases:
Kansas City Southern v. L. g.; Penning-
ton v. L. s: Preceding and Pre-icing
case: Thureton v. L. 81 Perrin V. L. S
Itow Y. L. s.; Apapas v. L. s.; Paiarillo
v. L. s: ID and a..
U. =. Intervenes in Four CascH.
OF the twenty-oue cases decided against
the government the following fourteen
we're taken up by the United States: L.
S. V. Axman: L. s. v. Vulte; u. :. V.
Co: L. S. v. Moist: L. s.
v United Eng & Co: B. o. LighterAge
case: L. s. V. whitridge & Joline; Bleach
ed Flour case: L. s. V. Beatty; u. 9. V.
Buchanan: L. 8. v. Carter: Tap Line |
cases: Mixed Blood Indian cases; Lane v.
Watts. and the following seven oy the !
other side: Cameron V. L. s.: Hollerbach |
= L. g.: Stone. Sand & Gravel V. L. s.; |
Florida East Coast Ry. V. L. s.; Ea- Ex. |
Tel Co. v. U. $; Weeks v. L. s.: Sum
mers V. L. S.
The government intervened in four |
,ases The decision OF the court Is in |
Heated in each, as follows: Little v. WILL |
ans (affirmed): L. & n. R-R. v. Gar |
cit (affirmedD; Chapman & D. L. Co. v. |
81. F. Levee Dist. reversed; Burke-So. /
Pac. OIL Land cases flavor r. RI
The following cases were disposed OF on
notion: Orig. Jonas Jones Qeave TO file |
'ctition habeas corpus denied: Orig. |
irimsinger Qeave TO file petition habeas
'orpus denied; Orig. Grimsinger 0eave TO I
liz amended petition denied: Orig. La
= McAdoo Oeave TO file bill complaint
ieniedD. Anderson v. Meyer Qeave to ile
,etitIon- certiorari in forma pauperis de-
,iedD; Brown V. Lane application for al
owance writ OF error denied).
Certiorari wrIts Denied.
The following petitions for writ OF GER
iorari were denied: Davey v. u. s.;