its connected,
with this, and involving the ownership, sale, and complicated rights of
several parties to the Mobile and Ohio Railroad.

"After two days' skirmishing, the court ordered the three suits to be
consolidated. The question I had prepared myself on passed wholly out of
sight, and the whole entanglement of an insolvent railroad, twenty-five
years old, and lying across four States, and costing $20,000,000, came
upon us at once. There were seven lawyers in the case besides me. On one
side were John A. Campbell, of New Orleans, late member of the Supreme
Bench of the United States; a leading New York and a Mobile lawyer.
Against us were Judge Hoadley, of Cincinnati, and several Southern men.
I was assigned the duty of summing up the case for our side, and
answering the final argument of the opposition. I have never felt myself
in such danger of failure before, all had so much better knowledge of
the facts than I, and all had more experience with that class of
litigation? but I am very sure no one of them did so much hard work, in
the five nights and six days of the trial, as I did. I am glad to tell
you that I have received a dispatch from Mobile, that the court adopted
my view of the case, and gave us a verdict on all points."

Who can doubt, after reading of these two cases, that had Garfield
devoted himself to the practice of the law exclusively, he would have
made one of the most successful members of the profession in the
country, perhaps risen to the highest rank? As it was, he was only able
to devote the time he could spare from his legislative labors.

These increased as years sped. On the retirement of James G. Blaine from
the lower House of Congress, the leadership of his party devolved upon
Garfield. It was a post of honor, but it imposed upon him a vast amount
of labor. He must qualify himself to speak, not superficially, but from
adequate knowledge upon all points of legislation, and to defend the
party with which he was allied from all attacks of political opponents.

On this subject he writes, April 21, 1880: "The position I hold in the
House requires an enormous amount of surplus work. I am compelled to
look ahead at questions likely to be sprung upon us for action, and the
fact is, I prepare for debate on ten subjects where I actually take part
in but one. For example, it seemed certain that the Fitz John Porter
case would be discussed in the House, and I devoted the best of two
weeks to a care