Page images
PDF
EPUB

there be any greater incentive to high professional endeavor?

The American Bar Association has recently sought to stimulate the American people to a better appreciation of the American Constitution. With that movement our guest, Mr. Saner, the President of the Association, has been prominently associated. American lawyers, familiar with the development of our institutions, will not fail to appreciate the importance of keeping alive among the entire people the spirit in which they were conceived. Where they still serve their purpose they will seek to preserve them, and, where changing conditions require that they may be modified, they will approach that task with constructive and not destructive intent. There must be no sentimental attachment to the Constitution as a fetich, but a clear appreciation of its main structure and an understanding why our civil liberty is safe-guarded by the Bill or Rights and such provisions as those securing a balance between the powers of the State and the General Government, the guarantee of a republican form of government to the states, and the separation of the political powers of government, with independent judiciary to delimit their boundaries. the reason for these guarantees be understood, we need fear no devastating interference by the extreme right or the extreme left of political opinion. And we must always bear in mind that "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Brilliant rhapsodies on human liberty and constitutional provisions no less perfect than those embodied in our fundamental instrument have not saved Spanish-American countries from recurring revolutions. Too often these have been made a cloak to cover vaulting ambition and revolting cruelties; and patriotism has been

If

made the last refuge of scoundrels. The principles of enduring self-government need something more than the formulation of the doctrines of Locke and Montesquieu and our English forefathers. They need understanding and self-sacrifice-the devotion of the individual to the common weal.

In his life of Caesar, Froude has said:

"Popular forms of government are possible only when individual men can govern their own lives on moral principles, and when duty is of more importance than pleasure, and justice than material expediency."

It is these principles that lawyers can teach better than any other group in the community.

VII

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF

IN A recent

NEW YORK*

'N A recent enlargement of the Association's quarters the Art Committee determined to commemorate the first session of the United States Supreme Court in this city. Accordingly, a court room was designed for the new building and it has been equipped with a reproduction of the furniture and fittings used in the original room of the Court. To give the idea still more significance, the Committee charged with the duty of entertaining distinguished guests deemed it appropriate to have the present Chief Justice of the United States participate in a dedication of the room. I was deputed to secure his attendance. With some ineptitude, I unwittingly gave him the impression that he was to make a few remarks to a dozen members of the Committee gathered around a table in the contracted precincts of the court room. When I wrote him of the real nature of the occasion, he administered a fraternal and judicial rebuke that I had lured him into making a real speech. But I told him that if he would deliver a speech such as he would make to a dozen men gathered around a small table, I was sure that it would be acceptable.

* Made at dinner to Chief Justice William H. Taft tendered by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, March 21, 1924.

Now a word as to the historical event we are celebrating.

On Monday, February 1st, 1790, the Supreme Court held its first session in a building at the foot of Wall Street. The uncertainties of horseback travel had delayed some of the Justices, and a quorum was not present, and an adjournment was taken until the next day. The Court then organized and the public record shows that

"Proclamation was made for silence, while the letters patent of the Justices present are openly read, upon pain of imprisonment."

But there was no business for the Court and it again adjourned to the next day and again to Friday, February 5th, of the same week, when nineteen lawyers were admitted to practice as counselors before the Court. Of these, eleven were members of Congress and this fact brought this criticism from the press:

"If Congress does consist of practicing attorneys, the laws enacted, in great measure, depend on the particular causes such individuals may have to manage in the Judiciary; this being the case, the property of the people may in a few years become the sport of LawMakers acting in the capacity of interested attorneys." And another critic said:

"Make them (lawyers) Governors, Judges, Generals and what you will, but never make them legislators." I am afraid the admonition has never been heeded. The rule under which lawyers were admitted to practice provided that "their private and professional character shall appear to be fair."

The rule worked smoothly in New York. A year

later, however, the seat of government having been removed to Philadelphia, trouble began. The bar of that city had assumed that their fellow-practitioner, Justice Wilson, would vouch for their personal and professional character, but that he declined to do, except in the case of one lawyer whom he vouched for "with apparent reluctance." Nor would the Court permit one lawyer to vouch for another. And when the Attorney General proposed Mr. Ingersoll, who had been a member of Congress and of the Federal Convention, the Chief Justice said, "he might be a good member of Congress and yet no lawyer"; and Mr. Ingersoll withdrew his application. However, finally all the lawyers who applied were admitted. I wonder if what took place had any relation to the tradition as to the "Philadelphia lawyer."

I mention the incident to contrast it with the present conditions. For now the most prompt and urbane thing the Chief Justice does is to invite the neophyte to step to the desk of the Clerk and take the oath.

President Washington has not, I think, received the credit he deserved for what he did in establishing our judiciary in its proper place as a part of our governmental system. In no other direction did he display more wisdom and foresight. Presidents who have been laymen have not always realized the importance of maintaining our judiciary at the highest point of learning, efficiency and character. Not all of his contemporaries foresaw, as Washington did, that the judiciary was to be the keystone of the governmental structure. Even Jay was pessimistic as to its future, and eminent lawyers declined appointment to the bench because there was a greater usefulness in serving their states. But Washing

« PreviousContinue »