prudence; and some of them have, or will become, the opinions of the court. In this catalogue we place, with absolute confidence, his dissenting opinion in the Sugar Trust case.

SPEECH OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE DINNER TO MR. JUSTICE HARLAN.. - At the dinner to Mr. Justice HARLAN, described in the preceding paragraph, President ROOSEVELT spoke as follows:

:

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:

It is a peculiar privilege to be here to-night as one of those gathered to do homage to a career which has honored America. It is difficult to say certain of the truths which most need be said without being guilty of truisms in saying them. It is not an idle boast of this country when we speak of the court upon which Mr. Justice Harlan sits as the most illustrious and important in all the civilized world. It is not merely our own people who say that it is the verdict of other nations as well.

Mr. Justice Harlan has served for a quarter of a century on that court. During that time he has exercised an influence over the judicial statesmanship of the court of a kind such as is possible only under our own form of government. For the judges of the Supreme Court of the land must be not only great jurists but they must be great constructive statesmen, and the truth of what I say is illustrated by every study of American statesmanship, for in not one serious study of American political life will it be possible to omit the immense part played by the Supreme Court in the creation, not merely the modification, of the great policies through and by means of which the country has moved on to her present position.

Thrice fortunate is the court when it has as one of its members a man who has played a great part in other spheres of our complete life.

Mr. Justice Harlan came from Kentucky, a State in which the patriotism of the people was put to so peculiarly a severe test in the civil war. In the States

of the farther north it was easy for the man to make up his mind on which side he would unsheath his sword. In the States of the farther south it was equally easy. In Kentucky the task was a difficult one.

I remember, Mr. Justice, being told by an American who was a stanch friend of yours and one of the greatest lawyers and most patriotic citizens this country had John Mason Brown - that he came back from a trip from the West as a young man of twenty-one just at the time of the outbreak of the civil war, just after Sumter had been fired upon, and his mother brought down to him the sword that his father had carried in the Mexican war and said to him: "My son, this is the sword your father carried. I hope you will draw it on the side that defends the flag for which your father fought, but for one side or the other draw it you must!"

In any audience in any State of the Union, take it as far north as you wish, I can appeal with confidence to the people I address when I say that next to the homage we pay to the men who proved the truth of their endeavor as they battled in the blue uniform is the homige we pay to the men who, with equal sincerity, with equal devotion to the right as it was given them to see the right, wore the gray. And none pay that tribute of regard so frankly as those who themselves wore the blue in battle.

And, having said that, I am sure that none of my friends who fought in the Coafederate service will misunderstand me, or will grudge what I am about to say, when I say that the greatest debt owed by this country to any set of men is owed by it to those men of the so-called border States, the men who in statesmanship followed Clay and the Crittendens and the Blairs, the men who as soldiers fought on the same side with Thomas and with Farragut, the men who were for the Union without regard to whether their immediate associates were for it or not.

In New York, in Massachusetts, in Illinois, in Iowa, the men who stood for the Union went with the stream. In parts of Kentucky, of Virginia, of Missouri, they stemmed the torrent.

Two of my uncles fought

And, gentlemen, I amhalf a Southerner myself. in the Confederate army. One of them served under the father-in-law of viceGovernor Luke Wright of the Philippine Islands. And so I think I have the right to say that, knowing the Southern people as I do, I would heartily advocate fighting twice as hard as you fought from '61 to '65 for the privilege of staying in the same Union with them.

The man to be a great statesman on the bench of the Supreme Court must have many qualities, and fortunate are we that this evening we can point to Justice Harlan as embodying them. A good citizen must be a good citizen in peace and in war. He must have the decent and orderly virtues, and he must have the essential manliness, for the lack of which no good intention can atone.

It will be a bad thing for the nation if ever we grow as a nation to submit to the suppression of efficiency and morality, if we ever grow to accept the belief that we are to have two camps, in one of which will be grouped the men who mean well but who do not do things, and in the other the men who do things but who do not mean well.

The art of successful self-government is not an easy art for people or for individuals. It comes to our people here as the inheritance of ages of effort. It can be thrown away; it can be unlearned easily, and it will surely be unlearned if we forget the vital need not merely of preaching but of practicing both sets of virtues if we forget the vital need of having the average citizen not only a good man but a man.

It is a fine thing to have on the Supreme Court a man who dared venture all for the great prize of death in battle when the country called for him and then the man who after the war was closed did not content himself with living an ignoble life on the plea that he had done so well it was not necessary to do more, but who continued to do his duty as a citizen all the better because he had done it as a soldier; the man who remembered that duty done, to be of practical use, must serve not as an excuse for not doing further duty, but as

an incentive, as a spur, to make him feel ashamed that his present or his future should fall short of his past.

Judge Harlan, I greet you personally, sir; I wish to express my own personal debt to you for your influence, for your example, but I wish far more, speaking as the representative of all our people, to express the infinite sense of obligation we have to you for having shown by your life what the type of fearless American citizenship should be.

THE POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM. At the same banquet Mr. Justice Harlan spoke, in part, as follows:

The power of the court, for good or for evil, can scarcely be exaggerated. If it can not actually shape the destiny of our country, it can exert a commanding influence in that direction. It can by its judgments strengthen our institutions in the confidence and affections of the people, or, more easily than any other department of the government, it can undermine the foundations of our governmental system. It can undo the work of the fathers by abrogating old canons of constitutional construction that have helped to make this the foremost nation of the earth. It can-to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall" explain away the Constitution of our country, and leave it, a magnificent structure, indeed, to look at, but totally unfit for use." But we all rejoice that it has it in its power to hold, and, in the judgment of America, it has steadily held the country in the path of safety, so that to-day our people believe, as we trust they will always believe, that the preservation of the Union, under the Constitution, is the surest guarantee of liberty regulated by law, as well as of the success of all movements and all policies demanded by the common good. If our institutions should be assailed and overthrown - no matter by whom or in what way—whether by arbitrary power, by corruption, or by lawlessness, the last citadel to be taken by the assailants will be our incomparable judicial organization.

--

That the court holds the unique position it does, that it is invested with the extraordinary authority it wields, and that we have a judicial system which Washington declared was the chief pillar of the national government, is due primarily to the far-seeing statesmen of the revolutionary period. Prior to that time a few individual writers like Montesquieu had expressed the thought that the separation of the judicial department from other departments of government was essential to liberty. But it remained for the American people, in advance of all other peoples, to distribute the powers of government among three separate, co-equal and co-ordinate departments, and to secure that distribution against sudden change by means of a Constitution that should be the supreme law of the land an 1 therefore binding upon all. That doctrine is the foundation of our freedom.

It may be said

indeed it has been said by way of criticism that the action

of the Supreme Court has not always met with universal approval, and that its members have often differed upon grave questions of constitutional law. Such occasions will always arise in the case of any tribunal constituted by human authority. But it is gratifying to know that those occasions have not weakened the position of the court before the country. There is abundant reason to believe that the people confide in its patriotism, its integrity and its learning, and have an abiding faith that no permanent or irreparable harm will come to the republic by any action that court will ever take. In the early history of our country it was the fear of some that the Supreme Court, exerting the enormous power conferred upon it, might ultimately so change our form of government as to destroy or endanger the essential rights of the States and imperil those fundamental rights of life, liberty and property which belong to free men. But few, if any, now entertain such apprehensions, and there is practical unanimity among statesmen, jurists and the people, as to the essential nature of our institutions. It is now the established and accepted doctrine that the Constitution, emanating from and representing the people of the United States, creates a government with certain powers for defined purposes and with paramount authority within the sphere of the exercise of those powers; leaving to the States full control in all matters the supervision and determination of which they have not surrendered and which have not been committed by the people to the national government. No American lawyer now questions the supremacy of the Constitution in respect of every subject intrusted to that government, or the wisdom of the provision made for its final interpretation, or the absolute necessity for the maintenance of our liberties, that all the rightful powers of the States be preserved and respected. Every patriot recognizes the fact that the best friend of the Union is he who recognizes the just rights and powers of the States, and the best friend of the States is he who recognizes the just rights and powers of the Union.

God bless our dear country. God bless every effort to sustain and strengthen it in the hearts of the people of every race subject to its jurisdiction or authority.

A NEW HOME FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Among the many bills introduced to provide a site for the erection of a building for the accommodation of the Supreme Court of the United States is one introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Mercer, referred to a Committee of the Whole, amended in several particulars, and ordered to be printed. It does not differ materially from several measures of the same kind which have been introduced, either in the Senate or in the House, and which have been described in these

pages. It provides for the condemnation or purchase of three squares of ground situated to the north of the Capitol and to the east of the Congressional Library, for the erection of a fireproof building "for the accommodation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Department of Justice, the National Law Library, and International Commissions or Congresses;" and the first section of the bill adds and for other purposes." We suppose that the Department of Justice includes the whole judicial machinery of the United States situated within the District of Columbia; the offices, rooms, or chambers of the AttorneyGeneral, of the Solicitor-General, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, of the Court of Claims, and of everything else down to and including the ten Justices of the Peace, "with all that the term implies." There would be no objection to providing suitable apartments to be used by international tribunals in case of necessity in a building occupied by the Supreme Court of the United States; but to have anything else relating to the judicial establishment of the United States huddled into the same building with that great tribunal would be both inconvenient and unseemly. Mr. Mercer's report from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds in favor of his bill states that "the National Bar Association, comprising attorneys-at-law from every State in the Union, has several times petitioned Congress to make the provisions for the judiciary which this measure contemplates." This is inaccurate. First, there is no such body as The National Bar Association. There was one some years ago, but it passed out of existence. There is a body known as The American Bar Association, and it is composed of members of the Bar from every State in the Union. At its last session at Saratoga it discussed this question up and down, and voted down every amendment which contemplated the crowding together of other offices of the Judiciary Department of the Government, and especially of the local judiciary of the District of Columbia, into the same building with the Supreme Court of the United States; and finally passed, almost unanimously, the following resolution:

Resolved, By the American Bar Association, That Congress should, without further delay, take measures to provide a suitable building for the exclusive occupation and use of the Supreme Court of the United States, its officers, its bar, and its library.

The whole stress of the debate upon this resolution lay in the question whether Congress should take the Department of Justice and other