Supreme Court of the United States. There is naturally a great deal of feeling on the subject, but it is not unprecedented for a President to have his nomination for a Supreme Court justice rejected by a Senate in which his own party is in the majority. President Grant had three such nominations rejected at a time when the republican party was in a much larger majority in the Senate than the democratic party now is. The first was in the case of E. Rockwood Hoar, of Massachusetts, who was refused confirmation partly through the influence of Gen. Butler, and partly, it was said, because, as a member of the cabinet, he had made himself unpopular with certain republican senators. The second was the nomination of George H. Williams, of Oregon,

another member of Grant's cabinet, to be chief justice. This was the more marked because Mr. Williams had been a senator, and it is usual to confirm senators without the formality of reference to a committee. The objection to Mr. Williams was that he was not a sufficiently able lawyer. The third rejection was that of Caleb Cushing for the same place. Mr. Cushing had had a peculiar history. He had not the confidence of any party, having been a democrat before the war, occupying a doubtful position in the first years of its progress, and professed a republicanism that was not considered very deep after it was over. He was an exceedingly able man, but his selection for this place was deemed decidedly eccentric.

ADDRESS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BY VICE-PRESIDENT STEVENSON.

in the modes of administering justice, and in the character and learning of its tribunals. The advance steps taken from time to time in the history of jurisprudence are the milestones which stand out on the grand pathway of civilization. All along the pathway of human progress the courts of justice have been the true criteria by which to judge of the intelligence and the virtue of our race.

The common law was a grand inheritance from our English-speaking ancestors. In this respect, as in others, "America was the heir of all the ages." In the terse words of Emerson, "the nervous language of the common law, the impressive forms of our courts, the precision and the substantial truth of the legal distinctions, are the contribution of all the sharp-sighted and strong-minded men who have lived in the countries where these laws govern." With the institution of tribunals, however rude, for the administration of justice, arose the necessity for a distinctive profession learned in the law and skilled in its practice.

men

Chancellor Kent has well said: "The necessity of a distinct profession, to render the application of the law easy and certain to every individual case, has always been felt in every government of written As property becomes secure, and the arts are cultivated, and commerce flourishes, and when wealth and luxury are introduced, and create the

law.

infinite distinctions and refinements of civilized life, the law will gradually but necessarily assume the character of a complicated science, requiring for its application the skill and learning of a particular profession. After the publication of the Twelve Tables suitors at Rome were obliged to resort to the assistance of their patrons, and judicial proceedings became the subject of study of a distinct and learned body of men."

It is of the lawyer I would speak; and I count it indeed an honor to address the representatives of the bar of a State which has given to the highest court that the world has yet known, such splendid types of the American lawyer and jurist as Jay, Liv

is a debtor to his profession," I respond in brief words to the invitation so cordially extended me by the State Bar Association of New York.

Law, as a profession, is the necessary outgrowth of civilization. In his rude state man avenged his wrongs with his strong arm, and the doctrine that "might makes right" passed unchallenged. But as communities assumed organic form, rude tribunals were instituted for the administration of justice and the maintenance of public order. The progress of society from a condition of barbarism, ignorance and superstition, to a state of the highest culture and refinement, may be traced by its advancement

"As are the lawyers of any given period, so will be the courts before which they appear." Tested by this rule, it cannot be wondered that a State which has given to the bar, with others no less illustrious, such lawyers as Kent, Spencer, Seward, Hoffman, Emmett, Butler, Wells, Brady, Conkling, O'Conor, and, in its infancy, the great Hamilton, should for a century have gloried in a court of last resort whose adjudications rank in all of the States second only to those of the great Federal tribunal.

Truly, the history of American law would be but indifferently made up that failed to give much of what has been adjudicated, and much of what has

been written, by the eminent men who for a century have constituted your Court of Appeals, and whose thought is the warp and woof of the jurisprudence of this great State. Standing in this presence I would be unmindful of the obligations of this hour if I failed to allude to the contributions of Chancellor Kent to the domain of American law. At the close of a most distinguished career as chancellor of the State, he turned the faculties of his great mind in the direction of giving form and system to the law, and as a result of his labors there has endured for nearly three-quarters of a century that immortal production instructing the student in the rudiments of the profession and enlightening the judge in the discharge of the highest functions of his office. He is to American law what Blackstone was to English, and whatever may have been, or may be, the excellence of professional or judicial virtue in others, his labors will stand pre-eminent among the intellectual achievements of American history.

The law, as a profession, is progressive. Of necessity its practice must adapt itself to the everchanging conditions of human society. All wisdom did not die with the Fathers. Many of the maxims of the early writers are obsolete. Much of their abstruse learning belongs to the past. The technical rules of pleading have, in most of the States, given place to those adapted to the promotion, not the defeat, of the ends of justice. The success of the suitor must, in the main, depend upon the justice of his cause-not upon the depth of the research of his counsel into the mysteries of the black letter.

Every step is in the right direction which tends to simplify judicial proceedings to avoid the meshes in which a cause was wont to be entangled

-and thus vigilantly guard the rights of suitors. The "be all and end all" of judicial proceedings should be-with the least delay and expense practicable-to secure the ends of justice. "For justice, all place a temple." In the words of Mr. Webster: "Justice is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. Wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, general happiness and the improvement and progress of our race. And whoever labors on this edifice, with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself in name and fame and character with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human society."

It has been said that "the law is a jealous mistress," and that he who would attain eminence, or even moderate success in the profession, must know no other love. Too often the student is taught that

the attainment of the highest success in the profession of the law is absolutely dependent upon the fidelity with which he ignores all other lines of thought and of action.

Politics has deen defined "the science of govern. ment;" in its highest sense, it is the science in action of human affairs. I dissent from what I conceive to be pernicious teaching that the lawyer must hold himself aloof from politics - which means that to hands other than his own must be wholly committed his dearest interests. Such teaching can be justified only upon the supposition that money-getting is the highest aim of those who enter this noble profession. If material gain be his only purpose in life, then undoubtedly there are paths open before him which promise greater rewards than can be hoped for in the profession of the law. The same talents successfully applied in other fields would bring to his coffers far greater gain. If riches be his chief goal, they can be attained with much less of endeavor-less of the wear and tear of brain in any of the great industrial enterprises which are the outgrowth of modern civilization.

But, if it be true that the lawyer has higher aims, then upon his shoulders must of necessity rest no small part of the responsibilities which attach to citizenship in a free government. The teaching that he who would attain the greatest meed of success in a calling which has as its chief corner-stone character and intelligence, must cast to the winds all responsibilities of government, take no concern as to who controls the primaries or the caucus — in a word, practically abdicate his citizenship—must

bear pernicious fruit in a government of the people.

Can it be doubted that many of the abuses in the practical administration of public affairs have sprung from the teachings I have mentioned ?

If there be foundation for the complaint that politics, especially in our large cities, has reached a low ebb, may not its origin be traced to the causes indicated? Is it of rare occurrence that those who make most vehement complaint of extravagance and corruption in public administration - especially in municipal government - are those who pride themselves upon the fact that they have "no lot or part in the matter," and whose dignity would be offended by the suggestion that they attend in person a caucus or a convention? As between such be they ever so well equipped for the discussion of public questions, or the administration of public affairs-and the practical politician, though he stand upon ever so low a plane, the latter will always control. If it be true that politics has become with a large class a mere business, has not the time come when men of greater opportunities and of higher aims should,

even at the sacrifice of personal comfort and convenience, exert a more potent influence in public affairs?

Is it less true to-day than when the words were uttered by the great Englishman: "The bar is inseparable from our national life, from the security of our national institutions the calling upon which, in no small degree, depend the rights and liberties of both individuals and nations. Is it not itself high privilege and duty to supply the just weights and balances of the scale of justice, and stand forward for the weak and helpless, upon great occasions, when public liberties are in question.' How suggestive then, these words, of the measureless responsibilities resting upon the American lawyer. In a government by the people, it is his to formulate , and interpret its laws. Of necessity he sits in the high place, where his utterances become the "living voice of the Constitution." As has been said by one of the greatest of living lawyers, "though in the convention or at the polls his vote counts one, yet - owing to his advantages, his opportunities his influence may count thousands." How timely the suggestion of Mr. Field, "we must disabuse our minds of the pernicious belief that abuses will cure themselves," and recognize the startling fact that as the necessary consequence of corrupt rule in large

cities, "municipal taxation may become practical confiscation."

It cannot be doubted that the last third of a century has measurably lessened the influence of the lawyer in the politics of the State and of the nation This may be accounted for, in part, by the marvellous growth of the country and the development of its resources — the necessary outgrowth of which has been the creation of great corporations. Within the period mentioned, much of the talent has been diverted from general practice and from active participation in public affairs, to the less laborious and more remunerative service of legal advisers to these great industrial enterprises.

In the formative stages of a representative government the services of the lawyer are indispensable in formulating its fundamental law, and the statutes under it, necessary to the security of life, property and domestic happiness. The training and work of a lawyer, in a free government, lead him to observe all the processes, public and private, by which the citizen secures, establishes and maintains his rights. The hostility to the profession which has from time to time manifested itself, in many localities and amongs tcertain classes, in the main arises in times of national tranquillity, when the work of the lawyer has been done, in writing the laws and shaping governmental polity. It must not be forgotten that respect for the law is inseparable from respect for its

-

What of the future? We know that questions of vast moment have been determined grave problems have been solved - during our brief life as a nation. And yet who can doubt that along our future pathway will arise conditions equally fraught with peril to our national safety, as any that in the past have tested the wisdom and the patriotism of our fathers?

The future danger is not from foreign foe, as during the first two decades, nor along sectional lines, as at a later period of our history. But with the multiplication and increase of individual fortunes

- thus emphasizing the distance that separates their possessors from the toiling millions; with the rapidly augmenting power of aggregated wealth, and the murmurings and unrest that follow as the night the day;" with the influx and the growth of an element whose principle in action is the destruction of the safeguards of law and Constitutions; with the rapid increase in every field of endeavor, of appliances which mercilessly dispense with the labor of human hands, and with population pressing upon the means of subsistence- who can doubt that from all these may spring dangers to society, to the State, unknown to the first century of the republic?

The all-important inquiry, then, wherein will lie our safety? Who can doubt but that history will repeat itself, and that the lawyer will be found in the forefront of those who stand as the bulwark of what it has cost our race the struggles of centuries to achieve. As in the past, the lawyer will stand for the existing order of things for liberty regulated by law; it will be his to conserve, to strengthen, not to destroy, the foundations of our social fabric. In a degree that words cannot measure, our protection will be in our courts of justice. An intelligent and incorruptible judiciary will prove indeed our city of refuge.

It needs no prophet to foretell that the coming century will witness a general diffusion of information among all classes of our people, and an advancement along all lines of useful and polite learn