such a prerogative as never before was conferred upon a body of advocates. But does that high prerogative carry with it no corresponding duty? Are we charged with nothing as the price of such a privilege? Have we no other trust to execute in respect to the American Constitution than that which all citizens are charged with and are expected to perform? It is idle to adjure men to maintain the Constitution or to compel them to swear to support it. Every man proposes to maintain and support the Constitution-as his party understands it. The question is, What is the Constitution? When a great and critical emergency arises, when a crisis fraught with extreme and vital consequences approaches, what is the Constitution? Who is to determine it, and, above all, upon what principle and basis of construction? That is the question. It was pointed out to us, in the elegant and scholarly essay of Mr. Mercer, to which we listened last night, how the concurrent testimony of all human experience establishes the truth that the interpretation and the strength of law is but a reflex of the national spirit out of which all law arises. There is, as it seems to me, a practical and immediate application of that proposition to the legal profession of this country in this very particular. Their influence is great; their influence upon legislation-their influence upon judicial proceedings-their influence upon the public mind-upon political sentiment, especially in respect to questions particularly within their province. It is from them that the true spirit of the jurisprudence of the country on all subjects, and, above all, this subject, must of necessity emanate. It is they who make it; it is through them that it must take effect. That political parties will always exist is inevitable; that they always should exist is probably desirable; that members of our profession, as of all other professions, should represent all shades of political opinion, and belong to all parties, is to be expected; though I hope, on some of them, party ties hang very loose. The question is, how far party differences shall go. Where shall they set out? where shall they terminate? Shall they invade the province of the fundamental law? Is that to be administered by politicians, to be construed by caucuses, to stand or fall upon political considerations, and for the purposes of partisan success? Are not there divergent paths enough, which, starting from the Constitution as a common ground, and running in every direction through all the ramifications of the administration of government, through the whole boundless field of policy and statesmanship and expediency, are not they enough for all the purposes of politics, and all the warfare of party? Should not the lawyers of this country meet as on a common ground in respect to all questions arising upon the national Constitution, dealing with them as questions of jurisprudence, and not of party, setting their feet upon and their hands against all efforts to transgress the true limits of the Constitution, or to make it at all the subject of political discussion? It is too true that this Constitution of ours, in respect of which it might well be said to him who approaches it, "Put off thy party shoes from off thy feet, for the place on which thou standest is holy ground"—it is too true that it has become more and more a subject to be hawked about the country, debated in the news papers, discussed from the stump, elucidated by pothouse politicians and dunghill editors, scholars in the science of government who have never found leisure for the graces of English grammar or the embellishments of correct spelling. When we reflect upon all this country has passed through, is there no light to be gathered from experience? Should not the members of this conservative profession, "as honorable as justice, as ancient as the forms of law," charged with a duty in this regard so special, and so important, should not they stand together upon these as upon all other questions of jurisprudence, considering and discussing them only upon considerations that belong to jurisprudence, and not upon those that are in the domain of politics? Should not they of all men stand together and unite to put an end, as I believe they might put an end, if their action was unanimous, not to political controversy that is neither to be expected nor desiredbut to that most destructive form of political controversy, coming from whatever party, or from whatever quarter, or for whatever purpose, that seeks to invade the foundations of the constitutional law and to plant them on the shifting and treacherous sands of partisan expediency? And, gentlemen, allow me one further suggestion. What good is to come from this Association we are trying to build up? What is to be its significance, or its ultimate value? What is to repay us, or any of us, for turning aside from the current of our busy lives to meet together here? Questions of detail in the machinery of the law will be usefully dealt with, no doubt. The pleasure of meeting and forming acquaintances between men of the profession from all the various States will doubtless be great. But what final good, what permanent usefulness is reasonably to be expected from it, unless it be the creation in our profession, by common consent, by mutual intercourse and support, of a broad, national, elevated, independent, fearless spirit of constitutional jurisprudence- the spirit that builds up and perpetuates, rather than that which pulls down and destroys? We come together from all parts of our country— our common country-from the scenes of a desolation and sorrow on all hands, that God alone can estimate over graves numberless to our arithmetic the harvest of the effort to settle constitutional questions by force of arms. Let it all pass. We come to bury the armed Cæsar, not to praise him. To renew again, in faith and hope, the work which Marshall and his associates began, of cementing and building up on firm and lasting foundations the American Constitution. Is it the Court alone that is charged with that duty? Have we no part or lot in the matter? Lingers among us no memory of those who are gone? Comes down to us no echo from our fathers' time that shall awake an answering voice? Fortunately for us all, we have, in the successors of the old Court, an upright and excellent tribunal, judges who have addressed themselves, and will continue to address themselves, with great ability, patriotism, and success to the difficult and embarrassing questions born of the troubled time. But no court can stand without the cordial support of the bar. It was the strength of Marshall's Court that those great men who rallied about it in the profession, and aided in its discussions, stood by it and sustained it before the country, when important decisions were made, with a moral force that was adequate to all occasions. It is idle to say that our sky is free from clouds. It is useless to deny that wise and thoughtful men entertain grave doubts about the future. The period of experiment has not yet passed, or, rather, has been again renewed. The stability of our system of government is not yet assured. The demagogue and the caucus still threaten the nation's life. But we shall not despair. Still remains to us "our faith, triumphant o'er our fears." Let us only, for our part, see to it that we discharge the duty that every man owes to his profession. And come what may, "Thro' plots and counterplots Thro' gain and loss-thro' glory and disgrace- let us join hands in a fraternal and unbroken clasp to maintain the grand and noble traditions of our inheritance, and to stand fast by the ark of our covenant. |