University of Virginia Library

PERSONNEL OF THE SUPREME BENCH

As has been noted, the justices sit on the bench in strict order of precedence, the chief justice in the center. On his immediate right is the first associate justice in length of service, on his left the second, and so on, alternating down the four chairs on each side.

Chief Justice White now occupies the position of honor, and his massive frame and stately mien well befit the place. On his right, in order, are seated Justices McKenna, Day, Pitney, and Brandeis; on his left are justices Holmes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Clarke.

Of the chief justice it was once remarked by an admiring yet flippant visitor:

"No one could possibly be as wise as Justice White looks!"

He is a man of large frame, weighing more than two hundred pounds, and tall enough to carry the weight well. White was born in Louisiana in 1845. He is a Democrat, and served in the Confederate army. President Taft appointed him chief justice in 1910, promoting him from an associate justiceship.

Joseph McKenna, who sits on the right of the chief justice, was born in Pennsylvania in 1843, but moved at an early age to California, from which State he was appointed in 1898, after serving in Congress and as Attorney-General in McKinley's first cabinet. With Van Devanter, who is from Wyoming, he ably represents the great West in our highest court.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, the third justice in order of precedence, is a native of Boston, a graduate of Harvard, and a son of the famous Autocrat of the Breakfast Table. He was born in 1841, and appointed to the Supreme Court by Roosevelt in 1902. Holmes is a veteran of the Union army, where he attained the

rank of colonel, and was several times wounded. It is noteworthy that this Northern officer now sits by the side of the chief justice, who fought for the South.

Next to Holmes comes William R. Day, a native of Ohio, appointed by Roosevelt in 1903. He was born in 1849, the son of a member of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and studied at the University of Michigan. Day is the smallest man, physically, on the bench, but he is by no means insignificant mentally. Before he was appointed to the Federal bench he was Secretary of State under McKinley, which position he resigned to head the commission that negotiated a treaty of peace with Spain in 1898.

Willis Van Devanter, fifth on the list, was born in Indiana, but later moved to Wyoming. He was appointed a Federal circuit judge by President Roosevelt, and was elevated to the Supreme bench by President Taft in 1910.

Justice Mahlon Pitney is the sixth member. He is a New Jersey man, and was a classmate of President Wilson at Princeton. He was appointed by Taft in 1912. Pitney is the champion golf-player of the court, but it must be admitted that his legal attainments overshadow his excellence in the Scottish game.

James Clark McReynolds, the seventh justice, is a native of Tennessee, where he was born in 1862. He was promoted from the Attorney-Generalship of the United States to the Supreme Court by President Wilson in 1914. He is the only bachelor among the justices.

Louis D. Brandeis, eighth in rank, was born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1856. He is a graduate of Harvard, and for many years practised law in Boston, gaining wide fame as "the people's attorney." He was appointed by President Wilson in 1916, and confirmed by the Senate after a controversy which the reader will no doubt remember.

The ninth place was made vacant when Justice Hughes resigned to accept the Republican nomination for the Presidency; Brandeis, who had occupied that seat for only one day, moving up to eighth place, while Van Devanter succeeded to Hughes's place as fifth. The vacancy was filled by the appointment of John H. Clarke, formerly a leading lawyer of Cleveland, Ohio, and for two years a Federal district judge in Ohio.

A few years ago there was a general tendency to find fault with the Supreme Court for its alleged conservatism and bias in favor of "things as they are." It is no part of our purpose to discuss whether or not such allegations are justified; but it may be noted that recently this critical tendency has been dying out. Undoubtedly, with its present personnel, the court is keeping well abreast of modern thought, as was evidenced by its decision on the income-tax case.

It should be remembered, also, that it is no part of the duty of such a court to lead in radical thought. Its proper function is rather that of a stabilizer in the councils of the nation. There is no reason why every patriotic American should not breathe a fervent "Amen!" when the stentorian voice of the crier rings out with the impressive call:

"God save the United States and this honorable court!