RETROSPECTIVE VIEW - Customs, Courtesies and Ceremonies

CHARLES HENRY BUTLER

(Behind-the-scenes perspectives of the Supreme Court are somewhat rare–cf. Garland's "The Court a Century Ago," in YEARBOOK 1976. One of the most refreshing is that of the Court Reporter, Charles Henry Butler, whose book, A Century at the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, was published by G. P. Putnam in 1942. Three short chapters from that work are reprinted here by permission of the publisher.)

Rules and Customs of the Court

Rules and customs of the Supreme Court have been greatly modified since my appointment as the Reporter of its decisions in 1902.

For many years Mr. Justice Gray was the sartorial dictator of the Court. According to my friend, Marshal Wright, he insisted on strict formal dress for everyone connected with the Court, or appearing before it. Major Wright told me that in order to help out unfortunate counsel, who had come unprepared to meet the strict dress requirements insisted upon by Mr. Justice Gray, he had acquired, somehow or other, several old frock coats of various sizes, and kept them in a closet in his office so they might be donned by counsel otherwise unprepared.

Until the Court moved into its new building, the Marshal of the Court always conducted them from the Robing Room across the north to the south corridor of the Capitol into the Court Room. The Marshal was always attired in his frock coat for this ceremony. One Monday morning, however, the cleaner disappointed him and did not return his frock coat until after twelve o'clock. This obliged the Marshal to lead the procession wearing a short, but fortunately, dark coat.

The Marshal told me that Mr. Justice Gray summoned him, and notwithstanding the Marshal's explanation, demanded an apology, with an intimation that if is ever happened again, the Court would ask for his resignation. Happily it never did happen again. Even if such a thing had happened again before the death of Mr. Justice Gray it is doubtful whether the dire punishment threatened would have been inflicted on anyone who was so much loved and respected by all connected with the Court as was Marshal John Montgomery Wright.

My court attire was the regulation Prince Albert coat until the last few years of my term when it was changed to a black cutaway. My last frock coat, as had its predecessors when they were discarded, became the property of a colored clergyman, who not so long ago informed me that he was still wearing it every Sunday morning when he delivered his sermon.

For some time after the decease of Justice Gray, counsel continued to appear either in frock coats or cutaways. The Attorney General's office still adheres to the latter dress. Other cousel generally wear dark clothes, though very often of much shorter length than the old-time frock coat or the present cutaway.

In late years, however, counsel have appeared in much lighter garb than ever was known in the olden days. In' one case, counsel appeared in an olive-yellow tweed suit; tan shoes, pink shirt and no vest. He was permitted to address the Court, however, because he came from Kansas and had an important message to deliver. In another case, by the direction of Chief Justice Taft, the Clerk, during the luncheon hour, requested an Asisstant State Attorney General, either to put on a vest or else button up his coat so as not to expose quite so much of his shirt to view.

In respect to time allowed for argument, there has also been a great modification of the rules. Based on their own remarks, made in my hearing, Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan and Brewer considered that counsel should have ample time to present the cases of their clients and constantly opposed any effort to limit them.

Mr. Justice Holmes was all for cutting the time down, and more than once told me that he was never influenced by oral arguments, but considered the cases wholly on the briefs. In nearly every case counsel were allowed two hours a side, which, if availed of, would take a full day for each case. Frequently extra time was given. In some of the anti-trust cases, such as those involving the United States Steel Company, the Standard Oil Company, and the International Harvester Company, each case was allowed six hours. Thus a single case occupied three entire days.

The two-hours a side Court rule applied to cases that came up on writ of error or appeal based on a Federal question being involved. To these cases the full time was permitted, even if the writs or the appeals were founded on very doubtful grounds. So long as the cases could not be affirmed or dismissed on motion for lack of Federal question, no matter how ephemeral the basis might be, full time had to be granted if counsel so desired, as counsel generally did.

When Mr. Justice White became Chief Justice, he instituted a new rule under which, if an appeal could not be dismissed, or the writ denied as frivolous, it was placed on the "Summary Docket." Only thirty minutes a side was allowed for cases on this docket. After a few cases placed on it had been dismissed with ten per cent damages, writs of errors and appeals of that nature were greatly discouraged. All this was done away with by the rules Chief Justice Taft promulgated after the Act of 1925, under which nearly all those cases come up by writs of certiorari.

The Court saved time often by announcing, after the petitioner or appellant had made his opening argument, which failed to support his contention, that it would not hear the respondent. This was equivalent to saying that the moving party had so completely failed to sustain his case that it would be a waste of time to hear arguments by counsel representing the other side. This was a great relief to the respondent, although it was often a disappointment not to be able to address the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. William B. Hornblower, of New York, told me that on his second wedding tour he arranged that a case in which he represented the respondent be argued before the Supreme Court while he was in Washington. This was, he said, for the double purpose of having his new bride hear him argue a case before the Supreme Court; and incidentally to be able to charge with propriety at least part of his expenses as disbursements. Thus he followed the example of Mrs. John Gilpin, who, although on pleasure bent, still had a frugal mind.

The plaintiff in error, having demonstrated in the opening argument the lack of merit in his case, the Chief Justice said:

"The Court does not care to hear the respondent."

My friend Hornblower had just stood up to address the Court; and so far as he was concerned this statement by the Chief Justice was a relief. He informed me, however, that Mrs. Hornblower, who was all agog to hear him make his argument, never forgave the Court.

On another occasion Matthew Carpenter, a well known practitioner of the law, presented his case with similar ineffectiveness, and the Court made an announcement like the one just quoted. The opposing attorney, who was very deaf, could not hear what the Chief Justice said. So he whispered to Carpenter as he sat down:

"Matt, what did the Chief Justice say?"

Matt, who naturally was not at all pleased with the Court's action, replied in a voice resounding through the Court Room:

"He said he would rather give you the damn case than hear you talk."

A traditional story of Marshal Wright's was that when Jeremiah–otherwise 'Jerry'– Wilson began an elaborate opening by citing many of the fundamental authorities, he was interrupted by an Associate Justice who said that Mr. Wilson ought to take it for granted that the Court knew some elementary law. To this 'Jerry' Wilson replied:

"Your Honors, that was the mistake I made in the Court below."

Another of Marshal Wright's stories told how counsel spread out a large map. One of the Justices asked what it was, and counsel answered that it was a bird's-eye view of the scene where the cause of action arose. Another Justice interposed:

"Well, as we are not birds, you can take it away."

Mr. Justice Shiras, who at times was indined to be a wag, was credited with saying to counsel, during the argument of the Benedict Collar Button Case in which a hump in the middle of the shank was relied on to justify the patent, that if a certain question were answered affirmatively, he might be in favor of sustaining the patent. When counsel asked what the question was, the Justice answered:

"Will this hump prevent the collar button from rolling under the bureau when you drop it?"

It took some time to get the Court back to listen seriously to the argument.

A still older story sometimes told about the Court and' pinned on some particular attorney, on some particular occasion, before some particular Justice, is that when counsel stated a conclusion of law, one of the Justices said:

"That is not the law."

"It was until your Honor spoke," counsel replied.

It is my belief that record of a similar conversation can be found in a little volume on one of the shelves of the New York Bar Association library, entitled, "Annals of Westminster Hall," which was published about 150 years ago. Nevertheless it's a good story whoever the judge and counsel may have been and whenever and wherever it originated.

In a book published about the Justices of the Supreme Court there is a story of long ago. In a little cabinet in the Robing Room was kept some material by which the Justices might be refreshed after an arduous session on the Bench. It seems, however, that a rule had been made that the contents of the cabinet should be opened only in case it was raining.

On one occasion, the story continues, upon retiring from the Bench, a certain Justice remarked that as it had been a hard day it might be well to resort to the cabinet.

"But it is not raining," said another Justice. Thereupon Chief Justice Marshall looked out the window and then observed:

"No, it is not raining here, but it is probably raining somewhere in the jurisdiction."

This justified opening the cabinet.

That is a good and oft-told story; but there is an addition thereto possibly not so widely known to other as to myself. One evening when several Justices were present at a gathering at 1535 Eye Street, in answer to my inquiry as to the authenticity of the story Mr. Justice Brewer said:

"Why, Mr. Reporter, the story is not only true, but you ought to know that the Court sustained the constitutionality of the acquisition of the Philippines so as to be sure of having plenty of rainy seasons."

Whether or not the historic cabinet of the Robing Room in the Capitol was transported. to the new building now occupied by the august tribunal has never been disclosed to my knowledge.

The temperature of the Court Room in the Capitol was very difficult to regulate. This difficulty was increased by the various views of the different Justices as to what its proper temperature should be. The regulation of the heat had always been under the control of the Marshal.

There is a traditional story anent this particular matter, which is generally ascribed to Justices Gray and Bradley. Justice Gray, who weighed more than 250 pounds, it is said, always wanted the thermometer kept below 70 degrees, while Justice Bradley, who was a very thin man, and of much lower weight, always wanted it kept up to nearly 80 degrees.

One day as Justice Bradley was going behind the screen back of the Bench, with his gown wrapped round him and apparently shivering with the cold, he pointed to an open window and said to the Marshal:

"What d d fool opened that window?"

"That window," answered Major Wright, "was opened, Your Honor, by the order of Mr. Justice Gray."

"I thought so–I thought so. Shut it up and keep it shut," snapped the irate Justice Bradley and went to his seat on the Bench.

Social Etiquette

On account of the death of Mrs. Fuller in July, 1907, Chief Justice Fuller asked to be excused from attending the next annual dinner given by the President to the Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court. The regular list of guests for this function up to that time not only included, as it still does, the Attorney General of the United States, but also until then, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The officers of the Court were not invited, although on several occasions Mrs. Butler and I were among the guests bidden to the musicale which usually followed the dinner.

On the afternoon of the day following the dinner of 1908, I was horseback riding in Potomac Park with Attorney General Moody, later Associate Justice Moody, who said to me:

"Butler, let me tell you something that happened at the White House dinner last night."

It seems that at about the middle of the dinner, President Theodore Roosevelt called the attention of Justice Brewer to the fact that Joseph G. Cannon, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was not present. The President explained the Speaker's absence as follows:

At three o'clock that afternoon, William Loeb, the President's Secretary, told the President that Speaker Cannon was awaiting an answer on the telephone to the Speaker's inquiry as to who was to escort Mrs. Roosevelt to the dinner table. The President instructed Mr. Loeb to say that as this dinner was in honor of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Harlan, the senior Justice, in the unavoidable absence of the Chief Justice, would escort Mrs. Roosevelt.

Loeb returned to the President with the further message from the Speaker to the effect that, while he was always ready to yield to the Chief Justice, he did not think that the Speaker of the House of Representatives should yield to an Associate Justice and, therefore, asked to be excused. As Attorney General Moody related the incident to me, the President's reply was:

"All right, Loeb, tell Uncle Joe I appreciate his feelings and, while sorry to miss him, he can be excused and I'll give him another dinner all for himself."

And that is the reason the Speaker's Dinner has been one of the official White House functions ever since that night.

Joseph G. Cannon was a remarkable man individually and as Speaker of the House. Numerous interesting stories could be collected and told about him. He was called "Chief of the Clan of the Plain People," and many were surprised at his attitude in the incident just narrated. He would sit anywhere at anybody's table, if it was a private affair, but if his location involved the relative rank of himself and others in officialdom, he insisted that, as head of the Legislative Branch of the Government, he out-ranked everybody except the President, Vice President and Chief Justice–the heads of the other two great departments of our National Government. In my opinion Speaker Cannon was absolutely right in this feeling.

Uncle Joe, as he was affectionately called, was a very loyal supporter of Theodore Roosevelt, although he did not always agree with him; and he had a real affection for the President. Once while dining at our house, he expressed his admiration for the President and then went on to say:

"Teddy was not always right–in fact, he made a good many mistakes–but he had the remarkable faculty of finding out himself when he made a mistake before anyone else did, and immediately 'lighting a new fire,' thus distracting the attention of the public and elfacing or neutralizing the results of his previc is error of judgment."

Uncle Joe was indeed a picturesque character and his departure from public life left a great gap in all the various Washington circles in which he moved. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his work as Chairman of the Lincoln Memorial Committee and for standing by his guns in confining the Memorial to Lincoln and to Lincoln alone. As he said more than once, there was nobody else and nothing else big enough to go with, or in, a ' monument erected to Abraham Lincoln.

Probably the most remarkable event connected with what might be called the "right of way," rather than individual precedence, of different groups at official functions, happened at the White House Judiciary Reception of 1907. Theodore Roosevelt was President; Elihu Root was Secretary of State; Melville W. Fuller was Chief Justice; Mr. Justice Harlan was Senior Justice; Captain, later Major General, Charles L. MacCawley, of the Marine Corps of the United States Navy, was Chief Aide at the White House. All figured in the episode about to be related.

To my everlasting regret, my unavoidable absence in New York prevented me from attending the reception. However, Mrs. Butler was present–Justice and Mrs. Harlan had taken her under their protective wing–and from her came my knowledge of the details of this occurrence.

Resident diplomats attending receptions at the White House in a body are always (and properly so) accorded the right of way over other bodies of visitors. The same custom still obtains at the Diplomatic Reception, which is the first of the annual series of White House receptions, and generally opens the official social season.

At these functions the Diplomatic Corps come attired in full court regalia, assemble in a designated room, and then pass by the President and the receiving line in the order prescribed by the Vienna Protocol of 1815. At other White House receptions the diplomats do not come in a body, or in diplomatic dress, but arrive whenever convenient and are ushered to "the front of the line." The Judiciary Reception of 1907, so far as my knowledge is concerned, was the only exception to this very sensible course of procedure.

According to the story as told to me, Secretary Root, on some occasion when they met casually after the Diplomatic and before the Judiciary Reception of 1907, asked the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps if it would not be a pleasant change to have the members of the corps attend the other receptions, as well as the Diplomatic, in their official regalia. The Dean responded that if it were so desired, so it would be done,–a sort of "we strive to please" answer and a diplomatic one.

Nothing more seems to. have been said or done until the night of the next reception, which happened to be the "Judiciary Reception." To the great surprise–or rather to the horror–of all officialdom, the entire Diplomatic Corps arrived in full regalia and, assembling as usual in true Vienna Protocol order, the Dean of the Corps informed one of the aides that they were ready to enter. There they were, not as private guests as heretofore had been the case, but as the Diplomatic Corps at the invitation of the Secretary of State, and they expected to lead the procession.

Here indeed was a pretty how-to-do. At the Judiciary Receptions, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States always had led the way. This time, however, after the fanfare had announced the presence of President and Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, and the Chief Justice had offered his arm to Mrs. Fuller and was about to proceed, suddenly Captain MacCawley appeared before them and said:

"Mr. Chief Justice, the Secretary of State asks me to tell you that the Diplomatic Corps will precede you tonight."

It was too late for anybody to say anything. The Diplomatic Corps was already passing the group assembled around the Chief Justice. According to Mrs. Butler's account, the Chief Justice protested to the aides. Mrs. Fuller wanted everybody to go downstairs, call for their carriages and go home. Justice Harlan wanted to do something more or less desperate–to judge from what he told me. To hang, draw and quarter the aide, he said, would have been too moderate a punishment. Justice Harlan insisted that the aide had actually "assaulted" the Chief Justice, because he touched the lapel of his coat as he delivered the message from Secretary Root. Subsequently Justice Harlan added the adverb "violently" to his description of the "assault."

For all that, the Court went "through the line" though most of its members left the White House at an early hour. Next morning the Chief'Justice and Senior Asso'ciate Justice Harlan called on the President. The whole matter was explained in as satisfactory a manner as possible. Secretary Root assured the Chief Justice and the Senior Justice that such an incident could not happen again. Members of the Diplomatic Corps, he said, much preferred attending all receptions, except the Diplomatic Reception, in ordinary evening dress, at their convenience, and would be glad to be relieved of the necessity of donning court dress and assembling at a set hour, which they were obliged to do at the New Year's and the Diplomatic Receptions. And so the storm blew over.

It afforded Mr. Justice Harlan, however, a great deal of joy to tell how "that little whippersnapper of a lieutenant dashed into the room and actually and violently assaulted the Chief Justice of the United States in order to prevent him from leading the line to greet the President and Mrs. Roosevelt at the Judiciary Reception."

At about .this time cards for the White House receptions were changed. As told to me, the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps advised the Secretary of State that because the members of his corps represented sovereigns, they could not be invited to meet anyone beneath the rank of a sovereign. Therefore, as there were no sovereigns to meet, the invitations to White House receptions were changed to read that, The President of the United States and Mrs. (as the name might be) invite you to a reception (at a certain time) "honor of the Chief Justice,"–instead of "to meet the Chief Justice," as had been the custom previously.

 

The Centennial Celebration

It was surely an unintentional oversight on the part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when, in his address at the opening of the New York World's Fair, April 30, 1939, the sesquicentennial anniversary of the inauguration of President Washington, Mr. Roosevelt said that all sesquicentennials of the initial events in the establishment of our National Government were past and had been celebrated.

He enumerated the Ratification of the Federal Constitution, the First Meeting of Congress, and the event then being celebrated. He omitted, however, to mention the sesquicentennial of the first meeting of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Royal Exchange Building in New York City on February 1, 1790. The centennial anniversary of this occasion was celebrated in New York on February 4, 1890; and the sequicentennial was celebrated on February 1, 1940 by very simple ceremonies in the Court Room at Washington, and elsewhere, as is told hereafter.

During the year 1889, at the annual meetings of the New York State, City, and American Bar Associations, committees were appointed to arrange for a centennial celebration of the most historic event in the history of the Judiciary of our country. The American Bar Association met that year in Chicago. David Dudley Field, one of the most prominent members of the New York Bar, was its President. He was then eighty-seven years of age. Notwithstanding the disparity of our years, a warm friendship existed between Mr. Field and myself. He had taken me to the Chicago meeting not only as his guest, but also as his personal secretary, to help him in the discharge of his presidential duties.

During the session, and on my motion, a resolution was adopted for the appointment of a committee of the Association to cooperate with the other Associations in the celebration of the Judiciary Centennial. Mr. Field was chairman of this committee and the nine other members were: Lyman Trumbull, Illinois; Thomas J. Semmes, Louisiana; William C. Endicott, Massachusetts; Edward J. Phelps, Vermont; J. Randolph Tucker, Virginia; Henry Hitchcock, Missouri; Cortlandt Parker, New Jersey; Francis Rawle, Pennsylvania; Henry Wise Garnett, District of Columbia, and Charles Henry Butler, New York, who was appointed Secretary of the Committee.

At the meeting of the American Bar Association in 1890, the report of this committee showed that it was merged into one large committee, which consisted of members of the three different Bar Associations, cooperating in this respect.

As David Dudley Field's brother, Stephen J. Field, was then Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the former was, of course, greatly interested in the celebration, and took an active part in the arrangements for it. One result of his activities was that at the morning session, three of the orators, Messrs. Hitchcock, Semmes and Phelps, had not only been Presidents of the American Bar Association, but also were members of the committee of which David Dudley Field was chairman. The fourth orator, William Allen Butler, was not a member of that committee, but was an ex-President of the Association. Also he had been chairman of the "Plan and Scope" subcommittee whose adopted recommendations were that the celebration "should be characterized by simplicity and dignity, and so arranged as to bring into prominence before the nation the distinctive character and functions of the Court as a co-ordinate branch of the Government, and to exhibit its influence in our national history; and also to give an opportunity, as far as practicable, for a manifestation of the respect and esteem in which the members of the Court, as now constituted, are held by our citizens."

The report also made a recommendation for a suitable memorial volume of all that transpired during the celebration. The various committees were consolidated into the Centennial Judiciary Committee, and increased to 112 members. Mr.–later Judge– William H. Arnoux, President of the New York State Bar Association, became chairman of the General Committee. Former President Grover Cleveland was chairman of' the executive Committee; and various subcommittees were established to attend to the different phases of the celebration.

In fact some of the diners, who had lately attended the Centennial Dinner of the Washington Inaugural Celebration–a $20.00 one–at the Metropolitan Opera House, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ward McAllister, declared that our $10.00 dinner was the better of the two. Not having had thirty dollars at the time to pay for two dinners, it is not possible for me to pass judgment on the relative merits of the two repasts; but there is no reason for me to contradict the favorable verdict of those who did have the wherewithal to attend both dinners and were thus enabled to express their opinion.

In respect to the cloakroom accommodations–a most important feature of any such function–the palm of victory must be awarded to the Lenox Lyceum. That cloakroom was my own idea. It was on the first floor with an opening of about 75 feet. The shelf was formed of a series of wide laundry tables. Behind these tables twenty men and women handled the outer garments of more than 1500 diners and gallery guests. Generally less than one or two minutes were required to deposit or recover a garment.

Almost directly in front of the Chief Justice, at Seat 18, Table G, was Judge Horace H. Lurton, then a Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, who was soon to become a Circuit Judge of the United States for the Fifth Circuit, and was later to be appointed an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Taft in 1909. Near Judge Lurton, in Seat 1 at Table D, was William B. Horn-blower, a prominent member of the Bar, who was to be nominated by President Cleveland as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to succeed Mr. Justice Blatchford, on this' occasion sitting with the Chief Justice at the main table. The confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Horn-blower, however, was bitterly and successfully fought by President Cleveland's political enemy, David B. Hill, who had been Governor of the State of New York and was Senator from that State.

A little farther away, at Seat 5, Table B, was Wheeler H. Peckham, whose name was substituted for that of Mr. Hornblower as nominee for the same Associate Justiceship which had been denied Mr. Hornblower. The like hostility defeated the nomination of Mr. Peckham. It made way for the nomination and confirmation of Mr. Justice White, as the result of which New York State was for a while unrepresented on the Supreme Court Bench.

Immediately in front of the Chief Justice, at Seat 7, Table G, was Rufus W. Peckham, of Albany, then a Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. His nomination to succeed Mr. Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court of the United States, met the approval of David B. Hill and was confirmed. Justice Peckham became Chief Justice Fuller's colleague on the Supreme Court Bench in 1895.

At the far end of Table G, directly in front of him, the Chief Justice had he strained his eyes, could have seen the writer, who, about twelve years later was to become the Reporter of the Decisions of the Court and to continue to function as such for fourteen years thereafter.

Had the eye of the Chief Justice wandered as far to the left as possible, he would have seen at Seat 17, Table A, which might well fit the Gospel description of the "lowest room," a young man of twenty-seven years, who was to have a most eventful legal and political history; and who was to be told constantly not only–"Friend, go up higher," but to go higher and higher, and indeed have worship in the presence of those who sat at meat with him.

For this young man went on to his State's Governorship, then for a time to an Associate Justiceship of the Supreme Court of the United States, and almost to the White House itself, which he failed to enter only because of a campaign blunder for which he himself was blameless. Then, after a brilliant period of private practice, during which he was chosen by his fellow members of the Bar to fill at one time or another the high offices of President of the American Bar Association, the New York State, the New York County and the New York City Bar Associations and of the American Society of International Law, he was selected for the highest appointive executive office in the country, as Secretary of State. Finally he was exalted to the post of Chief Justice of the United States, which he now [1940] so efficiently and gracefully administers. The young man in Seat 17, Table A was Charles Evans Hughes of New York.

After the celebration was over, and all the bills had been paid, there was a substantial surplus in the hands of the treasurer, which invoked considerable discussion in the Executive Committee as to its proper disposition. It is not unusual after such events for the Committee on Ways and Means to be obliged to devise methods for meeting deficiencies; but in this instance the Committee had been so generously supplied with funds that there was a surplus of more than $8,000 after the payment of all expenses. These expenses included transportation of all the members of the Court and its officers from Washington to New York and back, entertainment of them in New York; the engraving by Tiffany of the banquet menus, rental of the Opera House, and many other items of apparent extravagance, but which were authorized by the Committee only with the knowledge that sufficient funds were on hand to meet all expenditures. Mr. Francis Lynde Stetson, the treasurer, was not only very efficient but also very meticulous, and carefully scrutinized and audited every item of outlay.

The disposition of the surplus funds was solved by two resolutions offered by my father. One of these, according to the preface of Carson's "History of the Supreme Court," appropriated $6,000 to procure the publication of that work. Remarkable both from an artistic and an historical standpoint, it was to be known as the "Official Report" of the celebration, and also as the enduring artistic memorial, as suggested in the report of the Committee on Plan and Scope. The second resolution offered by my father was that the treasurer should transmit the net balance of the surplus to the widow of Mr. Justice Miller, who had died in the meantime. This was done and Mrs. Miller was very grateful for the $2,500 she unexpectedly received.

During the preparations for this celebration many episodes occurred, some of a humorous character, some tragic. The most serious was the tragedy of the fire in the residence of the Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin F. Tracy, on Farragut Square in Washington. It resulted in the death of Mrs. Tracy and in severe injuries to other members of the family. President Harrison, Vice-President Levi P. Morton, and Secretary Tracy, all of whom were to take part in the ceremonies, had to cancel their acceptances immediately.

The program of the morning exercises had to be altered by the omission of the President's address, but that was a simple matter as compared to rearranging the seating of the guests at the' banquet. The seating list and diagram of tables were in type, and the changes necessitated by the absence of the highest ranking guests required the relocation of more than one hundred names on the diagram. Printing the list of names and the diagram was part of my duty as Secretary of the Dinner Committee; but the delicate task of seating in their proper places nearly two hundred invited guests, including Federal and State officials, from the President of the United States to municipal judges was under the control of the Executive Committee.

My father and Mr. Stetson, of that Committee, worked with me until late that evening in order to re-seat the guests. Meanwhile a special staff of the Bank Note Company was kept on hand so that the list and diagram could go to press the following day. Thus fortunately the task was duly accomplished.

Always there are people who want to get something for their own advantage out of an event of this nature. Some of these seemed to think their desires could be attained either through me directly or through my influence with other members of the Committee. It was rather a mystery, for instance, why a prominent member of the Bar, who was almost twice my age of thirty, should invite me to luncheon at Delmonico's. The mystery was solved, however, over the coffee, when my host told me he had been overlooked by those who had selected the speakers for the banquet, and he intimated that it was more or less my duty to have this error corrected.

Fortunately the Committee on Toasts had complete charge of that feature of the banquet, so that then, even as now, the favorite indoor sport of "passing the buck" could be resorted to. My anxious host soon found that he had wasted his hospitality, so to speak, on "the desert air." Notwithstanding any further efforts he may have made, his name did not appear on the list of those responding to toasts at the banquet.

A couple of days before the event, a man well known as a "pusher" for a noted champagne distributor, expressed great concern over the fact that his pet brand of that delectable beverage was not listed on the menu. He declared that he was acting for the Chief Justice, who, he said, never drank any other kind of champagne.

When it was explained to him that a special committee of experts had selected the wines and that the menus had already been printed, he offered to pay all expenses for reprinting them. And when he was told that the menus were copperplate engravings by Tiffany & Company, that they had cost more than $2,000, and that it was too late to alter, reprint or amend them, he became almost lachrymose over the fact that the Chief Justice should be deprived of his one and only favorite beverage. Also he refused to be consoled by my assurance that if the Chief Justice expressed a preference for this particular wine, there would be some of it within easy reach to satisfy his thirst. The champagne agent left me with the sad warning that under the circumstances the banquet would be a complete failure. According to my recollection neither the Chief Justice, nor any other guest at the dinner, in any way regretted the Committee's choice of Mumm's Extra Dry and of Irroy Brut to be served with the appropriate courses of the dinner.