Harvard Law School - Yearbook (Cambridge, MA)

Page 19 text:

DEAN ERWIN GRISWGLD Dean of the Harvard Law School HE legal profession has many branches, represented by students, prac- titioners, teachers, government J:lCllllll1lSt1'Elt01'S, and judges. Few men engage in all of these. Harlan Stone did, and achieved high distinction in each branch. He was a leading student, a partner in a New York law oliice, professor and dean at Columbia Law School, Attorney General of the United States, and a Justice and finally Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It is hard to think of a man who had a fuller career in the law. Many will remember Chief Justice Stone for l1is great legal capacity, for his steadfast adherence to his conception of the functions of the judge, for l1is intellectual courage and for his restraint. But many others will remember him for his kindly warmth of personality, and the weight of his personal influ- ence. Wllen I first knew the Justice, I was fresh out of Law School. There was no reason why he should have paid any attention to me. I was not from l1is law school. Yet I was soon to learn tl1e strength of his interest in young men. Even as a Justice of the Supreme Court, I believe that his heart was in teaching. He was never pedantic. But he was always ready to counsel and advise and encourage young men who were beginning their careers in the law. The mark which Chief Justice Stone has left on the law itself is history. The influence which he had on his students, from rnany law schools, will be felt for many years to come. ' W

Page 18 text:

l Justice of the Supreme Court T was characteristic of Harlan Slone's zest for life that he made no prep- arations for death. And the circumstances of his death were characteristic of his good fortune. There was no tapering offg rather was he interrupted in lahor which engaged the whole of him and just after he had pronounced the principle which should he the pole star of the Supreme Court as he understood its place in our scheme. It is not the function of this Court to disregard the will of Congress in the exercise of its Constitutional power -such was the message he uttered from the seat of the Chief ,Iusticeship at the very moment that death summoned him. ' Stone's career divides into the two major epochs: for twenty years he was a teacher, for twenty years he was a judge. For him these were not disparate eallings. One was the logical fruition of the other. His academic career deeply infused his judicial work. As teacher l1e was concerned with the place of law and lawyers in society. As a judge he made heavy drafts upon the intellectual capital he had laid up in his own career as an acadelnician, and he continued to draw freely upon the connnoii property of scholarship. He had a strong historic sense and naturally enough was concerned witl1 his place in history. Chief Justices of the United States are rarer than Presi- dents. A Chief Justice cannot escape history. Xe. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER

Page 20 text:

NOEL T. DOWLING E revered this Court as . . . the indispensable implement for the main- tenance of our federal system :, he 'cwithdrew from every other activity and the work of the Court was tl1e uabsorbing interest of his life. ' This might well have been said about Chief Justice Stone. Actually it was what he him- self said about Justice Brandeis. But in speaking thus of an associate whom he so greatly admired he was also, I think, expressing convictions of his own. At all events he was touching upon two matters of deep concern to him, namely, the institutional respon- sibility of the Court and the personal responsibility of the Justices. Of all the Courtis responsibilities as an uimplement of Covernmentv fhe liked to call it thatj, he was especially concerned with its power in constitu- tional cases-the circumstances in which it might set aside legislative or other governmental action. It is somewhat speculative, to be sure, but I doubt whether any Justice who ever sat on that Bench gave a more considered or sustained attention than he to the problems inherent in the doctrine of judicial review of constitutional questions. He made no pretensions to ready answers, but his efforts revealed a clearer pattern than is commonly perceived. And that, as a Justice, he should keep himself wholly to the work of the Court was to him a manifest duty, not only because there was plenty to do but also because in singleness of purpose he saw the best means of imparting tl1e fullest measure of strength to the Court itself. 10 Stone Professor of Law, Columbia University