SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLOTMENT OF JUSTICES It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, effective nunc pro tunc October 1, 1981, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, THURGOOD MARSHALL, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice. For the Eleventh Circuit, LEWIS F. POWELL, JR., Associate Justice. October 5, 1981. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, it is ordered that the Chief Justice be, and he hereby is, assigned to the Federal Circuit as Circuit Justice, effective October 1, 1982. October 12, 1982. (For next previous allotment, see 423 U. S., p. vi.) PROCEEDINGS IN COMMEMORATION OF THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1985 Present: CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, JUSTICE STEVENS, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR. THE CHIEF JUSTICE said: We are in special session today to take note of the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of this building; and, as is not entirely uncommon, the Court is ahead of some of the lawyers who will be attending the proceedings. We have the privilege of having three distinguished American lawyers here to take note of these events. We begin with Mr. Erwin Griswold, former Solicitor General of the United States and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Mr. Griswold. Mr. Griswold: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE and may it please the Court: This Court and its bar live in what I believe is called a symbiotic relationship. Each benefits from the presence of the other. At any rate, the bar hopes that is an accurate statement. The bar has its role, but it is not very cohesive. There is no published list of the membership of this Court's bar and no organization of it. Indeed, no one knows how many members there are. The Clerk's office tells me that no applications were required until 1925. Since then there have been applications, and these have been numbered serially. At the present time the number of such applications is somewhat over 165,000. But there is no record of those who have died or retired from active practice. As a guess, I would say that there are about 75,000 lawyers in this country who are members of this Court's bar. It is a privilege to speak on their behalf and to express the appreciation of the bar for the important role which this Court plays in our constitutional and legal structure. We do know one thing: The first member of the bar of this Court was Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, who was admitted in February 1790. Of course, there was no one to move his admission, but this Court was flexible. It had not yet established procedures for the filing of credentials. For the first few admissions, the Court apparently relied on judicial notice. The judges knew who were the qualified lawyers and they were admitted. After about a year, the Court turned to the Attorney General, Edmund Randolph. Though he was never admitted to practice before the Court, he was treated as an officer of the Court. And before long, the practice was established of admission to the bar on motion of persons already admitted. Under the first admissions rule, adopted on February 5, 1790, the Court made the provision, which continues to this day, that applicants for admission shall have been admitted for "three years past in the Supreme Court of the state to which they respectively belong." The formula also provided then, as it did throughout the nineteenth century, that the private and professional character of the applicants "shall appear to be fair." As our language evolved, the word "fair" acquired a double meaning, and the use of the phrase sometimes produced a laugh in the courtroom. So the wording was changed, and for many years in the twentieth century the sponsor was required to say that he vouched for the applicant. Under the rule as it now stands, he affirms that the applicant is of good moral and professional character. All motions for admission were made in open court until about 15 years ago. Now, in accordance with modern times, the whole procedure can be done by mail. Under the first rule for admission, the applicant was required to elect whether he would practice as an attorney or as a counselor, and he could not practice as both. If this rule had continued, the British distinction between solicitors and barristers would have been established here, and we might have a narrower group today which could be recognized as the bar of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Circuit Court for the First Circuit provided for four degrees: attorneys, counselors, barristers, and sergeants. Charles Warren in his "History of the American Bar" refers to an order by Justice Story made in that court in 1812 admitting on his own motion Jeremiah Smith and Jeremiah Mason to the degree of sergeant at law, and as far as I know they are the only lawyers who have been sergeants at law in this country. Many great lawyers have appeared before the Court. John Marshall appeared in one case in the late 1790's, unsuccessfully. Others who may be mentioned are Luther Martin, Caesar Rodney, and Roger B. Taney. These were the days of oratory, and by the 1830's Daniel Webster achieved his long continued eminence before the Court. His appearances were often great social events, with large crowds both of men and women attending the Court sessions, for often several days were devoted to a single case. In those days Webster argued several hundred cases, more than have been presented before the Court by any other person in its history. Interestingly enough, the member of the bar with the second largest total of arguments has left little trace. He was Walter Jones, admitted to practice in 1796, and the United States Attorney in the District of Columbia from 1802 to 1821. In later years, he often acted in association with Daniel Webster. Among others, he argued the case of Martin against Hunter's Lessee and McCulloch against Maryland. He also appeared in the first hearing of the Charles River Bridge case, where he was opposed by Daniel Webster. We ought to have more information about Walter Jones, and perhaps the Supreme Court Historical Society can find a way to make him better known. The history of the Court and its bar is of course intertwined with the history of the country. The details are being developed in the great history of the Court which is being prepared under the Oliver Wendell Holmes bequest. I will refer to only two events, both reflecting the Court's interrelationship with the slow but steady progress which the country made during the nineteenth century with two fundamental problems. The first black lawyer to be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court was Dr. John S. Rock, who was born of free parents in New Jersey in 1825. He was admitted on February 1st, 1865, just short of his fortieth birthday. then he had been a teacher, a dentist, and a doctor. moved to Boston in 1853 and he was one of the founders of the Republican Party in Massachusetts. Before He had In 1858 he wanted to go to France for medical treatment, but he was refused a passport on the ground that he was not a citizen. The Massachusetts legislature then passed a law providing for state passports-I'm not sure this Court would accept that today-and this was accepted in France. A year or so later, Dr. Rock returned to Boston and began to read law. He was admitted to practice in Massachusetts in September 1861 and he was admitted to practice in this Court on February 1, 1865. Note that date-shortly after the appointment of Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice. This came before the final termination of the Civil War and before the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and with the Dred Scott case still on the books. As the New York Tribune reported: "By Jupiter, the sight was good." It must have been one of the dramatic moments in this Court's history, at least in retrospect. Rock's admission was moved by Senator Charles Sumner. The newspaper reporter observed that "The assenting nod of |