Remarks at the Assembly Session of the American Bar Association.

President Randall, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished guests from many nations, members of the American Bar, and fiends:

It is a great privilege and a personal honor to be permitted to welcome this body to the Nation's Capital and to address to you a few thoughts that I should like to bring to your attention.

We are, of course, flattered and complimented that such a group would come from abroad to meet with our own Bar Association in studying and contemplating common problems and seeking some kind of common solution. We are particularly complimented by the arrival of 700 British members to this conference. Our own lawyers have told me about the hearty welcome they received when they went to British shores a couple of years ago, but there is more significance in the British-American lawyer relationship than mere exchange of visits in such groups as this.

There were 55 drafters of our Constitution. Of those, 34 were students of law and most of them had studied law in Britain. The writers of our Constitution were heirs to centuries of development and practice of law in Britain, and when it came to the time for publication of that document--which Gladstone said was the most wonderful work that ever came out of the mind and purpose of men at a single time--they were well aware of all of this legal history. They were aware of what was then modern thinking in the development of law, and there is no question whatsoever that our Constitution, as we know it, could not have been written in 1787 except for this great heritage obtained from the mother country.

It was probably no mere coincidence that one authority says that in the decade of the 1780's there was a higher proportion of able and distinguished Americans dedicated and committed to public service than at any other time in our entire history. And from that decade we received this great and lasting document.

Now, of course, as much as we value our friendship with Britain and our close relationship with her as inheritors of all these values, we seek, hope for, and value friends everywhere in the world--and more especially in what we call the free world.

It is my conviction that such friends and such relationships can be obtained and held only under a rule of law--a law that can develop and maintain the relationships between nations that domestic law maintains and develops among individuals.

Of course, all of us understand that the rule of law among nations cannot, in any near future, have behind it the force of national power that obtains in every free nation. But there is a mighty force behind it, and that is world opinion. World opinion is not lightly to be disregarded. Both in the constitution of such a court and in the observance of its decisions and opinions, anyone who does so flagrantly disregard its authority and prestige will be guilty of a very grievous error.

It strikes me that of all of the people who should work for the rule of law, lawyers should be among the forefront. I cannot conceive that a good lawyer can think primarily--and above anything else--of the size of his fee or the success he may have in achieving a good verdict for his client. He is, I think above all, a public servant. He serves our courts, as in all free countries, in order that the Nation, as we know it, may prosper and be strong. In that atmosphere his client likewise can prosper, and be confident of receiving justice in any quarrel with his fellows, whether it is civil or any other kind.

So within the domestic scene lawyers uphold this main purpose of service. I think we must extend our minds to the breadth of the earth when we speak of law that is comparable to the kind of law we so respect within our own nations.

Now, American lawyers are not always right. I know they can't always be right, because they have differences. By the way, here I might tell one little story. I had a friend who was just out of law school, and not having many other things occupying his attention, it was his habit to go into the local courts, possibly hoping for a piece of business to come his way, but to learn about the practices and procedures of the courts.

Well, one day there was a man held under a charge of petty larceny, and the judge turned to him and said, "I'm sure you know you are entitled to a lawyer. Do you have one?"

"No," he said.

"Do you want the court to appoint one?" Yes, he thought he should. And the judge said, "Well, we have three available. Here is Mr. Alien, and here is Mr. Blair, and Mr. Kirk is another, but not here just now. These three are available. Have you got any choice?"

He looked at the two present, and said, "The other one!"

Now, I am not saying that the American lawyers are either of the two in the room or the other one who was selected. The fact is that American lawyers do have differing characteristics and convictions. They differ very strongly about America's relationship to the World Court. 1

¹ Resolutions relating to the Connally Reservation concerning U.S. participation in the World Court were under consideration by the Bar Association at this time.

I am not a lawyer, and so they don't have to pay much attention to my opinions. But, far be it from me to fail to express it.

In so expressing it, the first thing I want to say is this: are we seeking peace with justice? Which means, are we seeking a world of law, or are we seeking to find ways in which we can cater to our own views and ideas in the legal field rather than to put our minds to finding some way of achieving peace?

So, while I have been criticized--and praised also in other instances-for asking for the deletion of the self-judging clause in our laws, I believe that this is one of those times where we must put our minds on the major issue. We must adopt a rule of reason. Let's not ask for defeat by pleading every kind of petty or important obstacle that can be imagined, not every kind of difficulty that might be in the way of a perfect administration of international justice.

What we ought to put our eyes on is what is now attainable, including methods and schemes and plans. Under the world as we know it, and with our eyes on the rule of reason, we must take a stand that will make this accomplishment realizable.

So I merely say--and unfortunately, I have a lawyer in my own family whom I haven't yet converted--I merely say to all of them: "Look at the great objective, look what peace means."

How are we ever going to travel that road unless we are ready to make some concessions--concessions that, as I see it, cannot possibly hurt us?

So, with that little contribution to your own family quarrel, I have just one other statement to make. There was apparently some kind of agreement that involved a degree of selection in the guests who are to come to the White House this evening for the garden party. And I believe the confusion came about through the anxiety of your officers to make sure that everybody could get into an area that is, after all, limited in size.

I want to tell you that I still believe in keeping the brighter, larger goal in front of my eyes, not its difficulties. I say to you, all are welcome, and I shall expect you this evening at 6 o'clock--or 7, whatever it is. You will have to get detailed instructions from your own president, but I expect to see you.

Goodbye.