every study of American statesmanship." The vitally
important part, however, which that Court has played
in the history of the country in preserving the Union,
in maintaining National supremacy within the hmits
of the Constitution, in upholding the doctrines of international law and the sanctity of treaties, and in affecting the trend of the economic, social and political development of the United States, cannot be understood
by a mere study of its decisions, as reported in the law
books. The Court is not an organism dissociated from
the conditions and history of the times in which it exists. It does not formidate and deliver its opinions in
a legal vacuum. Its Judges are not abstract and impersonal oracles, but are men whose views are necessarily, though by no conscious intent, affected by inheritance, education and environment and by the impact of history past and present; and as Judge Holmes
has said: "The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and pohtical theories, intuitions of public
policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices
which Judges share with their fellow-men, have had a
good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining
the rules by which men should be governed."[1]
Appointments to the Court, moreover, have not been made from a cloister of juridical pedants, but from the mass of lawyers and Judges taking active parts in the life of the country.[2] Presidents, in selecting Judges, have been necessarily affected by geographical and political considerations, since it has been desirable that the Court should be representative (so far as practicable) of the different sections of the country and of the leading political parties. The Senate, in rejecting for partisan
