Adams was a Massachusetts lawyer who would become the first Vice President and the second President of the United States. In the passage from the pamphlet that is inscribed on this tablet, placed at the entrance to the courthouse, Adams contended that society depends upon competence and integrity in the administration of justice. In this connection, he argued for a separation of powers: "The judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and the executive, and independent of both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that." The distinctiveness of the judicial power, Adams maintained, requires that the judges' "minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man or body of men."

The principles of government Adams outlined in his pamphlet - the separation of powers and judicial independence - were embodied in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, of which he was the principal draftsman, and the Constitution of the United States, which was drafted seven years later.]]> The best administration of justice may be most safely secured by allowing the representation of all classes of the people in courts of justice. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts invited Robinson to prepare a brief in support of her application to be a lawyer. Because she was not a member of the bar, however, she was not permitted to present oral argument. In an opinion by Chief Justice Horace Gray, who would later be appointed to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court of Massachusetts unanimously rejected Robinson's application, relying on the failure of the state legislature to provide expressly that women could become members of the bar.

The opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court denying the admission of women to the practice of law was speedily reversed by the Massachusetts legislature, which affirmed the argument Robinson made in her brief, an excerpt of which is inscribed on this tablet at the entrance to the courthouse. To obtain the consent of all segments of society in the rule of law, the entire community must have the right to participate in the process of administering justice.]]> All men are born free and equal; and every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws. Chief Justice William Cushing of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that slavery had been effectively abolished in 1780, when Massachusetts adopted its new constitution. In the passage inscribed on this tablet, Cushing paraphrased the language of freedom and equality found in the Declaration of Independence. At the core of Cushing's holding is the proposition that it is the obligation of the courts to protect the liberties of every person.

Cushing later became the first justice from Massachusetts to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, when President Washington made the initial appointments to that Court following the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. In 1795 he declined Washington's appointment as Chief Justice but served as an Associate Justice until his death in 1810.]]> Men and women were created equal; they are both moral and accountable beings, and whatever is right for man to do is right for woman. Facing intense opposition to abolition in their native South, the Grimké sisters moved to the North, where they were highly influential abolitionist lecturers. But prejudices against the appearance of women on public platforms resulted in a veiled attack on their work in a pastoral letter issued by the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts, which decried women preachers and women reformers. This opposition led Sarah Grimké to broaden the focus of the abolition movement to include a defense of women's rights.

In her reply to the ministers, part of which is inscribed on this tablet, Sarah Grimké emphasized the equality of men and women. By extending the language of equality found in the Declaration of Independence and in Chief Justice Cushing's Quock Walker decision striking down slavery in Massachusetts, Sarah Grimké underscored the shared rights and responsibilities of all persons for the creation of a moral community.]]> Where justice is denied, and any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. Douglass was actively involved in recruiting black men to be soldiers during the Civil War and assisted in recruiting the celebrated 54th and 55th Massachusetts African-American regiments, in which his own sons were among the first recruits. After the Civil War, Douglass became the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia and the United States Minister to Haiti.

In a speech given on the twenty-fourth anniversary of the emancipation of the slaves of the District of Columbia, a passage from which is quoted in the inscription on this tablet, Douglass warned that when the law permits any segment of society to feel disenfranchised, the very foundations of justice - the security of persons and property - are put at risk. Thus, in order to avoid undermining those foundations, the law must strive to assure equal opportunity for all segments of society.]]> The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. Harvard Law Review, the speech had a bracing effect on American legal thought.

In the passage inscribed on this tablet, Holmes described the growth of the law as a reflection of the moral values of the society. Using a geological metaphor, he identified ways in which different generations and societies leave evidence of their moral value systems through their expressions of the law. But Holmes was careful to distinguish between his description of the law as evidence of society's values and the proposition that what is legal is moral or what is illegal is immoral. He argued instead for a clear-eyed analysis of the legal process through which the courts bring public force to bear in order to resolve controversies and thereby evidence the moral values of their communities.

Holmes was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1902, where he served until 1932.]]> Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. for good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Olmstead v. United States, where Brandeis dissented from a Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of illegal wiretapping to develop evidence of criminal activity.

Brandeis wrote that, "[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously." He went on to observe that, "[i]f the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Brandeis therefore maintained that the government must be held to high standards in providing an example for the rest of society.]]> The responsibility of those who exercise power in a democratic government is not to reflect inflamed public feeling but to help form its understanding. Cooper v. Aaron, which was signed separately by each of the Justices upholding those orders.

Shortly thereafter, Justice Felix Frankfurter - who had been a professor of law at the Harvard Law School prior to his appointment in 1939 to the Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt - wrote a separate opinion in the case that specifically addressed the responsibilities of community leaders during times of crisis. The passage from that opinion inscribed on this tablet instructs that it is the duty of civic leadership in such times "to find specific ways to surmount difficulties" in upholding the rule of law.

Noting that compliance with decisions of the Supreme Court, "as the constitutional organ of the supreme Law of the Land, has often, throughout our history, depended on active support by state and local authorities," Frankfurter, who served on the Supreme Court until 1962, urged that the nation's shared "moral heritage'' should provide a basis for defusing opposition to the Court's rulings.]]> We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. The heart of the question is whether we are going to treat our fellow americans as we want to be treated. In the passage inscribed on this tablet, President Kennedy equated equal justice under law with the golden rule. He identified the problem as whether "all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and opportunities," terming the issue "as old as the scriptures and as clear as the American Constitution."

President Kennedy's speech announced the submission to Congress of what would become, after his assassination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute, perhaps the most important civil rights measure of the twentieth century, provides a legislative basis for equal opportunity for all citizens. But President Kennedy cautioned that "legislation cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country."]]> The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. in an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights. and lies at the foundation of orderly government. Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.

Moody was himself a skilled courtroom advocate who served as a Massachusetts district attorney and was appointed to the Supreme Court while he was serving as United States Attorney General. His tenure on the Supreme Court was cut short barely two years later, however, when he developed a disabling illness.

The right to conduct litigation, Moody wrote, "is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each State to the citizens of all other States to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens." This equality of access to the process of litigation is so critical to the federal system that he found it protected by the United States Constitution.]]> No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. In the passage from his separate opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, Attorney General that is inscribed on this tablet, Justice Frankfurter emphasized the value of notice and the opportunity to be heard as mechanisms for discovering truth. Frankfurter maintained that use of these mechanisms was critical for "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done."

For a democratic society, Frankfurter wrote, "the validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached." He warned that a fair process is especially critical "at times of agitation and anxiety, when fear and suspicion impregnate the air we breathe." Frankfurter observed that "appearances in the dark are apt to look different in the light of day," because "secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking."]]> We live in community and each is not an atom of self-interest. what each one of us does has an impact on the rest of us. Therefore, the need for thoughtful judgment and wise counsel is always paramount. Jordan's last public appearance before her death on January 17, 1996, was at a gathering in her honor of Boston University Law School alumni. In the brief remarks inscribed on this tablet regarding the role of the lawyer, Jordan urged those involved in the legal process to remain faithful to their larger community and to practice their profession with measured advice for their clients.

The counsel provided by Jordan is particularly important for parties engaged in the strains and antagonisms of the adversary process. It has purposefully been positioned to be the last quotation encountered by persons passing through security into the courthouse itself.]]> The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience At the stairway in the main-entry rotunda is a handcarved inscription of a portion of a speech by Louis Brandeis concerning an issue of complex economics, a topic with which Brandeis grappled throughout his career. By casting the issue as one of justice and truth, however, Brandeis characteristically raised the discussion above mere economics. In the speech, Brandeis told his audience that "we cannot expect to have justice done unless we have a mind that is free to act on such facts as may be presented.'' By locating the inscription from Brandeis at the base of the stairway leading up to the entrances to the courtrooms, the fact-finding role of the courts in the pursuit of justice is emphasized.]]> Justice is but truth in action When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out that at any rate is the theory of our constitution. These passages are designed to shape the attitudes of those assembled in this room and to encourage the open-minded deliberative process required of juries and, indeed, of all those concerned with the public's business.

On the shorter wall is a passage from a dissent by Justice Holmes to a decision of the Supreme Court that upheld the prosecution of political dissidents. The core principle in political discussion identified by Holmes is that "the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas."]]> Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means, they believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. These passages are designed to shape the attitudes of those assembled in this room and to encourage the open-minded deliberative process required of juries and, indeed, of all those concerned with the public's business.

On the long wall is a passage from an opinion by Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, a Supreme Court case involving another prosecution of political dissent. Drawing his inspiration from Pericles' oration to the Athenians in the fifth century BC, Justice Brandeis outlines in eloquent and passionate prose the fundamental elements of our nation's political philosophy. He concludes by observing "that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people" and "that public discussion is a political duty."]]> May the foundation of our new constitution be justice, truth and righteousness. Like the wise man's house may it be founded upon those rocks and then neither storms nor tempests will over throw it. In the passage from the letter inscribed on this tablet, Abigail Adams reflects upon the importance of a firm foundation to assure a sound government. Her prayer for such a durable basis to the nation's political structure has largely been realized through the basic documents of American political life: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of the several states.]]> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The passage inscribed on this tablet is from the second paragraph of the Declaration. It sets forth the fundamental principles of American government: equality, unalienable rights, and a government whose authority depends on the consent of those governed.]]> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. The preamble begins with an identification of the authors as "We the People," emphasizing the full engagement of all members of the community in the process of creating the new government. After noting the need to improve upon the national government created under the Articles of Confederation and to create "a more perfect union" of the states, the preamble announces the first goal of the new Constitution to be that of establishing justice.]]> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment, as with all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution - known collectively as the Bill of Rights - was a direct response to the desire on the part of the states that ratified the original Constitution to make explicit the rights of the people secured against the federal government.]]> No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The states became expressly obligated by the federal government to provide due process whenever they undertook to deprive a person of life, liberty or property. The states were similarly required to provide equal protection of the law to any person within their jurisdiction. Over the years, many of the rights secured against the federal government by the first ten amendments to the Constitution were incorporated into the requirements the Fourteenth Amendment imposed upon the states.]]> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. These protections were among the most important for which the American Revolution was fought. The ability of the British Crown to obtain general warrants for searches had constituted a fundamental concern for the American colonists. When, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, they came to draft their Bill of Rights, they made sure to provide explicit protections against such arbitrary government power through this addition to the Constitution.]]> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defence. The democratic system of government is one in which the will of the people is the source of public power, the political order is subordinate to the rights of man, and the free participation of the citizen in collective decisions is assured. All free governments are instituted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. All laws, therefore, should be made for the good of the whole, and the burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government. Every person, for an injury inflicted on the person or the person's reputation, property or immunities, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered freely and without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay. In this passage, which was enacted - in slightly different form - in the original Constitution of Maine as an element of its Declaration of Rights, Maine emphasizes the ideal of open courts accessible to all persons and providing justice without corruption or delay.]]> Justice is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. That speech also employed the metaphor of construction and architecture as descriptive of the law. Webster contended that those involved in building the structure of the law connect "with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human history." Webster's metaphor is presented above a registry of designers and builders, which is located at the very core of the courthouse, across from the elevators on the first floor. The names of the more than 2,500 people who worked to construct this building are presented in raised lettering on that registry.

The registry embodies a permanent recognition of all those who, through their art and craft, have provided tangible evidence of the proposition presented by Daniel Webster in his reflection on the life and work of a great federal judge from Massachusetts.]]> There is no such thing as half justice. You either have justice or you don't. You either have a democracy in which everyone - including the powerful - is subject to the rule of law or you don't. One way to understand why that is so is to quote from a letter that Justice Stephen G. Breyer sent to Congressman Moakley. Justice Breyer writes of remembering

not just your dedication and effectiveness in seeing that the courthouse was built, but also your original vision. You wanted a courthouse that both would work for the judges and the judicial system and also would serve the community in which it was built. You wanted it to be a catalyst for the economic development of the area and you wanted it to belong not just to the judges or to the lawyers, but to the entire Boston community.

I hope and believe the courthouse does carry out that vision, for it is both a symbol of justice and an important practical example of how our government can and should involve, belong to, and help the people whom it is meant to serve. That, it seems to me, is what you always have stood for throughout your life of public service. This courthouse in this location carries out, as Justice Breyer writes, Congressman Moakley's original vision. Even more fundamentally, this building aspires to the values of public service embodied in the congressman's life.

When we began the design of this building, we tried to explain to the architect, Henry N. Cobb, why courts were distinctive governmental bodies. A court well run, we told him, attempts to provide a citizen with a high public official who is prepared to spend as much time as is necessary to resolve that citizen's dispute fairly. At its foundation, this represents government conducted on a person-to-person level. For people not directly engaged, these disputes may often seem to present trivial controversies. But I can assure you that there is nothing trivial about them for those who are involved; the judge who fails to recognize that is a judge who fails to do justice.

Person-to-person government is precisely what Joe Moakley has always been about. Everyone who ever served on Joe Moakley's staff talks about his passion for case work. They frequently evoke the image of him "on the phone urging someone to get Mrs. O'Leary her Social Security check." The ultimate measure of a democratic government's effectiveness - whether in the courts or through a legislator's attention to constituent service - is the willingness and ability to provide every person with a sympathetic hearing and a fair shake.

And from these seemingly trivial matters are constructed, brick by brick, larger lessons about our democratic life. They are the lessons that caused our architect to choose brick as the predominant material for this building. As a biographer of the founder of the congressman's political party wrote in explaining why Thomas Jefferson designed Monticello and the University of Virginia in brick, it is "the common building material from which a democratic equality emerges; it is capable of assuming noble proportions and intentions, yet it is plain and honest."

The spirit of Joe Moakley is imbedded in the brick of this building, and with the naming that presence has become manifest. His name has been hand carved at the front door under the supervision of John Benson, the master craftsman who executed all the carvings for this structure.

And to understand how the brick of this building embodies Joe Moakley's spirit, you should also look closely at the plaque inset in the brick of the arch at the front door.

When Congressman Moakley died on Memorial Day, May 28, 2001, a local television station aired an interview of him conducted just before the Courthouse Dedication Ceremony, barely a month earlier. Asked what words he hoped to see on the dedication plaque memorializing the naming of the courthouse after him, Congressman Moakley responded: "He never forgot where he came from." Although the plaque had already been installed, the Judges ordered the plaque reinscribed after learning of Congressman Moakley's hope.

Carved in that plaque is a quotation that captures plainly and honestly the noble proportions and intentions of Congressman Moakley's career. It comes from a speech that he gave at the University of Central America, in El Salvador, about the rule of law and democracy and justice, in which he held the highest officials of that ravaged nation to institutional responsibility. "There is no such thing as half justice," he said. "You either have justice or you don't. You either have a democracy in which everyone - including the powerful - is subject to the rule of the law, or you don't."

That quotation enters into the conversation among the inscriptions that John Benson has carved throughout this building. In particular, it reflects application of the principle stated by Justice Louis D. Brandeis in the quotation encountered at the main staircase on the other side of the entrance hall: "Justice Is But Truth In Action."

I suspect that Justice Brandeis would understand that there was more to Congressman Moakley's speech that day nearly a decade ago in El Salvador than what we had space to capture on the plaque. Confronting a recalcitrant military who attempted to cover up their murder of six Jesuit priests, a housekeeper, and her daughter, Joe Moakley went on to echo Justice Brandeis and tell them, "Truth is not the enemy . . . . Without the truth . . . government cannot lay claim to truly democratic institutions."

That approach is all that a courthouse can aspire to stand for. I can think of no higher honor for a courthouse than to be named after a man whose public service has embodied the search for equal justice under law for all, whether it is Mrs. O'Leary looking to receive her Social Security check on a timely basis or General René Emilio Ponce being held to responsibility for the misdeeds of the powerful institution he commanded. To be true to its name, such a courthouse must be - as Congressman Moakley has been throughout his life - committed to offering a sympathetic hearing, providing a fair shake, and speaking truth to power. It is the responsibility of those of us fortunate enough to work in this building to maintain that commitment.

-- Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, from his remarks at the dedication ceremony of the John Joseph Moakley United States courthouse, April 18, 2001]]> This most beautiful site in Boston does not belong to the judges, it does not belong to the lawyers, it does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to the public.