and so on, so that there will probably be between eleven and twelve hundred appeals to be disposed of. It does seem to me that the one pressing duty before the Court is to get rid of the present accumulation of business which delays and many times operates as a denial of justice. Of course the abolition of the unanimous affirmance rule will substantially increase our work and thus retard our capacity to get rid of the accumulation of business. We may not be able in the two years which would be required for the adoption of the proposed amendment to reduce the accumulated appeals to what would be regarded by the Bar as a reasonable limit. Therefore you may think it desirable to postpone somewhat this proposed increase of our work so as to give us the necessary opportunity to catch up with the calendar. I hope, therefore, that the Committee may be invested with the power of postponement of action for a reasonable time if it seems wise so to do. Judge Parker: I consent to such an amendment to the resolution that I have offered. The President: The question before the house, as the Chair understands it, is, in substance, that the Committee be continued, with instructions to promote the end in view, subject, however, to the modification that any proceedings in the promotion of the amendment shall be in the discretion of the Committee, taking account of the state of business in the Court of Appeals. All in favor of that motion will say aye; opposed no. The ayes have it, and it is carried. The question now recurs upon the motion, as amended, that the report of the Committee be accepted, and the Committee continued as stated. All in favor of that motion will say aye; opposed no. The ayes have it, and the motion is carried. Gentlemen, one of the most pleasant features of these meetings is the fact that they afford opportunity for an interchange of thought with lawyers and jurists of other jurisdictions. We work in this country in a peculiar way, in that so many, who are devoted to activities of the same sort, are prosecuting those activities within the borders. of different States. We hear occasionally, as we heard this morning, of the procedural paradise that exists in some communities, it may be near, it may be remote. We also learn from time to time of the difficulties which exist in the administration of justice in other communities. We certainly know our own. It is our privilege as lawyers to welcome to-day one of the most distinguished jurists of the country-the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. It is a great pleasure to introduce him to you. Hon. Orrin N. Carter, of Chicago: Mr. President and Gentlemen. I did not know that I should feel so much at home in this audience. I feel at home now because I have been listening for ten years to the same sort of discussion that you have been having here this forenoon at the meetings of the bar associations of my own State. It is easy to see, therefore, that we haven't any procedural paradise in Illinois. I also feel at home because I am coming back to my native state, and I find here some gentlemen from the county in which I spent my boyhood. While we may have more fertile fields in the State of Illinois than in this state, yet it's not the fertility of the fields that makes men; when I hark back to my boyhood days and think of the character of the soil that we had here in New York, in my native county Jefferson, I often think of those lines which were written of New England and apply them to northern New York: "That on her rocks and on her sands And wintry hills the schoolhouse stands, The harvest of the mind supplies." I was afraid when I heard this discussion this morning and the motions made with reference to the action that should be taken by this Bar Association on the subject under discussion, that I was to deliver my address too late; that if action had been taken before my address was delivered, such an address as I have would then be inappropriate. The situation I was in reminds me of a story that I have heard told of Silas Bryan, the father of William Jennings Bryan. You know that Judge Silas Bryan was not only a judge in Illinois, but a practicing lawyer there for many years. He was trying a case there, associated with Tom Merritt, also a legal celebrity of that time. You who have hunted coons will appreciate this story. Bryan and his associate wanted the case postponed, but the judge refused to accede to their wishes insisting on the case proceeding. Merritt, after the judge had ruled, still insisted on talking about the postponement and Bryan in disgust said to his associate "Sit down Tom, what's the use of hammering on the log after the coon is gone?" Fortunately for me you have laid the question you had under discussion on the table, so that what I have to say may still have some weight. THE COURTS AND THE PEOPLE The courts of any country cannot retain the confidence of the people unless they command their respect. Are the courts of the country at the present time properly doing their work? A few years ago magazine articles and editorials were frequently published on such subjects as "The Law's Delay," "Technicalities of the Law," "The Incapacity of the Judiciary," and "Failure of Justice of our Courts." Such articles are not as frequent now. Criticism of the courts is not peculiar to any age or people. In the translation of an old book, "Mirror of the Justices," we read that King Alfred in one year hung fortyfour judges because of their false judgments. (7 Mirror of the Justices, published by the Selden Society, p. 166.) In 1307, the English House of Commons ordered that no man of law should be returned to that body and if returned he should have no compensation. In an old book published in 1641, entitled "A Speech Against the Judges for Their Ignorance," a member of Parliament asserted that instead of lopping off the branches of the legal system they should grub it up by the roots. (The Judges' Judgment, 1641, p. 5 Northwestern Law Library.) In another book published in 1654, entitled "A New Plea for the Old Law," we find the statement that the administration of law was objected to because: "I. Our law is obscure; 2. Difficult to understand; 3. Too copious." In another book published in 1657, with the title, "Proposals for the Better Administration of Justice," it is stated that the "pleadings are very tedious, chargeable and dangerous, because many, and these very nice and curious; so that sometimes by the mistake of one word or not continuing an action one term a good cause is lost and the plaintiff undone." (Shepard's England's Balme, p. 73.) Sidney Smith in the early part of the last century drew a graphic indictment of English law on certain subjects, asserting that in 1802 steel traps and spring guns were set all over the country; that prisoners were tried for their lives and could have no counsel; that the abuses of the court of chancery had been the curse of England for centuries; that for twenty-five years Lord Eldon sat in that court surrounded by misery and sorrow and never held up a finger to alleviate it. (Dillon's Jurisprudence of England and America, P. 357.) The law's delays and administration in this country are frequently compared unfavorably to us -with that of Great Britain, but now, as in centuries gone by, the English are criticised by their own people as to their methods of administering the law. In the November 3, 1917, issue of the London Law Journal, I find an article headed "The Punishment of the Innocent" in which a reference is made to statements of Mr. Justice Atkin in connection with the trial of a man charged with the fraudulent conversion of some waste paper who had been kept in prison before his trial nearly three months. The learned judge said: "It is a terrible thing to think that this man has been in prison nearly three months. In these days it is actually impossible for a man to escape. It is one of the matters judges have complained about over and over again; it amounts to a complete denial of justice. It is a wicked thing when a man's guilt is really in dispute that he should be kept in custody all this time, which is practically longer than any one could give him as a punishment even if he were convicted." In the December 1st issue of the same Law Journal, we find a quotation from the recollections of Lord Morley in which he says, that while he was Secretary of State for India, somebody said to him, " You see the great executive officers |