« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
which enters the City of London. A Chicago man told me so, and it must be true. Can it be said that the admiralty jurisdiction should not be there maintained by the courts of the United States? One of our greatest admiralty judges, Associate Justice Brown, accumulated his vast learning on the Detroit River, whose bright waters are daily thronged with that lake commerce which is the pride of every American citizen.
It occurs to me that the political and judicial philosophy, which has compelled Congress and our courts to utilize the elasticity and flexibility of those marvelous facilities of the Constitution, to meet the exigencies of our modern civilization, find ample justification in the wonders resulting therefrom.
Of course, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and the other great men who framed the Constitution, could not have anticipated the day of the steam engine, the steam boat, the telegraph, the telephone, or the growth of those beneficent corporations, formed to enchain these forces of nature, and make them available and useful for all the future. They were indeed, as has been said, "prophetic and prescient of all the future had in store.”
It may be, as so attractively contended by our distinguished brother from Louisiana, Mr. Farrar, that the extension of the admiralty jurisdiction to the interior waterways and the Great Lakes is “judge-made law.” It is, nevertheless, settled law, and at this time it can, I think, be safely asserted that it is good law.
Stephen H. Allen, of Kansas:
I was very much impressed by the very able paper that has been read, and I was greatly impressed with the proposition that constitutional limitations are in their nature rigid. We are govei ned by a Constitution adopted more than a hundred years ago, a Constitution which of necessity could not provide and foresee all the exigencies that were thereafter to happen. Now the proposition presented to this Association is this: Are the judges authorized by construction to extend the limits of the power of a particular court; are they authorized by this great fundamental Constitution to extend their power, to eliminate the powers of the people through the old common law system to determine their controversies, and extend arbitrarily the powers of the judges to
determine according to their own will? I am not willing to assent to the proposition that any power has been lodged in the courts to extend thus their own powers. I am not willing to assent to the proposition that it is safe to entrust to federal courts or to any other courts the right to extend their own powers, and increase their own jurisdiction. The Constitution, it seems to me, is a limitation on those powers, and unless those limitations are observed, the Constitution itself is of no force. If it is so elastic that it will stretch over all the inferior waters of the land, it seems to me that it is sufficiently elastic to stretch over the whole broad land, the prairies, the desert and the mountains.
The Association then adjourned until Wednesday, August 26, 1908, at 10 A. M.
Wednesday, August 26, 1908, 10.30 A. M. The President called the meeting to order. The President:
Gentlemen, I have the honor this morning of introducing to you the Honorable George Turner, of the State of Washington, who will deliver the Annual Address. George Turner then delivered the Annual Address.
(See the Appendix.) Frederick W. Lehmann, of Missouri:
I move the report of the Committee to Suggest Remedies and Formulate Proposed Laws to Prevent Delay and Unnecessary ('ost in Litigation be made the special order for this evening.
The motion was seconded and adopted.
I am requested by members of the Committee on Insurance Law to announce that the report of that committee will be presented later.
Is the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform ready to report?
P. W. Meldrim, of Georgia :
Nothing having been referred to that committee, Mr. President; there is, therefore, no report to be presented.
The Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. That report is in print. As the Chairman of the committee is absent it will be deferred.
The Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:
That committee has no report to make, inasmuch as the report submitted last year was not acted upon, because of the fact that it had not been printed in time. It is my intention to bring before the Association all the recommendations in the report which the committee unanimously agreed to, and to ask that those recommendations be adopted by the Association at this time. There was a difference of opinion in the committee over the recommendation concerning a uniform law on the subject of law degrees. As the gentleman who filed a minority report on that subject is not present, I will not bring up at this time and in his absence, that portion of the report. But I move that all of the other recommendations made by the committee and which are printed on page 588 of the Proceedings for 1907, be approved.
David L. Withington, of Hawaii Territory:
I desire to object to the last recommendation, and I do it as a matter of conscience. Let me be plain. I hold a minor position in a night law school in the City of Washington. I have found from an experience of nearly thirty years at the Bar that men who have prosecuted diligently their studies for three years in a night school were the equals of lawyers who had enjoyed more favored opportunities as students in great universities. I was admitted to the Bar from the Columbia Law School in Washington, in 1879, after two years' study in a law school proper, but after several years' work in a lawyer's office. Now, in the school I represent we have a post-graduate course, but it is not fair to men who make their living by the sweat of their brow in the day time and study law at night and pass an examination at the end of three years, to say to them that they shall be subject to an additional year of tuition before they can receive their degree. 1 yield to no man in my advocacy of a high standard of education for admission to the Bar, but I think that a young man who studies diligently at a night school, and passes an examination equal to that of a man coming from any of the great university law schools, is entitled to receive his degree. I do not think this last recommendation of the committee should prevail.
G. A. C. Rochester, of Washington:
I was admitted to practice law in Kentucky, and I practiced there and in the State of Missouri for a number of years before coming to Seattle. I have no brief here to represent any law school; I am not a professor in a law school nor am I the graduate of one, but I do assume to represent the poor young man who tries diligently by hard work and study to make his way to the Bar and does so through the lawyer's office, or in his own room, after he has worked hard at some other business during the day by which to support himself. It may be that this Association should be composed of graduates of the various law schools of the country; they may be more suited to practice law, than others, but I do not believe it. I think this recommendation takes away from the ambitious young man the opportunity to earn a livelihood and at the same time secure a legal education.
Charles H. Carey, of Oregon:
I want to call for a division of the question on these recommendations. I suggest that the question be put first on the first ten recommendations of the committee.
Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:
Do I understand the gentleman that the question should be on the adoption of all the recommendations made by the committee excepting the recommendations as to night schools, and that that be voted on separately?
Charles H. Carey :
Fremont Wood, of Idaho:
The motion is to adopt the first ten recommendations of the committee.
The first ten recommendations of the committee were adopted. Henry Wade Rogers :
I now move the adoption of the recommendation in reference to night schools, and before the question is put, I wish to call the attention of the Association to the fact that the Association is simply asked to approve the action of those night schools which have voluntarily increased their course to four years, and that we express the hope—not that we require, for that we could not do-that we express the hope that other night schools will see fit to take similar action.
Jesse A. Baldwin, of Illinois :
Mr. President and gentlemen: I simply wish to make this general remark. I think there is a tendency in colleges now-adays to elongate the terms of study. I do not think it is wise to require a young man to spend too much of his youth in preliminary studies. Youth is the precious time of life, when aspiration runs highest and ambition is the strongest, and when a man is most plastic, and able to take on impressions. I like to see a young man get a chance to begin his life's work early. With regard to night schools, I have observed that it makes not nearly so much difference as to the amount of education a young man has, as what is in his head and in his heart. If he has the stuff in him to make a lawyer, he will make a lawyer with no night school.