of that institution, and he was liable to go from bad to worst until he became a hardened and hopeless criminal, and a menace and burden to the community.

Some of you know of the action of my associate, Judge Henderson, which was universally commended—even in editorials of the press in remote cities. A man in a drunken brawl killed a former friend. He was convicted of manslaughter, and instead of confining him in the penitentiary or imposing some other penalty authorized by our statute for that crime, Judge Henderson suspended sentence for three years, on condition that he would pay the widow of his victim a fixed sum per month during that period for the support of herself and children. At each term of Court he was required to appear and produce receipts showing that he had paid the amount required. He not only made the payments, but the last I heard of him he had married and was leading a sober, decent life.

Giving justices of the peace more criminal jurisdiction in misdemeanors, with the right of the parties to demand a jury trial in the Circuit Court, or to appeal to that Court, has for the most part proved satisfactory. A great many minor cases which formerly had to go before the Grand Jury are now disposed of by the justices. Comparatively few appeals are taken, especially since the Act of 1906, which authorizes amendments of the proceedings before the justice, or before the Court, if the case is taken there. As the justices have concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts in such cases, it is all the more important that competent men be selected to fill those positions.

It seems to me to be appropriate to refer to some of the laws passed or amended during the last twenty years. It is well for attorneys and Judges to ocasionally take a retrospective view, and thereby be better prepared to consider proposed changes for the future. If laymen understood the full effect of the changes in the State during the past twenty

five years, including those made by the Code of 1888, they would not be so ready to declare that the law does not progress. As the property rights, the liberties, the protection and sometimes the lives of the people are affected by the laws of the land, those which have been tried and have been found useful and effective are not lightly to be brushed aside, simply to make way for something new. We would have "Confusion worse confounded" if every new idea, although apparently popular, were enacted into law. The tendency of the present day is to have too many statutes and ordinances. It is no cause for boasting that our last Session laws cover 1,669 pages, especially when we compare the size of that volume with those of larger States, such, for example, as Illinois, which had 555 pages, and Ohio, which had 754 pages in their laws of 1911. But new conditions and circumstances do make it necessary to change our statute law from time to time and, although our people are conservative, the State of Maryland has made considerable advance in the adoption of some of the uniform laws which have been recommended throughout the country, as well as other statutes. It would be too great an imposition on you, as well as on myself, to give a complete summary of the many important changes which have been made during the last twenty years, but I will refer to some others.

The Act of 1898, Chapter 139, relating to admissions to the Bar, has in most respects been sufficient and satisfactory, although some amendments might be advantageously made. One thousand five hundred and thirty nine attorneys have been admitted to practice by the Court of Appeals since that Act went into effect, although a few of them had been admitted in the lower Courts prior to 1898. There have been during the last twenty years 1,857 admitted to the Court of Appeals, but we have not felt impelled to require the Crier, as is still done in some of the counties, to daily open the Court with the invocation: "God save the State and the Honorable Bench.”

As you know, by the Act of 1902, Chapter 399, women were for the first time permitted to practice in this State. I am informed that some of them have passed the examinations exceptionally well, and none of them have to my knowledge caused any regret that the Act of 1902 was passed.

Among other statutes worthy of special mention are the Negotiable Instruments Act, Articles 14 and 14A of the Code on Bills of Lading and Warehouse Receipts, the New Corporation Law, those in reference to Elections, Article 33A on Eminent Domain, those making material changes in the law of Husband and Wife, the amendment to the Article on Licenses in reference to Motor Vehicles, the Uniform Sales Act, the abolition of the Rule in Shelley's case, and a number intended to improve the condidion and protect the lives and health of men, women and children engaged in such occupations as entitled them to the protection of the State.

Much of what I have thus far spoken has been brought to my attention at nisi prius, or in some way through my connection with the Circuit Court. I will now ask your indulgence, while I refer to some matters more particularly con nected with the Court of Appeals. In the first place, I want to assure you that the present members of that Court are heartily in favor of something being done which will reduce the cost and size of the records. By your direction I appointed a special committee to consider those questions, and I assume that its report will be presented to you and hope that some definite, feasible plan will be suggested. It is, of course, important that the records be properly printed, and the Court would not approve of any change which might have the contrary result. Ocasionally we have had briefs furnished us of a kind which we ought not to be asked to accept, as they are so badly printed. If we had many such, it might be necessary to have an occulist as an attache of the Court.

I have made some investigation but have not ascertained the exact date when printing of the records began in this State. It was, however, sometime after the Constitution of 1851 was adopted. I recently had occasion to examine a record of a case decided at the December Term, 1854, and found that six copies in writing had been made one for each of the four Judges then on the Court, and one for each side. The records and briefs were not bound as they are now before 1886, and hence those prior to that time are more difficult to find-although the original records transmitted from the lower Courts are, of course, accessible. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals, as revised and amended at the October Term, 1865, is the first one that I have found directing the Clerk to have the records and briefs printed, but that was evidently an amendment to a former rule (although I have not been able to find it), as I have found a printed record in a case which was decided at the December Term, 1863. The costs prior to 1894 were greatly in excess of what they are now, and they were somewhat reduced recently after an interview by the Court and Clerk with those who print them, but the question is how can they be further reduced, and still have the records properly printed.

I have often wondered how the Appellate Courts in large States, which have so many more appeals before them than we have, can give them consideration and decide them within a reasonable time, but there is one explanation which suggests itself. We are required to file an opinion in writing in every case, while they are not, at least in many States. We file in the Court of Appeals at least 150 to 200 or more opinions each year. We had 258 appeals on the three dockets during the past year and filed 215 opinions. The difference is accounted for by continuances, dismissals, doubles, etc. Even if we take the minimum, 150 (65 less than those of the last three terms), and deduct Sundays and legal holidays, that is an average for the whole year

of one case in every two working days-including the time occupied in the argument, in consultation, reading the record and briefs and other study of the case, and writing the opinion. In point of fact our work is done in about nine months, as we finish the April Term the latter part of June or the early part of July, which makes an average of a case in a little over a day and a half. We finish the docket at each term and never adjourn the April Term until every case ready for argument has been heard and decided. The only reason we can decide the cases as promptly as we do is that a number of them give us but little trouble, and we practically determine them the day they are argued.

When I went on the Bench it had been the custom for many years for the chief judge to write the opinion in the first case argued at each term and then the next judge in point of seniority and so on to the junior. For some years we have varied our practice from term to term, and have had six different ways of assigning the cases. There is an impression among many members of the Bar, as well as laymen, that those of a particular kind are assigned to one judge, those of another character to another judge, and so on, but in point of fact we determine at the beginning of the term the order in which they shall be assigned, and each one is expected to take his case as it comes, in the order adopted. When a judge is absent when his turn comes he is supposed to make up for it when he returns, unless his absence is caused by illness. That is done to divide the work as equally as possible, and each one has to take the risk of getting an easy case or a difficult one, a small record or a large one, to write the opinion in. We sometimes exchange with each other. If, for example, one judge has written an opinion involving questions similar to those in a case of the pending term, he may exchange with the judge to whom the latter went in regular order, or there may be some other reason for making an exchange. But as a rule, we write them as they come to us, in the order