words like unconditional submission had been used, or any importing, or justly implying degredation, or humiliation even, to the people of the Confederate States." He thought that submission to the "laws under the Constitution" could not be considered as "unconditional submission to conquerors, or as having anything humiliating in it." To this, Mr. Hunter replied: "But you make no agreement that these rights [under the Constitution] will be so held and secured." Mr. Lincoln replied to this by saying that as far as "the Confiscation Acts, and other penal acts, were concerned, their enforcement was left entirely with him,” that he was willing to be "full and explicit" on that point, and that "he should exercise the power of the Executive with the utmost liberality." Mr. Stephens observes further that Lincoln "went on to say that he would be willing to be taxed to remunerate the Southern people for their slaves. He believed the people of the North were as responsible for slavery as the people of the South, and if the war should then cease, with the voluntary abolition of slavery by the States, he should be in favor, individually, of the Government paying a fair indemnity for the loss to the owners." But on this subject, he said that he "could give no assurance." 1

This practically brought the Conference to a conclusion; and after some arrangements for a special exchange of prisoners, Mr. Stephens said: "I wish Mr. President, you would re-consider the subject of an Armistice on the basis which has been suggested." Taking Mr. Stephens' hand "for a

1A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, by Alexander H. Stephens, Vol. II, p. 617.

farwell leave," Mr. Lincoln replied: "Well, Stephens, I will re-consider it, but I do not think my mind will change, but I will re-consider."

And so the historic Conference ended after a full, fair, and dispassionate discussion of the momentous question of peace by compromise. In that group of statesmen, anchored out upon the waters of the deep blue sea, Abraham Lincoln was the imposing figure, holding absolutely in his hand the fate of a continent. With another man in his place and another man than Grant at City Point, the current of polit ical events might have changed its course in an hour. Within ten weeks of this time the Confederacy had collapsed, and President Lincoln had fallen at the hands of an assassin-Lincoln, the best and truest friend of the fallen

cause.

The commissioners on the way back to Richmond had another interview with General Grant, who "evidently," says Mr. Stephens, "regretted very much that nothing had been accomplished by the Conference." In Richmond "everybody was very much disappointed, and no one seemed to be more so than Mr. Davis." Mr. Stephens himself still entertained a lingering hope that Mr. Lincoln would "re-consider" and that something might yet come of it.

IOWA CITY, Iowa

JOSEPH W. RICH

SOME PUBLICATIONS

Proceedings of the Iowa State Bar Association. Eighth annual session, held at Dubuque, 1902. Published by the Association. Pp. 227.

The temporary organization of the present State Bar Association of Iowa was effected at Des Moines in 1894, and its first regular session was held in that city during the following year. Since that time the annual sessions have been held at different places in the State, during the summer vacation of the courts. The plan of having the meetings in different places from year to year has been advantageous in that it has secured the active interest of many lawyers, who perhaps would not have attended any session if all had been held at one point; but on the other hand, it has deprived the Association of a substantial, continuous body of members who may be expected to be present at all its sessions. The work of the Association would probably be more effective if the meetings were held each year at the capital of the State.

The primary object of the various State bar associations, as well as of the American Bar Association which is composed of a membership from all the States, is to promote the general interests of the profession of law and stimulate the members of that profession in the discharge of their higher duties towards the State and the public. The constant aim of such associations has been to conserve the traditions of the profession, which recognize its members as charged with the performance of a public function. These traditions are based on the theory that lawyers who are licensed to practice their profession in the courts really constitute an essential part of such courts in the administration of law, and are not merely private persons, availing themselves of the opportunities of the profession for the purpose of individual gain. The contest is strenuously made against mere com

mercialism, and the deliberations of the members of such associations do not relate to the best methods of practicing law to their own advantage, but rather to those matters in which the profession is discharging a public duty. The true objects of such organizations are well set forth in the constitution of the one in Iowa, which declares that "This association is formed to cultivate the science of jurisprudence, to promote reform in the law, to facilitate the administration of justice, to elevate the standard of integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession, to encourage a thorough and liberal education, and to cherish a spirit of brotherhood among the members thereof." A brief review of the proceedings of the eighth session will show that the Association is faithfully carrying out the objects for which it was organized.

The formal program of the annual session usually consists of the President's address, an address by some judge or lawyer of distinction, usually selected from outside the State, and several papers by members of the Association relating to subjects of interest to the profession. For this session the President's address was on The Life, Character, Career and Professional Labors of Justice Samuel F. Miller, of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered, as usual, by the retiring President, who in this case was Hon. J. H. McConlogue, of Mason City. The annual address was by Hon. Paul E. Carpenter, of Milwaukee, on Some of the Legal Phases of Insanity. It would not be possible here to synopsize what was said, nor will it be necessary to eulogize the speakers. The addresses present in a full, fair, and interesting way the subject matter properly indicated by their titles. The papers read were by Hon. M. J. Wade on The Use and Abuse of Expert Evidence, by Hon. H. M. Remley, on the question, Should the Marriage of Feeble Minded and Degenerates be Prohibited by Law, and by Hon. George W. Wakefield on The Need of Law to Govern Trial of Equity Cases.

At the previous session a section of the Association was provided for to give special attention to the subject of Taxation, and at this session papers were read before the section by Professor H. S. Rich

ards of the College of Law of the State University, Mr. A. E. Swisher of Iowa City, and Mr. E. E. McElroy of Ottumwa. The most interesting discussion of the session was that which followed the reading of these papers. Hon. R. M. Haines of Grinnell, who presided over the section, was subsequently elected President of the Association for the ensuing year; but by his recent death the Association has not only been deprived of a President, but also of an enthusiastic worker, and the bar of one of its strongest, most conscientious, and most laborious members.

The papers as to expert evidence and trial of equity cases are illustrations of the constant attention which is being given in such associations as this to the development of the law in its practical applications for the purpose of administering justice to litigants, and they deal with matters of great interest to the profession. The paper with relation to the marriage of the feeble minded and degenerates illustrates the constant and well recognized relation which must exist between the law and questions of sociology as to which legislation is thought to be desirable. While lawyers as members of the legal profession have no immediate concern with the principles of sociology, or with the proper subjects of legislation, it is recognized as practically true that legislation can be effective only so far as it is intelligently based on the law as it exists, for enforcement of legislation must rest largely with the courts.

Although lawyers are not by profession law makers, they are the wisest counsellors in determining the effectiveness of proposed changes in or additions to the law, and those of them who become members of legislative bodies render a valuable service in procuring the passage of laws which are for the public interest. The constant tendency of bar associations to discuss subjects of proposed legislation, which is not strictly within the scope of jurisprudence, illustrates the close relations between the making and the administration of laws, whatever may be their purpose. It may be questioned whether associations of lawyers do not assume too much in the interest which they manifest in subjects of this kind, for their primary and impor