PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. BY HON. P. J. CROGAN. As an association for the advancement of the science of jurisprudence you have now for twelve years labored earnestly and faithfully, and with a degree of success at once commendable and encouraging. The imprint of the intelligent labors of the association shows itself upon our laws where they were much in need of editing and has stamped its individuality indelibly as a factor both constructive and critical. With no interest to subserve but that of the people in general, and no hope of reward but that of self-satisfaction in well doing, and in bringing about a better system of laws and a purer administration of government, with no creed but right and justice to promulgate, no factional or party lash to urge to undue speed, no follower to reward, and no foe to punish except the advocate of vicious laws and the supporter of bad government, your deliberations must be, and are wholly unbiased, unrestrained, unselfish and totally independent of a master, clique or cabal. Independent, wholesome and pure results can alone emanate from such an association. Permitted as we are, however, to move in any circle of thought we may select, with no fixed groove or channel through which we are directed to go, how easily we gravitate into self-appointed critics, with more or less fault finding as reviewers. How much easier to act the role of an iconoclast than of an architect, to tear down than to build up, to be a passive, than a constructive statesman. And yet, are we not in part assembled for the purpose of reviewing that which has been done by the law-making powers, of suggesting, criticising, and pointing out errors that they may be corrected, and dangers that they may be avoided, as well as for the purpose of promulgating new and untried doctrines? When it was recently discovered that the name of one of the composers of sweetest verse, was omitted from the list of famous literary personages adorning the corridors of the new Congressional library, for the reason, as alleged, that the poet had unjustly criticised our country and our people, a more thorough investigation brought to light the fact that in after years the author thus ignored, had made ample apology for his early rashness, and took occasion to state, that our lives are long enough in which to make many mistakes, but not long enough in which to correct those mistakes. We may at least in our lifetime seek to point out the mistakes of others, even if our lives are too short to attempt a correction of our own, and thus may the mistakes of all be corrected by their contemporaries. Napoleon's test of a great man was in the answer that might be given to the question, "What has he done?" Applying a somewhat similar test, but more with a view of ascertaining results than of seeking for individual greatness, the law-maker's work of the year which has elapsed since last we met, might profitably come under our notice and our review for a few moments under the interrogatory, "What have they done?" Within the past year our highest judicial tribunal has not been idle, and we have much food for thought in the result of the arduous labors of that Court. Over 130 cases have been heard in which opinions have been handed down, covering over 700 pages of our Reports. To attempt to give even a resumé of all those decisions would sorely tax your patience, without a corresponding degree of profit on this occasion. What a pleasure it is, however, for the lawyer on such an occasion as the present one to be in a position to have the last word, and, if need be, read his "dissenting opinion.” Many decisions of vast importance, showing arduous labor, wise discrimination, and deep thought, will we find among those decided cases. Statutes have been expounded, some disfigured, and others totally annihilated, while many others were permitted to stand, which many of us think should in some way be censured severely for ever appearing at all, if not condemned utterly. Old laws have been affirmed, vexed questions settled, and questions supposed to have been settled, have become either unsettled or wholly reversed. Withal there is much to admire and little to criticise in the year's decisions. Let us review briefly. Now may we, with equal protection from the inquisitorial grand jury, indulge either in the luxurious meerschaum or the much abused and alleged deadly cigarette, and by the grace of the legislative branch we are no longer, as formerly, required to even keep an eye on the “original package." No longer is it necessary for the sheriff to hold the writ of fi.fa. till the actual expiration of its ninety day life, but upon the fact made known to him that no property can be found or money made, he may forthwith say so, and thus hasten the happy hours when the hungry lawyer may pocket his coveted docket fee and commissions in chancery. Unhappily for all parties concerned (except the pettifogger), the Court has said in a many-hued opinion, that one new trial may be granted each of the parties in an action before a justice of the peace. This prolongs the agony, enriches the justice, makes the litigants poor, and no doubt will receive loud applause and high praise from the shyster, and from him who cannot pass the Rubicon of the University law faculty. Would that some power might arise saying with authority, that henceforth and forever, no trial, new or otherwise, of a contested matter should ever again take place before a justice of the peace, except in extremely petty cases. Again, more securely than ever before may we take our "ease at our inn." For though flagons of malt may have played havoc with our intellects, and the night's potations may have lulled us for all practical purposes of self-protection into a state of " innocuous desuetude," yet if while |