ADDRESS OF CHARLES A. BOSTON (of the New York Bar) GENTLEMEN: I didn't think that I was to be injected into such an ecclesiastical atmosphere. I have been assailed with epithets ever since I started to come here. I have an idea that your presiding officer thought he would discourage me with his advocatus diaboli and his apologia. But he is not the first one who sprang such epithets at me since I started hither, because on the street I met a body of Boy Scouts, the leader of whom announced loudly enough for me to hear that they were on their way to see the "Four Horsemen of the Polly Clipse." I have made a mistake for which I have to offer an "apologia" and with that I shall begin. I have written what I have to say. It is the most foolish thing that a man can do if he wants to fasten the attention of his audience, but I knew that this was in a measure a controversial subject; and I knew that you would wish to get at the point very quickly; I felt that it was my duty to reason closely, and I was aware, if you are not, that the probability is that I shall present some views which you have not thought of. I shall endeavour to elaborate those views and to draw a logical and well-reasoned conclusion from them. For that reason, though I am not in the habit of reading what I have to say, I take the liberty of doing so to-night. Whether I can hold out against the forces of Satan who are outside clamouring that their representatives shall get the floor, I don't know; but I shall endeavour to. The address for which I have been selected concerns the encroachment by corporations on private practice-a title that was suggested to me and not by me. The interests involved are public, professional and corporate. The principles involved are legal, economic and ethical. Through no fault of mine, I am interjected into a controversial subject, or one which I regard as controversial. Unlike the other subjects to which you have listened during the winter, this one is not confined to the exhibition of law in operation. The subject matter is characterized as an encroachment. The implication of the title selected is that corporations are encroaching, and in so doing, are invading rights. If that be so, then this topic introduces a controversial subject: Why is the existing law not enforced, or why is not the necessary law made; whereas, if it be not so, then the subject is equally controversial, though its formula would be changed into: Why should there be any discussion? I have long been an advocate of the more intensive study of what the law ought to be, rather than of what it is. Much of our eternal discussion of what the law is would be wholly unnecessary if we should effectually turn our attention to what the law ought to be. In the present case there have been, and are, differences of opinion as to what the law ought to be, and of late there have been drastic changes in legislation and drastic expressions of professional and judicial opinion, which in my judgment are of very questionable soundness. They appear to me to be dictated by a professional opinion which lacks broadness of vision, which overlooks historical evolution, which misconceives principles and defies public interest, which has been promoted by the misuse of logic, which has led to intellectual inconsistency, which has produced uncertainty and confusion, which has resulted in injustice, and which has its base largely in professional selfishness. It is for these reasons that I am not here to discuss what the law is, but what in a sound recognition of the underlying and essential principle it ought to be. If we are |