JOHN H. HAMLINE.

the rest of the year. Nearly every case is argued orally. Twice a week at least the judges meet and discuss the cases argued. The judge to whom a case is assigned gives his opinion. If it meets with the approval of his associates it becomes the decision of the court. When the opinion of the lower court is affirmed, frequently no opinion is handed down. When the court takes its recess the judges have become familiar with each other's views as to the undecided cases, and during the recess they write the opinions in the cases assigned to them. On Friday and Saturday before the Monday of a new session they meet in consultation and go over the undecided cases and the opinions that have been written. In difficult cases the consultations are continued from one consultation day to another until a prevailing decision is arrived at. At each session about 100 cases are taken. Half of these are apt to be decided at that session. On the first Tuesday of the new session most of the undecided cases are decided, and the few cases remaining are usually decided on the following Tuesday. In other words, a decision in from sixty to ninety days after an argument.

Motions for rehearings are rare, and a motion granted is extremely rare. The clerk of the court writes me: "I doubt if five motions for rehearing have been granted in twenty years," and says "the holding of the court at a permanent place and the frequent and exhaustive consultations of the judges have largely tended to make the decisions of the court approved of by the profession."

WISCONSIN.

In Wisconsin there are five judges of the Supreme Court; and 375 opinions were written during the past year in a docket of 475 causes, and seventy-five calendar motions disposed of. The court sits at the State capitol and went into session September 4, 1895. The calendar was made up from all cases begun prior to three or four days before the court began. Fifty-three cases Fifty-three cases were assigned for argument and a call of not to exceed eight cases a day was begun.

PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS.

Arguments were heard therein for five hours each day until all of the cases assigned were argued. The balance of each day was devoted by each member of the court to looking over the cases argued. At the conclusion of this assignment a day was taken by the judges to completing the work of looking over the cases before going into consultation. Each member is supposed to have carefully looked over each case argued and to have prepared himself to decide the same. In the consultation each judge beginning with the junior member of the court giving his views on the first case argued. If they were all agreed the chief justice wrote the opinion. The next case was then decided and the opinion was assigned to the next judge in rank. If the judges failed to agree then the court went into an investigation and pursued it with a view to reaching a unamimous opinion. The judges then proceeded to write the opinions, and if any judge discovered a point that had been overlooked, he at once notified his associates and the judges all convened, considered and decided the point. When the opinions were all written and usually the day before a hearing of a new assignment of cases were begun, the judges all met and read over the opinions thus prepared. If the opinions were satisfactory to the court, the decisions were on the next day communicated from the bench by the writers of the several opinions and the latter were filed with the clerk. At the adjournment of the call of an assignment, the clerk notified the counsel by mail of the new assignment, and the day when the court will want to make its call. Each of these assignments numbered from thirty to thirty-five cases and required from two and one-half to three and one-half weeks for their disposition. The court was kept continually at work until about June 25th. Chief Justice Cassidy writes me that oral arguments are encouraged.

It would seem that this system were well nigh perfect.

JOHN H. HAMLINE.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Supreme Court of the United States calls its calendar in the regular order during the early days of the week, and as the cases are called, each judge takes the record and examines it for himself. Upon Saturday, he meets in the consultation chamber with his associates and an inquiry is made if all the judges have personally examined the record of the first case called. If any of them have not, the case is not then considered. But as a matter of fact, the judges have all done so. The opinion of each judge is then asked as to what he considers the critical point in the case, and what his opinion is in respect thereto. After the announcement of the opinion of each judge, a discussion of the views of the various members is entered into, and after these facts. are thoroughly considered, a vote is taken and the case is then and there decided and given to one of the judges to write up an opinion.

I am advised by one of the members of the bench that they consider oral argument of the most valuable assistance to them, and well nigh indispensable.

As observed, this practice is in its most essential features, similar to that pursued by the Wisconsin court, and certainly no one outside of a populist convention, would suggest that the opinions of the Federal Supreme Court were lacking in learning, breadth or precision.

However well known by the bar the above facts may be, the public at large, it occurs to me, are not acquainted with them. Upon the people learning these facts, it would seem that they would insist on the legislature providing, as the constitution permits, that the Supreme Court should consist of one grand division, and should have its seat either at Chicago, the most convenient place for the bar of the state at large to convene, or Springfield, the capital of the state. But the public is slow to act, and requires the leadership of those especially affected by the existing system, and it seems to

PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS.

me that it is the duty of every lawyer to co-operate in bringing about this reform. It is true that for every client whose rights are denied by delay, there is an adverse client whose pocket is benefited by such delay, and it is equally true that in the heat of professional contest every lawyer is apt to take advantage of all the delay that the law affords if it will avail his client. But the bar is a special class. By reason of education, both legal, mental and moral, which its members receive in becoming familiar with the great principles of justice which underlie its administration, it has, by the law of the state, been recognized as an integral part of the machinery of justice. Its members are officers of the court. Admission to its ranks is not a matter of right, but a matter of fitness. If, and when, its members see the existence of a great public evil, they fail to take the lead in remedying the same, they must expect to lose the position they have so long enjoyed as the leaders of the American people.

To secure this reform requires intelligent, continuous and laborious work. But he is a short sighted member of the bar and unworthy of the citizenship he enjoys who refuses at some time to give up a part of his time not only for the benefit of his profession, but to secure to his fellowman "right and justice freely, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay."