PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS.

of our Supreme Court, asking for specific information regarding the quantity of work done by the court during the past year. The acting clerk of the Northern Grand Division of Illinois promptly sent me full information most systematically arranged, meeting all the questions I put to him. But the information received from the clerk of the Central Grand Division was so meagre that I was obliged to call on our secretary to inspect the clerk's records. The clerk of the Southern Grand Division gave me no information whatever, so that I was obliged to employ one of the bar to inspect his records. The table I have prepared from the information thus acquired, therefore lacks the certificate of the clerk, save as it refers to the Northern Grand Division, but I am quite confident that it is substantially correct:

JOHN H. HAMLINE.

During the same period the court rendered a number of opinions in cases which were on the advisement docket and civil docket of the March term, 1895, but how many of the ninety-four cases of such advisement docket and of the thirtyfive cases of said civil docket which were decided prior to the October term, 1895, were decided after the May term, 1895, when the year began, I have not ascertained. But it took six months to decide something over one-third of the cases referred to in above schedule; six months longer to decide a little over one-sixth, while a little less than one-third of all these cases are still undecided.

It will certainly not be claimed that this is in strict conformity with the provisions of our bill of rights, to-wit: "He ought to obtain by law, right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay."

But the occasion for the court's existence is apparent, for it regularly reverses one case for every three it affirms. On the contrary, the bar seems to lack confidence in the court's opinion as first handed down, for we observe that petitions for rehearings have been filed in a little more than one case out of every four, while the court's trust of its own opinion is manifest by the fact that it grants a rehearing in one out of every eight petitions filed. The effect of this is to increase the rehearing docket to such large proportions as to make it rival the civil docket.

But, as this table shows, the advisement docket at Ottawa at the October term was nearly as large as the civil docket, and at the next term will probably be much larger.

At the last meeting of this Association a distinguished member of the Supreme Court practically requested the bar not to take up the time of the court with oral arguments. On the contrary, within the last three years an opinion was handed down in one case, holding that a view by a jury of he property over which a special assessment had been spread,

PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS.

taken over the remonstrance of the objectors, was proper; while a few weeks afterward, at the same term, I think, another opinion was written by another judge and filed in another case, without referring to the other case, which held such view to be error. On petition for rehearing the court

adopted the first opinion.

The reason for this violation of that provision of the constitution which requires the concurrence of four judges to effect a decision-and it is apparent that one of these opinions did not reflect the views of four judges-is the method by which the court dispatches its business, and this method is compelled by reason of the ambulatory character of the bench as required by law.

The method employed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in disposing of a case is understood to be as follows: It met at Ottawa in October, 1895, after the summer vacation. Two weeks were given up to motions, discussing opinions written during the summer and considering a rehearing docket of fifty cases. It then started on a call of the civil calendar of 203 cases, at the rate of twenty cases a day, and sat from nine in the morning until the day's call was finished. So greatly have oral arguments been discouraged that frequently the call is finished in half an hour. Rarely does the court fail to get through the day's call. This call takes up the time of the court until about November 1st, when it is required to get on to wheels and go to Mt. Vernon to hold the November term.

Now the theory is, that some time during the day or night after this call of twenty cases a day, the court, having divided itself into three committees of two members each, went over the cases by committees. That is to say, A of committee one read over to B the abstract of the record and the brief in a certain cause assigned to A. B did the same thing with the cause assigned to him. Having done so they then met their colleagues in banc as it were, and A stated to

JOHN H. HAMLINE.

them what he understood the facts to be, and B was there to correct his statement if necessary. The full court then decided the case and instructed A to write an opinion in conformity with such decision. The other committees did the like. At a future date the opinion as prepared was read over to the whole court, and they decided whether to adopt or reject it. Now it is obvious that two-thirds of the court never did learn the facts of the record save from the judge who wrote what he learned therefrom. It is also apparent that from the 3d Tuesday in October, when the court began its call, to the 1st Tuesday in November, when it had to be at Mt. Vernon, three committees could not begin to read over 200 cases. It followed, therefore, that frequently the case was read and the opinion prepared by one judge without the court first passing on the case at all, and the first time the court even learned of the case at all, was when the opinion was read over for approval or dissent, months after the case was taken, and, if the case was argued orally, long after the oral argument had been forgotten. In such cases an oral argument is undoubtedly time wasted. Not because of the worthlessness of the argument, but on account of the deplorable system of the court. Every lawyer who is called into consultation with his fellows knows how smooth an opinion will sound when read over rapidly, but how unsound it frequently proves to be after a critical discussion of the legal propositions laid down therein.

The November term at Mt. Vernon, on account of the light docket, lasts but about a week, and then the court. adjourns to meet and work together. Not at all. One man goes to Galesburg, another to Chicago, another to Mt. Vernon, another to Springfield, and so they scatter all over the State; some have first-class law libraries at hand, others are miles away from many of the books cited in the brief. But all, at their respective homes, toil solitary and alone from morning to night, doing some of the hardest and most con

PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS.

scientious work ever done by any bench, but engaged in the work of Sisyphus in the vain endeavor to hold up a docket. which is forever rolling away from them.

The result is that the court is robbed of the greatest possible assistance in the prosecution of a legal inquiry-the oral argument of an able practitioner, skilled in stating his facts in the most concrete form. This in turn checks the development of the bar and the production from its ranks of men taught to state their facts in an epigram, their legal propositions in a syllogism. To remedy this evil the court. should sit at one point, either at Springfield or Chicago, and its term should never cease. It should permit a case appealed from any part of the State during a prior month to go on the calendar for the current month, providing appellant's brief was filed therein ten days prior to the first day of such succeeding month. Oral arguments should be encouraged in' every case. The court should adjourn for the day by two o'clock. It should give up the afternoons and every Saturday to a consideration of the cases argued or taken that day; the fourth week of every month should be given to a consideration of opinions prepared; and on the first Monday of the next month the opinions of the previous month should be handed down. During July and August the court should take a recess, as no cases could then come into that court on account of the adjournment of the lower courts during those months. If the docket for the year should, as now, aggregate 600 cases to be called, these cases, distributed over thirtythree weeks of five days to the week, would mean 150 days to listen to the argument of and consider 600 cases, or a call of four cases a day. A call of six cases a day would probably work well in practice. Do you understand what such a system would mean? It would enable you to get your case to the Supreme Court within not to exceed six weeks from the time the Appellate Court decided it; to present it with all the force and clearness a bar trained to the practice could