PROCEEDINGS. MR. PENCE: I have had some experience with the Supreme Court of Minnesota, and it does its business in an exceedingly satisfactory way. They do it in this way: One of the judges who is to write the opinion reads the record and the briefs before the case is called, and he is thoroughly con versant with the case. The case is then called and is argued orally. And after the cases are taken for the day, the Judges sit down at once and read the briefs and abstracts and come to a conclusion then and there, together. If they cannot reach a conclusion at once, they will separately read the briefs and abstracts and at the next session come to a conclusion, and they at once decide the case and assign it for an opinion. The opinion will be written probably within a week or two, and at a certain time, possibly on Saturday, they come together for the purpose of reading opinions, or on Monday, and while the facts and the law and the statement of the case and everything are fresh in the mind of every one of them, the Judge reads his opinion to the other Judges and it is approved or disapproved. In this way they can quite well understand the facts and the law of a case. I think the method of the Supreme Court of the United States is a little superior, because I do not believe the Judges, while they sit together, can properly read briefs and abstracts. They ought to be alone, and hence, the records and the briefs should be read by each Judge at once after the case is called and argued, whether argued orally or not. In the Supreme Court of the United States each Judge takes with him the record and the briefs and reads them and then on the next Saturday they meet together and decide the case, each Judge being then prepared to give his opinion as it should be given. After this full consideration and this full knowledge of the facts and the law the opinion is written and then the opinion undergoes the scrutiny of each of the Judges separately. They have the opinions printed and they are sent out to each one. I do not know whether there is an appropriation, but our Supreme Court practically have it in their power to do the same thing, because the legis lature permits them a reporter and typewriter and they can make four or five copies at a time and the clerk can therefore make a sufficient number of copies of each opinion so as to give one to each Judge for his examination. I think, too the Judges of our Supreme Court should learn to use the shorthand reporter more than they do; not that the best writing is done by the shorthand reporter, but PROCEEDINGS. there is so much he can do for them-bring the books they want to examine; they can dictate the statement of the case to the reporter; he can make copies or extracts from such opinions as the Judge wants to quote from, and thus the Judge can be relieved of the laborious details which must be a great burden to any Judge. I am sure the moment they become ac customed to the reporters they can use them to great effect, and have enough copies made so that the opinions can be passed around to each Judge without any difficulty. I think the Judges of the Supreme Court write too long opinions; I cannot see any reason why they so often take a page to quote authorities to support the proposition that no contract is good without consideration. Nobody can question that theirs is the last say, and it is quite unnecessary for them to argue through the case for the purpose of supporting their views, if they are clear in their own mind that they have properly stated the law. And it seems to me to be a bad habit of the Supreme Court that the other Judges not being familiar with the case, they must put it in such shape as to argue with them and to convince them, and consequently they must write a brief. And the practice has grown up in this State of writing long opinions because they feel that they must justify themselves before each other. Let the lawyers write the briefs: let the Judges write the opinions, citing such cases as may be necessary, but omitting the large number of quotations from the opinion. I would ask each member of this bar, or member of the Supreme Court, to read President Hamline's address of last year in regard to the method of doing business by the various courts of the United States. In the State of New York the Judges decide a thousand cases a year, and it must be ad mitted, on account of the great city of New York being in that State, that very important questions come up in that court, and that court, in the last twenty-five years, has stood very high as authority. The Supreme Court of Illinois files about six hundred opinions a year. The Supreme Court of Minnesota files more, that is because they have no Appellate Court to aid them in the business. There are more cases in the Supreme Court of Minnesota than in Illinois, yet they get through with them when the term is over. They have no difficulty in disposing of all the business, in the way they do business. I admit that very important cases come before the Supreme Court of Illinois, on account of the very complicated questions PROCEEDINGS. growing out of this great financial center here in Chicago, but in New York and Pennsylvania and in Minnesota there are also large cities where important questions are constantly arising. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court of Illinois, with the proper method of doing business, will not have the slightest difficulty in filing opinions in three or four weeks; there is no doubt about it, it is done in the State of New York and in Minnesota. I argued a case in the Supreme Court of Minnesota on the 9th of November last year, and on the 27th of November the opinion was filed, and it was very satisfactory because it was decided in my favor. That is the way business ought to be done; the matter should not become cold: the opinion should be promptly written and passed upon; there should not be any hesitation and delay. But how is it now, what Judge recollects anything about a case, unless it is a very striking and particular one, after it has been presented, and the opinion is brought forward and read eighteen months afterward? The first thing they have got to do is not to call a single case now, upon the calendar, until they have disposed of all their arrearages. Unless they do that they will necessarily pursue the same old method and be in the same difficulty they have always been in of taking a large number of cases undisposed of, and when the opinion. is written all the other Judges will have forgotten all about it, and especially of the oral argument. So, if they commence a call of the docket next October term, without disposing of all their arrearages, they will be disappointing the just expectations of the bar and the people of the State of Illiois, and it ought not to be so. It will take them two months to catch up in their business, and they may not commence to call the docket until December, but they ought not to do it. Ought the Judges turn around and help the other Judges who are behind in their business? I say yes, some of the Judges have been sick, some of them had family affliction and could not do their work, and for other reasons probably have not been able to do their work. But if the work is once brought up there is no doubt that each Judge will do his whole duty and do his part of the business; he will never, more than once, permit his brother Judges to take hold and help him with his work. But we look to them as a Court, and the Court is responsible to us for what they do, and we don't care about the work of each individual Judge, whether behind or not. It is the duty of the Court to see that this work is done and that our cases are PROCEEDINGS. not hung up for so great a time. And especially is it necessary to take a proper start now and decide a case in two or three weeks after it is called, and that they dispose of every single case before they commence to call the docket. They will have one hundred and fifty cases, may be two hundred, to dispose of when they meet in October-it can not be otherwise, according to the history of their work in the past. When they met at Ottawa last March they had two hundred cases on the docket and they took as many; a good many of those will come over, and it is impossible that they should write all the opinions and file them by the first of October; they will catch up when they adopt proper methods. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: We will next hear from Mr. George Hunt. MR. HUNT: I understood this discussion was to be upon the report of the committee on this subject, but I knew nothing about what the substance of that report would be until it was read a few minutes ago, and I will be much in the condition of my friend who has just taken his seat, and my remarks will pertain more to my ideas of what the practice should be, than to anything which the committee has recommended. We ought to feel gratified at the prospect of an improved procedure, owing to the consolidation of the Supreme Court, and to the fact that it will be practically in continuous session for perhaps eight or nine months in the year, thereby facilitating the dispatch of its business, and increasing the possibilities of a speedy and proper dispatch thereof. After listening to the very able and critical review made by the Chairman of this Association, of the work of the last General Assembly, I do not feel like congratulating the Bar Association, or the people of this State upon the probability of there being a less amount of work to be done by the Supreme Court. I think the chances are that the amount of work will be very largely enhanced by the laws passed at the last session of the legislature, at all events, the possibilities are good for that result for the time being. Any one who examines the reports of the Supreme Court in recent years will be struck with the fact that so large a proportion of the cases consist of personal damage cases, and special assessment cases. There is no probability that the former will be diminished. Our President congratulated the Association and the people upon PROCEEDINGS. the fact that a new special assessment law had been placed upon the statute book; it is to be hoped that that law will correct many of the evils of the present one, but in that correction and in establishing it, we face the almost appalling fact that a complete review of that law becomes necessary in all its points by the Supreme Court, and most of the work on that subject must be done over again. The bar of the State of Illinois has never questioned the integrity, and seldom has questioned the wisdom of our Supreme Court. They have bowed to its decisions and recog nized its rules with a loyalty which is commendable to the profession and complimentary to the court. The court was not responsible for the embarrassing conditions under which it operated for so many years, and which made it practically a migratory body. The rules under which they operated were doubtless those which experience had convinced them were most conducive to the proper dispatch of their business. That the manner in which the business was done was not satisfactory either to the profession or the public, was evidenced, conclusively evidenced from the long and continued agitation in favor of a consolidation of the court. As suggested by the gentleman who has already addressed the Association on this subject, we believe that one of the great advantages which will arise from the consolidation of the court, will be in the opportunity given to the profession, and better still, the opportunity afforded to the court to listen to oral arguments from the attorneys on the different sides of each case before the court, if practicable. Now I do not believe it is practicable to formulate any set of rules that should operate without relaxation or change in the call of the docket and the consideration of cases. I doubt the wisdom of the suggestion made by my friend Pence, that every case which is now under consideration by the Supreme Court should be finally decided and disposed of by that body before the court enters upon the consideration of the work for the coming year. Even that tri bunal which we all venerate so highly, the Supreme Court of the United States, whose practice we expect the Supreme Court of this State now largely to follow, it not always able to thus dispose of its cases, and some times a case is carried for several months and even as long as a year before a formal decision is rendered. There is one particular point to which I wish to call the attention of the Association in connection with this matter, |