PROCEEDINGS.

to that end it was thought that this Association ought to lend its influence in favor of a practice which will induce the court to sit in Springfield continuously. That is precisely what the Supreme Court of the United States does at Washington, it sits there and we have by our resolution, recommended to the Supreme Court to adopt, so far as practicable, the practice and rules of that Court. Doesn't that fully cover the situa tion? This is not my own idea, it was suggested to me by a member of the bar of long experience, and large experience in the Supreme Court of the United States, who desired that I would offer it, as I believe he is not yet a member of this Association. But it seemed to me to cover the entire situation -expresses our views as to the methods which ought to be adopted by the Supreme Court, leaving it to work out in detail and with greater consideration than it has been possible for the committee or for us to give to the details of the general plan. Therefore, it seems to me that the report of the committee ought to be placed on file, or not adopted.

MR. SUTHERLAND: I want to add a word. The discussion of these proposed recommendations has been quite sufficient, I think, to lead any person to understand that we are dealing with a very important subject, and further, that whatever we may be likely to do here, may be acted upon by the Supreme Court, and possibly the force of our recommendations may go further than we intend; it is a delicate subject to handle. In the matter of filing briefs and abstracts, the Supreme Court of the United States does not require them to be filed untii within a very few days of the time a case is called for hearing; that is a matter that the Judges themselves ought to pass upon independently. The real point which this body is considering, and which they regard as most important, is that the Court shall not call more cases a day than can reasonably be handled, which will, of itself, encourage oral argument and that the Court will not get hung up with cases by a continuous call, so as to have a great amount of work piled upon them. That is the object of this discussion. It occurs to me that the recommendations of the committee are defective in several respects, and it seems to me if we vote to adopt them in their present form we will make a mistake, and consequently I think, inasmuch as we haven't time to revise those suggestions that they ought to be laid upon the table. The Supreme Court will be advised of the temper of this organization, and

PROCEEDINGS.

that is, that we want that Court, every man of the Court, to consider every case that is submitted, and that they shall give opportunity for oral argument. That is what we want them to understand, and they will so understand, from this discussion. That is as far as we can go. I agree with Mr. Gregory and with the gentleman who made the suggestion, and who also spoke to me. The practice of the Supreme Court of the United States in calling cases and disposing of cases is admirable, and if the Supreme Court of Illinois will adopt that practice they can make no mistake. And therefore, I think that the suggestions of the committee ought to be laid upon the table and the suggestions of Mr. Gregory be adopted by the body.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE:

All in favor of Mr. Zeisler's motion that the report be adopted with the insertion of the figure "C" in the blank space, and with the addition to be written by the Secretary that this be the rule excepting as the Court may for good cause order otherwise, as suggested by Mr. Jewett, be adopted by this Association

MR. GAGE: Do I understand that the motion has been divided?

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: I do not so understand.

MR. GAGE: I understood the motion had been divided. It seems to me it should be divided for the reason that the resolution as proposed provides for the filing of briefs twenty days before they are subject to call, whereas it provided for the calling of the case on the second Tuesday of the term. which is less than twenty days before the commencement of the term at which the briefs would have to be filed.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Do you rise to move that the report be divided?

MR. GAGE: I rise to move that it be divided.

Which motion was seconded and carried.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The question now is upon the first part of the report; will you read it, Mr. Secretary?

MR. MATHENY: The first rule as proposed by the committee is as follows:

PROCEEDINGS.

RULE 34.

Abstracts and briefs of plaintiff in error or appellant must be filed in the Clerk's office of the Supreme Court twenty days before the day on which the case is subject to call, and in case either the abstracts and briefs are not filed within the time herein prescribed, the judgment of the court below will, on the call of the docket, be affirmed unless extension of time be granted for good cause shown or the court shall otherwise order.

The defendant in error or appellee shall file his brief within ten days after the filing of the abstracts and briefs of the plaintiff in error or the appellant, and the plaintiff in error or appellant shall have five days in all cases to reply, at the expiration of which time the cause will stand for decision, and no further printed arguments will be received.

The call of the Docket shall commence on Tuesday of the second week of the term, and the court will call the cases on the Calendar in their order, calling not to exceed ... cases per day till twenty-one cases have been called and taken by the court. In like manner, the further call of the Calendar shall proceed on Tuesday of each succeeding week of the term till the docket is concluded, the cases to be called each week not to exceed twenty-one.

MR. ZEISLER: The division, as I understand it, which is desired by a great many gentlemen here, is a division of my motion; the first part of it is that the figure "6" be inserted in the blank space, and the other part of the motion should be afterward separately considered.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: May I ask what the other part of the motion is?

MR. ZEISLER: That the report as thus amended be adopted.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The motion then of Mr. Zeisler is that the figure "6" be inserted in the blank space in the report. all in favor of it say "aye." Those opposed by the same sign. It is carried.

MR. GREGORY: I must protest against the Chair stating the question in that way. Those opposed should say no, and not say by the same sign that they signify a negative.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Mr. Gregory, you are out of order. (Laughter.)

PROCEEDINGS.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The report now as amended is before the house for disposition; what will you do with the report?

MR. GAGE: I move that it be adopted.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Are you ready for the question?

MR. GAGE: I move that it be amended so that there will be time allowed by the provisions of the report for the filing of briefs after the commencement of the term and before the cause shall be reached. By the provisions of this proposed resolution the briefs are to be filed twenty days before the case is subject to call, and the cases are subject to call on Tuesday of the second week, which is less than twenty days. and therefore the briefs would have to be filed before, by the statute, the record would be compelled to be filed in the Court.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Let me inquire. The law provides that the record must be filed twenty days before the first day of the term; then this rule provides that the briefs and abstracts must be filed twenty days before they are subject to call, that means that in the first twenty-one cases which are subject to call on the second Tuesday of the term, briefs of the appellant or plaintiff in error must be on file twenty days be fore that time, but as twenty-one cases are subject to call the third week of the term, this rule provides that briefs and abstracts must be on file twenty days before that time, and so on -that is this rule.

MR. MOSES: There is too much danger for possible mistake in our attempting to come down to specific things. I think there is much in Mr. Gregory's suggestion that the resolution adopted substantially indicates to the Supreme Court of this State the wishes of the Bar Association, therefore this report should be voted down.

MR. ZEISLER: The remarks of Mr. Moses seem to me out of order. A motion to lay the report of the committee upon the table has been voted down, therefore the only way in which that matter can be resurrected is by a motion to reconsider.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The point of order made by Mr. Zeisler is very apt; the question now is upon the adoption of the report.

PROCEEDINGS.

MR. GREGORY: I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Does the Chair decide that the Association can not vote in the negative upon this proposition?

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Unless the house shall overrule the Chair upon the parliamentary practice, the Chair will rule that when there has been a motion made and defeated to lay on the table that the procession will move right along and the business be disposed of, on account of the extreme severity of the heat.

MR. GREGORY:

Do I understand that we can not vote in

the negative if we see fit?

PRESIDENT HAMLINE:

The motion before the house is as to whether or not you will adopt the report of the committee as amended.

The motion was lost.

PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The next order of business is the report of the Committee on Legal Education. Mr. Rosenthal will read that report.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION.

Your Committee on Legal Education begs to present the following report:

We have heretofore urged the adoption of new rules governing admission to the bar. Our recommendations have been concurred in by this body. They have received the assent of the Chicago Bar Association. They are in accordance with the legislation of the most progressive and influential States of the Union. The faculties of the leading law schools of the country advocate them, and the American Bar Association after an exhaustive investigation of legal education and admission to the bar urge their adoption.

Yet in this State we have not yet reached the goal. Perhaps the Supreme Court in the migratory period of its existence could not find the time to give the subject due consideration; perhaps certain forces, erroneously called conservative, hindered a reform which bears all the marks of true conservatism.

The spirit of democracy and equality combined with the frequent perversion of the practice of the law from a noble profession to a sometimes ignoble business, has led some of the public and even some of the profession to believe that every citizen has an inalienable natural right to practice law. We need hardly point out the fallacy of such a theory from the standpoint of history. The right of representation in a court of justice was one long denied in the Roman law, secured only after a strong fight, very limited in Anglo-Norman law and hedged in by all sorts of limitations in England from the beginning of her history down to the present day. And it may well be doubted, whether the right would exist in any American State without statutory or constitutional grant,