PROCEEDINGS. the men as they do, to propose them as fit members of this Association. And if some of them, having done so are now advocating their election and opposing this reconsideration, they are consistent, but they are in no position to attack the motive of those who favor this reconsideration. It seems to the proper course to take is to re-commit this matter and let the committee make its report. I am willing, so far as I am concerned, to state such objections as I have, to that committee; if they are not of weight, and not entitled to consideration, it is an easy matter for the committee to overrule me. If they are worthy of consideration they can be sustained; and it seems to me it is a perfectly competent and proper course. MR. WILLIAMS: I do think this matter ought to be reconsidered; I believe it is competent so to reconsider it, and surely we are putting ourselves in bad shape if under these circumstances we refuse to reconsider. MR. PAYNE: We are in an embarrassing position here; many of us do not know whose the names are, and a reconsideration might necessarily reflect upon people as to whom no possible reflection is intended, and I am therefore inclined to the view that we ought not to reconsider the motion. I was not present this morning when the report was adopted, I did not hear the names read, but other gentlemen were present who must know every man who was an applicant from this city, and no objection was made; possibly, as Mr. Gregory suggested, we all felt that we did not like to be offensively personal; no member likes to be that in a public meeting; but I think, after it has gone as far as it has that a greater wrong may be done by a reconsideration than by permitting the report to stand. MR. WINDES: I was present when the report on admissions was read, but I did not hear all the names. I was far back, but it has certainly gone out to the press all over the country who these gentlemen were that were admitted by the report, and without any opposition, and I fully concur with Judge Payne that we are apt to do much greater wrong by reconsidering this vote than we think of. It will cast a slur certainly, upon every person who was reported here by the committee and voted upon by the Association this morning. PROCEEDINGS. I am, therefore, decidedly opposed to a reconsideration of the vote. I think it would do a wrong to every gentleman who was presented and voted upon. MR. HAMILL: Since hearing these gentlemen, I am fully determined to find out, if I can, to whom these gentlemen refer by these imputations which have been made. If we do not reconsider this matter it applies to all the gentlemen that came in, every one of them. If it goes into the record that there was an imputation and no action about it, it rests upon the shoulders of one or all, whereas, if you investigate it and find there is nothing in it, it is off of all, and if it is true as to one, the balance are relieved, and therefore it must be reconsidered in justice to these gentlemen themselves. MR. BARNES: I do not believe we have a right to insult members in this way. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The question is that the vote by which the report of the Committee on Admissions was adopted this morning shall be reconsidered. Those who are in favor will say aye. (A number responded). PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The Chair is in doubt. Those who are in favor of reconsidering the vote will rise and stand while they are counted. MR. MATHENY: Fifteen. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Those opposed will please rise. MR. MATHENY: Seventeen. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The motion is lost. MR. MACK: If it is in order, I would suggest, or move, because of this controversy, an amendment to the by-laws to the effect that the names of all applicants for membership shall be posted by the Committee on Admissions at the session rooms of this Association during the first business session at each annual meeting, and that they shall then be acted upon, or that the report of the Committee on Admissions shall be acted upon at the last business session of each annual meeting. PROCEEDINGS. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: Will you kindly prepare that in writing, and we will take it up in the order of miscellaneous business tomorrow. MR. ORENDORFF: I will state that the Committee on Admissions have before them the names of the following: Stephen S. Demimon...... Albert N. Eastman.. Mark Meyerstein. E. R. Bliss.. ...... Edward C. Akin.... Herman W. Stillman... MR. ORENDORFF: In view of what has been said, some other course may be taken, but if not, I move that these men be admitted to membership. Motion seconded and carried. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The next order of business is the appointment of a committee to nominate officers. that committee be appointed? How will PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The Chair will appoint George W. Wall, S. S. Gregory, C. L. Capen, Senator Hamilton and Sigmund Zeisler. MR. HAMILTON: Unless that committee acts tonight, I will have to request you to appoint some one in my place, because it impossible for me to be here to-morrow. I should be glad to serve if we can do the work to-night, but not otherwise. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: I can not tell what action that committee will take, Senator Hamilton. MR. HAMILTON: In case I am not here when they do meet, I wish you would fill the vacancy, that is all I can say. If they meet tonight I will be glad to act. PROCEEDINGS. PRESIDENT HAMLINE: The next order of exercises is a general discussion of the question, "Ought any cause to be heard in more than one court of review." Judge Shope is here, and the Association will be glad to hear from him. MR. SHOPE: Gentlemen of the Bar Association: The discussion of this proposition is one of importance; I feel that I owe an apology for not having prepared a paper upon this subject. I have, however, very strong convictions upon the question, and I have no hesitation in expressing them. I may not be able to state the reasons for them as cogently as some other gentlemen might and probably will do, but such as they are, the impressions that I have, I give to you. I answer the question in the affirmative, yes. The object of the institution of courts is to administer the laws of the country, apply them to the facts of particular cases, and to do justice between the citizens, so that there shall be no just cause for complaint against the government. Any citizen, deprived of his right by the rules which society shall organize, and the instrumentalities which it shall establish for the maintenance of government, has a just cause of complaint against that government. Whoever shall be wrongfully deprived, by reason of the failure of the instrumentalities which are sanctioned by society, has a just cause of grievance against the government. Our institutions are based upon the love and respect and patriotism of our people, and we have no standing armies to uphold and maintain the quality and dignity of our courts. Whenever the institutions of the country shall fail in the administration, and it is understood that mere celerity is the object to be attained, rather than that justice shall be done and the law fully administered, respect for the judiciary and for the country will cease to exist in a large measure, and danger to our institutions must follow. I am reflecting upon no court nor upon any particular system when I insist that the functions of society in establishing its tribunals must be exercised in the direction of seeing to it that every possible and available means is afforded for the assertion of private right and for the enforcement of public duty. Whenever government falls short of that, it fails to perform its proper functions. I assume that the argument in favor of the negative of this proposition is, that we have too much litigation; I deny PROCEEDINGS. the proposition in the sense in which this question seeks to raise it. That we have courts that are inefficient, I admit, but the very inefficiency renders it necessary that there should be courts of review. As long as we are compelled to submit our differences as citizens to the arbitrament of courts we must expect, as a matter of course, that errors will interevene and wrongs will be done; therefore, courts of review, in all civilized societies, are established. And as to the question to recur to it now, "ought there to be more than one court of review." My position is that there ought to be at least, and must be, for the peace of society, a court of ultimate resort; but in the meantime, if you will take, if you please, the history of our own State of New York, or even the State of New Jersey, the smaller States, if you please, it has been found that if all questions are to be submitted to the ultimate tribunal, it is impossible that that court can reach such conclusions as will do justice. Take the court of your own State-I need but to recall to you the fact that the report of the clerk, made to me a year or two ago, showed that in the Northern Grand Division of Illinois alone, where we have separate courts, there was in a single term 34,000 pages of printed matter for that court to consider; reading 600 pages a day, which is a page a minute for ten hours. It takes them practically fifty days to dispose of that immense amount of work, supposing, as you have a right to suppose, that each member of that court read every one of them. MR. BRADWELL: A violent presumption. MR. SHOPE: It is a presumption of law, Judge, and not one of fact. (Laughter.) But you have a right to consider it; you have a right to have it a presumption of fact that your case will be read by every member of that court. (Applause). The fact is patent that that court, able as it is-and it has been much improved within the last few years-able as that court is, I say to you what you all practically know, and which I know full too well, it is simply impossible that they should do the mere physical labor of reading the voluminous briefs which you gentleman-and I am ready to say that I have got in the same habit myself--present to that court, and want them to give them that consideration which the interests of the case demand. Why, there are no trivial cases; every case involves the question of the application of principles of |