tains a permit from the County Court in the county in which he lives, to practice law. So I consider the legislation we have on that subject is as good as we are likely to obtain.

The next question, "How can we obtain the greatest possible benefit from the law as it now stands?" I think it is a good law, an admirable law-all that is required. I do not think that it needs the addition of a syllable, nor the erasure of a word. All that is required is that the judges and chancellors of Tennessee do their duty. That is it. Do their sworn duty, not only under the law of the State, but under their oaths. To do their duty to the courts, to the bar, to the State of Tennessee; and when they shall have done so, we will not need any further legislation, nor will there be heard any criticism from the people of the State. So that the first question, then, ie, How shall we obtain from the judges and chancellors of the State the full discharge of their duty? It seemed to me the best way was by consultation, by suggestions, by statements of opinion, by recommendation of a more stringent examination. In other words, by a gentle pressure by the lawyers of the State. By the lawyer saying, "Look here, judge, I think the time has come in the history of the legal fraternity that judges ought to be a little more particular, a little more stringent." As stated by my brother chancellor, the judges, as a rule, are simply a formulated, photographed expression of the prevailing sentiments of the local bars, and when the local bars sanction these things, and actually criticise a judge who refuses to license an applicant, the local bar has pulled that judge down to its level. The local bar should strengthen the backbone of the judge. They should say: "Look here, judge, I wish you would establish the rule from now on, not to license any applicant who is not examined in open court. We do not need any statute. It simply needs an order upon the part of the particular judge. The judge will feel that it is necessary for him to take a pretty high standing, because I will expect him to, and I will take a pretty high standing, because I will think that he expects of me a pretty high standing." The result is, that we will mutually support, strengthen, and elevate others by that sort of concerted action upon the part of the judges of the State.

I think it is not legislation, but this concerted action that is needed. So much on that point.

Another point, and that is on this question of having a committee to formulate ethical rules. We may all know about the ethics of the bar. We may think we are admirably informed as to the ethics of the bar, but the majority of the young men who are now studying for law license in the State of Tennessee do not know that there is such a thing as ethics of the bar. Many of them never heard of such a thing. If these rules are laid down and formally printed and distributed throughout the State, then the judges can say, "Look here; we require these ethics to be conformed to. I expect every member of the bar to conform to that, and when you violate these rules I expect to take cognizance of the violation." Can you punish a man unless you have some rules? Have some rules for the conduct of lawyers in their professional relations to each other, to the court and to their clients, and it will be found a most salutary device to promote a better ethical development among the lawyers of our State.

Lastly, I think that the reference of this matter to the regular committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar is all that is requisite. I most heartily favor that.

THE PRESIDENT.-A motion was made for the appointment of a special committee, to whom these recommendations should be referred, and a motion in lieu was made to refer this to one of the standing committees, which motion has been accepted by the original mover.

A. D. Marks.-It was referred to the next Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, with directions to take steps looking to concerted action by the judges of courts of record.

J. M. Dickinson.-I understand the motion was that they be requested to correspond with the judges.

THE PRESIDENT.-Those in favor of the motion before the Association will make it known by saying aye.

Motion carried.

A paper was then read by II. II. Ingersoll, of Knoxville, entitled "A Biographical Sketch of Thomas A. R. Nelson." (See Appendix.)

J. B. Heiskell.—I thank the gentleman for the elegant tribute he has paid to the memory of a man I knew so well. I wish to call attention to a statement which, according to my recollection, and it ought to be accurate, is not correct. It is in regard to the election of Thomas A. R. Nelson, in 1861, to the Congress of the United States. My recollection is very distinct that that contest was between T. A. R. Nelson and myself. A large majority of the voters of the district did not vote at all, and the consequence was that I sat in the Federal Congress after the election, legally at least in point of form, if it did not express the voice of the majority of my constituents. I protest that the gentleman shall re-examine the point, and see if he and my friend Mr. Marks, in a similar tribute to the memory of Mr. Nelson, has not made a mistake in point of fact. I do not conceive that it is very important to me, but it is a matter of history.

THE PRESIDENT.-The next in order is a paper upon the "Necessity for Revision of Our Laws, both Constitutional and Statutory," by J. H. Malone, of Memphis.

J. H. Malone. Upon the question of a new Code, I think, possibly, the better plan would be to give a short resume of the history of our present statutory laws. (See Appendix.)

THE PRESIDENT.-The subject is now open for discussion. *J. B. Heiskell.-I am unfortunate in finding it necessary to criticise, to a small extent, the accuracy of some of these statements. The preparation of that Code is attributed to Messrs. Meigs and Cooper in that paper, and, perhaps, that is the general impression. The fact is, those gentlemen were employed, appointed and paid for that work. When we came to revise the work —and there was a special joint committee of the two Houses, and not a delegation of the Judiciary Committee that did the workit was found that Mr. Meigs' work was simply a copy of the statutes as they then existed, of the portion of the work that had been assigned to him by Mr. Cooper. There was not one jot of work done in the preparation of that part of the Code that could not have been done by cutting out the leaves of the

* Mr. J. C. Bradford wrote to Judge W. F. Cooper, asking him to give a short history of the preparation of the Code of 1858, to which Judge Cooper responded. His reply is published in the Appendix, it being pertinent to this discussion.

book in which they had been printed originally. Mr. Cooper, on the contrary, had prepared a more elaborate Code, in which he had attempted to codify, not only the statutory law of the State, but he had also endeavored to put into it the common law, or, at least, so large a portion of it that it seemed to me to be impossible to guard against the danger that would arise from an attempt of that character. The consequence was, that during the time that that Legislature sat, the committee met every night, promptly from 7 to 10 o'clock, and made the Code, every word of which was rewritten in the committee-room, and the labor and work that was done on it was done in the committeeroom. Mr. Meigs and Mr. Cooper were present at the time, and the three members of the sub-committee, of the special, of the select joint committee of the two Houses, and Mr. Claiborne was also present during that session. There was scarcely ever a night that a session was not held promptly during those hours. There were, besides these, Micajah Bullock and Mr. Bicknell. That is the true history of the Code. It was afterwards taken into the Senate, and read over three times. Actually read and passed by large sections, and went into the House and there passed in the same manner. I only make this statement as a matter of history. The statement in the paper is not perfectly accurate, and, though I do not consider it a matter very greatly to pride myself on, for it was a book that met with a great deal of criticism, still, I think, under the circumstances, it was tolerably well done for a young lawyer with the aids and in the hurry that accompanied it. These are the real facts in regard to the transaction. The subsequent Legislature, in addition to the honorary recognition of our services, gave us a small honorarium.

J. H. Malone. All I knew about it was from reading the resolutions in the back of the act. I could not find any thing on that, but I found they were paid for it, and found, after a time, that there was a resolution commendatory of General Heiskell and the other two gentlemen, and that their names were or dered put upon the title-page.

W. B. Swaney.-Apropos the remarks of a gentleman a few minutes ago in regard to the futility of the efforts of this Association to have its recommendations enacted into law by the

Legislature, I want to give a little experience which I had while we are considering this paper. About eighteen months ago, owing to the peculiar condition of affairs in Chattanooga, in conjunction with some friends, we decided to ask the Legislature to make some radical changes in our revenue laws. We organized what was known as the "Tax Reform Association of Hamilton County," did a great deal of work in the way of getting up literature, distributed it over the State where we thought it would do the most good, had a committee appointed in conjunction with our chamber of commerce, and presented our views before the Committees of the Senate and House on Finance, Ways, and Means. As you are aware, I was also a member of the committee on behalf of this Association to urge the adoption of the measure recommended by it for the creation of an Intermediate Court of Chancery Appeals. While looking after these matters, the question of a constitutional convention was discussed in various caucuses after Governor Turney sent in his message on the subject. You will remember that Governor Turney was understood to be opposed to calling a constitutional convention during the canvass, and hence the matter was not discussed, and that just prior to the legislative recess Governor Turney sent in his message announcing his change of opinion on the subject, and recommending the calling of a limited constitutional convention. I honestly believe that if, during the vacation, the press of the State had thoroughly discussed the subject, the Legislature would have passed a law authorizing the calling of some kind of a constitutional convention. But as there was no agitation of the question to amount. to any thing, when the Legislature reconvened the members. were at sea. The truth of the matter is, that the Democratic members were afraid that if a convention should be called, some Alliance fellow might be elected and some of the Alliance heresies might be incorporated into the fundamental law of the State. The reason that Governor Turney's suggestions did not meet with a more favorable reception was that there was no discussion or concert of action, and he was only willing to go half way himself. Now, take up the other question for the Intermediate Court of Chancery Appeals. The friends of that measure were well organized, and, had it not been for the oppo