J. B. Heiskell.-Mr. President: I am afraid that my title in the programme is somewhat misleading in regard to the nature of the subject. Some five years ago I read before this body, which convened at Memphis, a paper which properly refers to that subject, under the head of "Retrospective Decisions." That paper was published in the proceedings of this body, and afterward, with some revision, was published in the American Law Review, which gave rise to criticism by a gentleman of the city of Boston, published in the same review. I prepared what I expect to read to you this evening as an answer to that criticism; and when invited to address this body, I advised the President that I could not take it upon myself to prepare a new paper, but if he thought that paper would answer the purpose, that I would cheerfully read it. I was fearful that it would be too long for the patience of this body, and as still fearful that it will be so, although I am not as modest about it as I would have been if it had come earlier, for the reason that I find another gentleman has written a paper quite as long. I feared, too, when I came in here that this would be regarded as a back number, as it applied to a series of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States extending back through the last forty years, but I learn, on inquiry since I came here, that this subject has been before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the controversy has been renewed, and in a very recent case, in which Mr. Justice Field has reviewed the ground involved in the former paper and taken a position very much in accordance with that I have advanced. I feel, therefore, that the fact that the conflict of jurisdiction between the State and Federal Courts, which is constantly presenting itself in some form or other, justifies the course I have taken in this

matter.

Again, this is not in the form I would have presented it, if I had written it for the purpose of presenting it to this body originally, but, as I would not take upon myself the labor of rewriting it wholly, I present it to you in this form, although it might have been presented in a more intelligible form. (See Appendix.)

During the reading of his paper, General Heiskell said: The opinion to which I alluded in the outset, and which I am in

formed Mr. Justice Field has delivered, I think is one that is likely to give rise to a considerable conflict between the courts of the State and of the United States, and is one which I had not heard of before I came here. In that case the question was, whether the law of Ohio in regard to injuries to employes was to be decided according to the decisions of the State courts of Ohio, or according to the general idea of the Supreme Court of the United States, as to what the common law was upon the subject. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion, and that not in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio. A large number of decisions must inevitably follow, in which this conflict between the two jurisdictions must come up. I cannot hope that, after the succession of decisions that have followed for fifty years, that any thing I may have to say will succeed in setting the wrong right, yet I think it is right for us to think upon these subjects, and be able to express ourselves fully upon them, with a view to rectifying the wrong. It is the duty of the United States Court, when the power is delegated to it, to execute the State law, and to execute that law as held by the State, and not as held upon some supposed existing law, not of the United States, but some general law that we have eliminated from our statutes. For this reason, I think there ought to be an expression by Congress requiring them to follow the decisions of the State Courts, and give them the respect due them. Vice-president James H. Malone took the chair.

THE PRESIDENT.-The next thing on the programme is a paper by Mr. M. Savage, of Clarksville, entitled: "State and Federal Courts Should Administer the Same Law on Questions Affecting Private Rights." (See Appendix.)

THE PRESIDENT.-The next in order is a paper by Mr. McFarland, of Memphis.

Claude Waller.-I have his paper upon the subject "Uniform State Laws." I understand that it was the desire of Mr. McFarland to have this paper referred to the delegates to the American Bar Association, and I wish to make a motion that the paper be received, filed, and referred to the delegates to be elected this afternoon to the American Bar Association.

Motion carried, and the paper so referred. (See Appendix.) S. A. Champion.-There is a report from the special commit

tee appointed yesterday upon the construction of the act of 1877-91. There is a majority and minority report. This is a question in which a great many lawyers feel a decided interest at this time, and, at the earnest request of the committee and a number of other gentlemen, I want to move that we adjourn until to-morrow morning, and make this special for to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Motion seconded.

THE PRESIDENT.-It has been moved and seconded that the report of the committee upon the act of 1877-91 be deferred until to-morrow, and be then considered by such gentlemea as may see proper to stay over. All in favor of this motion make it known by saying aye.

Motion carried.

Claude Waller-I would like to ask a question in that conneetion. Mr. Galloway, our stenographer, has made arrangements to return to-night. I want to know from the Association if it is desired that the discussion of this report be taken down and published, and that he remain over to take it.

J. H. Malone.-I would suppose, if this matter is of sufficient importance for this body to adjourn until to-morrow to discuss it, it ought to be taken down.

S. A. Champion.-I move that the stenographer be requested to remain and take down discussion of special committee's report to-morrow.

THE PRESIDENT.-The motion is that the stenographer be requested and eployed to remain and take down discussion of report to-morrow.

Motion carried.

THE PRESIDENT.-Next is miscellaneous business. Is there any thing under this head?

A. D. Marks.-There is one feature of the work of this Association in the past, to the value of which I wish to draw the attention of the members of this body, and if the Association has accomplished no good other than that, that is, in itself, a sufficient reason for its being. During the last year I have had occasion to prepare a sketch of the Supreme Court of our State, the materials of which were very difficult to gather. I found among the proceedings of this Association biographical sketches

prepared by various members of the bar, from time to time, of the distinguished judges of the past; and these were depositories of information which it would have been impossible to have gotten otherwise, and this Association, in this, has rendered a most valuable work of history. I was led particularly to appreciate their value, because I found them always of great assistance to me. I felt that I ought to say this much, so as to let the Association know of how great value they had been to one who had been working in that field.

THE PRESIDENT.-The next and last thing on our programme is the election of officers. The election of officers is now in order.

W. L. Granbery.-In selecting a member for President, we should select a gentleman who would maintain the high standing which has characterized former Presidents of this Association. I desire to present the name of a gentleman to the Association who has been actively identified with the Association; a gentleman not only ready and willing to maintain the high standing of former Presidents, but a gentleman who has been Vice-president of the Association, and, as our friends from East Tennessee are entitled to the office, I desire to present the name of Col. W. A. Henderson, of Knoxville.

THE PRESIDENT.-You have heard the nomination of Col. W. A. Henderson, of Knoxville, for President for the next year. H.M. Wiltse.-As self-constituted representative of the Chattanooga bar, I desire to second that nomination, because I believe that, with the exception of myself, he is the most competent man for the position in the Association.

W. H. Russell.-Always having due regard for Mr. Wiltse's feelings, in behalf of the Knoxville bar, I desire to say that it is the unanimous wish of that bar that Mr. Henderson be chosen President of the Association.

A. D. Marks -If there be no other names, I move that the rules be suspended, and the Secretary instructed to cast the unanimous vote of the Association for Mr. Henderson for President.

THE PRESIDENT.-It is moved that the rules be suspended, and the Secretary be directed to cast the unanimous vote of the Association for Judge Henderson for President of this Associa

tion for the ensuing year. Those in favor of the motion say

aye.

Motion carried, and the Secretary cast the unanimous vote of the Association for Judge Henderson for President.

Calls of "Henderson! Henderson!"

W. A. Henderson.-Gentlemen of the Bar Association: I will state that for many years I have been an active participant in this Association. I consider its Presidency a high honor. I consider the method of conferring it upon me one of especially high honor. I promise you that for the coming year, so far as in me lies, I will endeavor to be an efficient officer of this Association. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT.-The next thing in order is nominations for Vice-president.

A Member. I nominate H. M. Wiltse, of Chattanooga, for Vice-president for East Tennessee.

J. M. Dickinson.-I nominate W. L. Granbery, of Nashville, for Middle Tennessee.

C. F. Vance. I nominate J. H. Malone, of Memphis, for Vice-president for West Tennessee.

W. H. Russell.-I move that the Secretary be instructed to cast the vote of the Association for the three gentlemen named for Vice-presidents of the Association for the ensuing year.

M. M. Hope. I second the motion, for it is the only way I can get Wiltse through. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT.-You have heard the motion. All in favor of it say aye.

Motion carried, and Secretary so instructed.

A. D. Marks. It is suggested that Mr. Wiltse make the speech for the three, the rules being suspended.

H. M. Wiltse. I am reminded by my friend, Hope, of a practitioner in another profession, who had occasion to attend a very peculiar and delicate case. He lost the child, but the mother said she thought the old man would pull through. I am delighted that he pulled me through. I am delighted by the skill of the gentleman who made the motion that the vote be cast by the Secretary. I desire to say why I seconded the motion that the nominee for President be elected by the Secretary. I did so with more or less of mental reservation that I