PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS.

BY J. S. BOREMAN, PRESIDENT.

Gentlemen of the Utah State Bar Association:-

It is with pleasure that I greet you at the opening of another annual gathering, and I congratulate you upon the continued existence and vigor of the Association, and upon the prospect of even a better future. The year that has just come and gone was the first in the life of this young Commonwealth. She feels proud, and has the right to feel proud, thus dressed for the first time in the habiliments of Statehood.

During the year-an historic one for Utah-changes of greatest moment have come to the community. The local government and court affairs have had complete transformation; at no time in our annals have more radical, sweeping and important changes taken place. At a bound, Utah has passed from the condition of a Territory to that of a sovereign State of this great Union. She is now upon an equal footing with every other member of the sisterhood of States, and has a voice in the government of the Nation, and likewise has been accorded full local control. Whilst this was a Territory, the laws of Congress overshadowed us; they were our charter, under the Constitution of the nation, and to them we looked for all authority and jurisdictions. Now all local subjects are covered by laws and a Constitution of

our own making, and the Statutes of Congress in such matters have ceased to operate. In the transition from a Territory to a State, new laws, new theories, new principles and new procedures, heretofore inapplicable, have met us on every hand. With our own Constitution and our own laws, offices and courts under it, there has come a corresponding increase of responsibility upon us individually for the preservation of the good order and happiness of the people, both of the State and of the Nation.

In adjusting public matters to the changed conditions, the ability, wisdom and patriotism of the people and officers have at times been sorely tested. Many intricate and momentous questions have arisen, for the correct settlement of which not only a masterly grasp of thought and great intelligence were required, but likewise a strong and steady nerve, coolness and lofty patriotism. In the midst of all these things, however, the people and all who participated in the settlement, have shown moderation, sound sense, and sagacity equal to every emergency. These qualities we anticipate will continue to mark and characterize the people of our young Commonwealth and cause her to rank high among the illustrious States of the Union.

In launching forth as an independent state, under the Constitution of the Union, we have for our local government adopted a constitution, which I deem fully abreast with the times, and it is not behind that of any other country. It no doubt has defects and possibly crudities, yet in some respects it takes a very advanced position.

It perhaps contains provisions new to constitutional law-some innovations of exceeding importance, steps upon untried paths the full force of which is yet unknown-a simple matter of opinion. The most important and sweeping innovations are those regarding the jury system. The Constitution provides that "The Grand Jury shall consist

of seven persons, five of whom must concur to find an indictment." (Const. Art. I, Sec. 13.) The belief among the members of the bar, at least to some extent, is that this marked reduction in the size of the grand jury will prove to be an advance upon the old system, yet to some the test of time alone will satisfy them of its wisdom. It is no doubt true that a vast majority of criminal cases do not require investigation by a grand jury, prosecutions by information being sufficient, but there are sometimes in all communities occasions of extraordinary excitement and commotion brought about by criminal actions or charges, and when the vicious elements of society seem to combine to resist the enforcement of the law, and they assert unusual power. In such instances the advantages and necessities for a grand jury are manifest; the public are terrorized by the law-defying elements and the safety of those engaged in enforcing the law is threatened. At such times the responsibility of prosecution should be made to include a large number of citizens, that the danger may be divided and the maintenance of peace and the supremacy of the law more certainly assured. The reduction in size of the grand jury to seven persons is not in line with this principle. The naturally vicious are not, however, the only ones that may at such times endanger the public peace and the safety of those engaged in enforcing the laws; the passions of otherwise good citizens sometimes become inflamed, and men are led into extremes and resort to force and violence to shield those whom they believe to be wrongly accused or arrested for crime. This class of men can be cooled and calmed down far more readily than the naturally vicious when they are brought to realize that the whole matter is to be investigated by a numerous body of disinterested citizens gathered from all parts of the county; and it is unquestionably true that the public generally consider that in a numerous body