itancy in saying that as a class the members of the bar are as free from selfish motives and as broad in their views and aims as any other profession or calling. I do not say this because lawyers alone are before me, but because it is true, and among ourselves it is not out of place to sometimes call attention to what is said of us and to the injustice of it, Knowing that the members of the bar have at heart the public good, I have no hesitation in urging them to exert all the influence possible to correct errors in the law and to improve the same in all needed ways. They often, more often than any other class, have their attention called to defects, omissions and errors in the law. We sometimes hear that the wheels of the Courts move slowly, that the law is tardily administered, and the blame is cast upon the machinery of the courts, upon the procedure, and indirectly upon the members of the bar. This is another fact that would justify the lawyers in endeavoring to have the laws so framed as to facilitate the business of the Courts and to remove obstacles in the way of the dispatch of business. In this connection it seems proper that I should call attention to a matter which in one sense is small, but it interests and concerns the people generally more than the lawyers, I refer to the subject of heavy court costs and charges. It may be the policy of our law-makers to discourage litigation, and this may in itself be a laudable purpose, but it is not just nor right to do this by placing heavy burdens upon the weak, and thereby debarring them in a measure from seeking relief from wrongs done them,

By placing heavy court costs upon litigants, the citizens of narrow means have the doors of justice in effect closed to them; they are compelled to suffer wrong and submit to be defrauded of their rights by those who are able to bear the burdens of litigation. The only escape for the weak one, is to take the cath of poverty, and he then feels when he goes

into court that he is not on an equal footing with his antagonist. A class distinction is raised. This should be avoided whenever possible. It is now of no advantage to the officers of the law to have the allowance of high fees and charges retained in the statutes, for the officers generally have salaries under the Constitution. The voice of the bar should be heard in favor of a great reduction in the costs and charges attached to litigation, in order that all may have their rights assured to them and feel that they are all upon an equal footing in the courts of justice. I know that on every occasion that a person refers to the subject of the weak as against the strong, it is characterized as demagoguery, but I have arrived at that time in life when such a charge cannot affect me. I believe that the subject of the weak and the strong demands our serious consideration. In years long gone by the laws were made and often interpreted in the interest of the strong. Since the independence of the United States, however, the tendency of legislation and interpretation of laws has been gradually going to the support of the weak, or rather to the support of the policy of equal justice to all, of every grade and race. Within a very few years past we notice with some alarm that the pendulum in legislation and interpretation of laws has been again going toward the strong. The overshadowing power of corporations and other combinations of capital has been seen and felt. For example, we are having a most wonderful use made of the writ of injunction, especially in United States Courts. "Omnibus" injunctions, "government by injunctions," are words that indicate a great unrest if not alarm at the great lengths to which courts are sometimes going in granting this writ. The great proportions to which it has grown demands that a halt should be called before a crash may come. Statutes should curb the use of the writ by the Courts, State and National, and

should require its refusal except upon most urgent necessity.

Likewise the matter of the appointment of receivers has taken a broad sweep and courts have gone to the very verge of their jurisdiction, if not beyond it, in the appointment of receivers. In the United States Courts the judicial power has gone so far as to even appoint receivers upon the application of the corporation itself whose property was sought to be placed in the hands of the receiver. Such a wonderful stretch of authority, in the language of a textwriter, "opens the door to gross frauds upon creditors, by enabling unscrupulous manipulators of railroad property to use the power of the United States Courts to stay the hands of creditors in pursuing their lawful remedies, and to carry on the business of the road while schemers force favorable compromises." (Beach on Receivers, Sec. 327).

There is no reason why a corporation should be granted this privilege any more than an individuai, and it would be granted to no individual. To allow an individual to have a receiver appointed over his own property would be an absurdity upon its face. The conducting of railroad business and other kinds of business, by the Courts has become a common thing and of astonishing proportion. The applications for receivers are no doubt often made by those friendly to the roads, although nominally antagonistic, and by consent of the corporations. It ought to be understood that the Courts are not created to carry on business of other people, except in case of absolute necessity and for a limited time. But here we have the corporations put into the hands of receivers, yet no change is made in the management, and their possession continues for years, and thus the appointment of the receivers is simply a shield to keep off creditors. The system of appointing receivers should be radically changed, and the members of the bar should let

their voices be heard upon the subject. The powers of appointment should be restricted, and the authority for continuance should be strongly guarded. Let corporations and combinations of capital be compelled to make assignments just as individuals, and have their business wound up.

It

I am firmly of the belief that the bar should earnestly consider our Code of Civil Procedure. The report of the Code Commission will probably be adopted, and if so it will remain to control the practice for many years to come. is important, therefore, and I believe entirely agreeable to the Code Commission, for the bar to examine with care the various provisions as reported. Our present Code of Civil Procedure is most unsystematically and illogically arranged, and clumsy in its wording and provisions. It no doubt is the desire of the Commission, and it would be wisdom on our part to aid them to secure a code that shall be logically arranged, concisely worded and having the superfluous provisions of our present code eliminated. I learn that it is not the purpose of the Commission to have our present code overturned and an entirely new one enacted, but simply to correct and amend the present one, leaving the body of it to remain. This I believe was the only wise course to pursue. In New York, California, and some other states their codes of civil procedure have been at times completely upturned and new ones enacted, and infinite confusion and trouble has resulted. In Missouri, where a different policy has been pursued, the result has been satisfactory. In the latter state, instead of upturning their code, they would correct and amend it a little at a time, as a result there has been no confusion or vexation as compared with the other states referred to.

In closing my remarks I desire to return you my thanks for the honor you conferred upon me in calling me to the position of President of the Association. I have

served you during the first year of Utah's Statehood, and this will always be a pleasant memory to me.

Although I shall retire from this position at the close of this meeting, my interest in the Association will ever remain and I shall always be glad to learn of its prosperity and abundant success.

As a last word I desire to speak of one who is absent to-night, and we all miss him: I cannot close without referring to him. Our sympathies go out to Judge Sutherland, who was for a long time President of the Association, and took a just pride and pleasure in it. No doubt that tonight, although suffering from disease, his thoughts are of our meeting. We cannot and would not forget him, and we earnestly hope and pray that he may speedily be restored to health and vigor.