twenty-eight years has been severely tested and which has stood the test.

And it seems to me then to be incumbent upon the people who are attached to our form of government to be jealous of any attack upon our judicial institutions by and through which its stability is maintained, and to uphold and vigorously assert the authority and the dignity of our courts and not to confound reckless experiment and untried political novelties with sound progress.

The courts are not the enemies but the friends of progress, but of a sane and wise progress affected in an orderly manner and under the forms of established law.

When the people, through the proper departments of the government, acting in accordance with the mandates of the organic law, have determined that changing conditions required a change in the organic law itself, in no instance have the courts ventured a single step beyond the constitutional limits of their powers or duties to oppose it, but they have unhesitatingly accepted the will of the people thus expressed as the final and the highest law, but when it has been sought to effect fundamental changes in the organic law itself or to evade its effect, without the sanction but in defiance of the principles of the law, they have steadily and effectively resisted it.

It would appear also to be consistent with the true interests of the people to preserve the absolute independence of the judiciary. The wisdom of the course of the framers of the Federal Constitution in establishing the independence of the judiciary is not only supported by common sense but amply demonstrated by experience.

And it is consistent with the lessons of history that a judiciary dependent upon popular favor is no more independent than one which depends upon the favor of the sovereign in whatever form that sovereignty may be expressed, and that a truly independent judiciary is one which

recognizes no power or authority superior to the law of the land and which is answerable for the just and impartial administration of its functions to no power, person, government or department of a government whatsoever.

The President: The next in order is unfinished busi

ness.

The chair is now informed that there is no unfinished business.

The next business is the discussion of reports of committees.

The Secretary:

Tomorrow afternoon is set aside for the discussion of reports of committees and it may be that the members would rather bring them up at that time than this morning.

The President: Unless there is some objection, the reports of committees and the discussion of the same will be postponed until tomorrow afternoon.

The Secretary: Mr. Kent, connected with the Associated Press, has followed us all the way from Baltimore, probably because it is a fact well known to history that the ladies accompanying the men, as well as our men themselves, are very attractive. He desires to take a photograph of the members and the ladies who are with them. He is an accomplished photographer and has already arranged chairs outside for the picture, inform

ing me that the sitting will only consume two or three minutes.

On motion duly made and seconded, and after vote, the Association adjourned until 8.15 P. M.

EVENING SESSION.

July 8, 1915.

The Association was called to order at 8.15 P. M. by the President.

The President: The subject of the paper to be read this evening is entitled "Legislative Neurasthenia vs. Uniformity of Laws Among the States." The gentleman who will read this paper has had a long and wide legislative experience and is the author of valuable constructive legislation in his native State. As a member of the Committee on Uniform Laws of the American Bar Association he has rendered very valuable and efficient services to that committee, which, as you know, has placed upon the statute books of the various States a great deal of important commercial legislation. I have the honor of introducing Mr. James R. Caton of the Alexandria Bar, who will now address you.

LEGISLATIVE NEURASTHENIA vs. UNIFORMITY OF LAWS AMONG THE STATES.

For the honor of addressing this distinguished audience I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the partiality of good friends among you, and despite the embarrassments of my own delinquencies, which in your presence I now deeply feel, I fully appreciate the high compliment of an invitation to address this bar of nation-wide reputation and achievement; a bar which has signally honored this State by its learning and profound knowledge of men and affairs, and which, by its ability and achievement, has written unmistakably upon the history of this great commonwealth and her sister States.

"Neurasthenia" is a medical term, familiar to every lawyer present, especially to those who in their experience at the bar have had either the pleasure, or misfortune, to try personal injury cases in which this nervous disorder played a prominent part. I refer to that class of cases where one happens to be in an accident upon a railroad, or in proximity to it, or in some other place, but not being injured, yet because of the fact of being in or near the scene of an accident when it occurred, is necessarily presumed to have sustained some injury, an injury most frequently unapparent to anyone, except the plaintiff, his counsel and his neurotic expert. More particularly, cases in which the plaintiff is obsessed with the idea that he is suffering with some undefinable something called by experts "neurasthenia" a malady apparently that nothing but a substantial verdict for damages will relieve. We are familiar, as well, with the effect of this nerve quieting sedative, how quickly under its influence the obsession disappears, and with what alacrity "neurasthenia" is lost in the dim distance of things forgotten as the plaintiff vanishes

from the temple of justice with the results of his most recent labors, cured in mind and body and at peace with himself and the rest of mankind.

Having in mind many sad experiences and quite as many regretful memories by reason of my experience in neurasthenia cases, I became impressed with the idea that the condition of the public and legislative mind has for some time past been, and is even now, possessed of an obsession akin to the condition called "neurasthenia" in personal injury cases—an obsession that nothing but an act of Congress, or an act of the General Assembly of the States, paternalistic or otherwise, and regulating something or somebody, will furnish a quieting sedative. It not unfrequently happens, however, that the application of this legislative sedative is not regarded by the experts as sufficiently quieting in its effect, in which event this treatment is usually preceded, or supplemented, by a long Congressional or legislative investigation of the muck raking formula. The passage of a law or the conclusion of a fruitless Congressional or legislative investigation appears to pacify the public mind, and wholly to satisfy the legislative ambition, at least, until the mania for legislation breaks out in a fresh place. And this, without any regard to the fact whether the legislative measure passed, or the investigation had, has accomplished any well defined purpose or created any substantial betterment of conditions. result of this dual state of mind, we have not only lost sight of the importance and necessity of many subjects of legislation that would have served a useful and beneficial purpose, but it has seemed almost impossible to impress either the public, or the legislatures, with the urgent and present need of making uniform the laws of the States.

As a

From these reflections I am convinced that one of the most potential forces today operating against the making uniform among the States the laws upon subjects and ques