legislation of the states what it should be, we ought to do. The danger is not that there is or will be too little state legislation. The tendency is to legislate too much.

An examination of the volumes of state statutes enacted at each session of the legislature shows that often changes are made in the existing laws of the state which do not improve them, and that in many of the states there is at every session of the legislature a large amount of special and local legislation. The existing statute and common law of a state should not be changed except where there is a plain defect, and then it should be amended by a statute clearly expressed and drawn so as to remedy the defect and to make no other change. This will tend to promote stability and certainty in the law; will prevent litigation and relieve the courts from a great deal of labor. It will also aid to prevent what has become in some states a great evil-the procuring by individuals or by a combination of parties the enactment of statutes changing general laws for private and special purposes. If legislatures would enact statutes changing the general laws of a state only where experience had shown that such laws were defective, there would be much less state legislation. In many of the states all charters for railroad, banking, insurance, manufacturing, and other business corporations are granted by special acts. This imposes great labor on the legislature, and consumes much time. It brings around the legislature influences which too often procure special privileges which are detrimental to the people of the state. I would suggest that the policy which prevails in some states, by which general laws are passed, under and by virtue of which individuals can organize these corporations, is a wise policy. It obviates the necessity of a great deal of special legislation, and it relieves the legislature from the importunities of those who seek special charters conferring corporate franchises and special privileges not open to

all. In 1838 a general law was passed by the legislature of New York, under which individuals could organize corporations to carry on the business of banking. By the constitution of New York, which took effect on the first day of January, 1847, it was declared that "corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act except for municipal purposes, and in such cases where, in the judgment of the legislature, the objects of the corporation cannot be obtained under general laws. All general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this section may be altered from time to time, or repealed." In accordance with this constitutional provision, the legislature of New York has enacted general laws, under which corporations may be and are created to carry on almost all kinds of business enterprises, for which associated capital and corporate powers are deemed necessary or desirable. It is believed that this policy has been advantageous to our state and given satisfaction to the people. Much special and local legislation may also be done away with by conferring, by general laws, upon the people of municipalities, power to manage and regulate their local matters. The people of a county or town can, by their own local officials, elected by themselves, exercise many of the powers of local government more wisely than a state legislature.

The necessity for an annual meeting of a state legislature is not apparent to me. The reasons which made it important at one time to the mass of the people of England that there should be frequent meetings of Parliament, do not apply to our state governments. The people of these states do not require annual sessions of their state legislature to protect them from oppression or illegal exactions. The powers and duties of the executive officers of the state governments are prescribed by constitutional provisions and statutes. The court can arrest usurpation and punish illegal action on the

part of executive officers. The legislature can without difficulty provide and appropriate the necessary moneys for the ordinary expenses of a state government for two successive years. In most, if not in all, of the states, provision is made, by constitution or statute, for the calling of extra sessions of the legislature, should there be any pressing necessity.

ANNUAL ADDRESS

BY

ALEXANDER R. LAWTON.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE ASSOCIATION :My distinguished predecessor, on this platform, whose loss we now so sadly mourn, thus closed his address just a twelvemonth since:

"We cannot, then, too highly honor those who, by long life and great gifts and opportunities, have been permitted to adorn the administration of the law and our profession. We owe it to our high calling, to the cause of good government and right living, to see justice done to their services, to cherish their names, and to keep their memories green."

Accepting this as a voice from the grave of our departed friend and brother, let us follow in his footsteps, and endeavor to rescue from oblivion the names and services of some of the great and good of our profession; at least to see that they do not disappear before their time among those "Lethean shadows," which finally must embrace us all.

It was but natural that my predecessors, in this task, should have presented for your consideration the names of the men of our profession who had made their lives famous and illustrated their country while occupying and adorning the judgment seat, and dispensing justice under the high sanetions of power and place; or of those whose fortune it had been to assist in giving to the country its fundamental law-the framers of our Constitution. But we meet here as the representatives of the American Bar, and should see to it that oblivion is not injuriously anticipated in the case

of those who have ministered at the altar of justice with more than their share of learning, ability, and success, but without the possession of such national office and honors as to give them a place in the public history of the country. Should we not seek out, from our own personal observation, as well as from tradition, the names and services of those of our profession who have given tone and character to its ministrations, even though their talents were mainly expended upon the controversies of individuals, and seemingly transitory affairs, and were not made conspicuous by the bestowal of national honors and the exercise of functions thus derived? For it is painfully true, that after the lapse of a very few years scarcely any trace can be found of the services rendered to the state, to society, and to the cause of truth and justice by the very best of our profession; while history records and the public voice resounds with the services of men greatly their inferiors, whose fortune it had been to "lead battalions to victory," or, the "applause of listening senates to command."

Take one or two examples: How much of the public history of the country is taken up with the life and services of Chief Justice Gibson, of Pennsylvania, and how many of the younger members of the profession to-day know aught of that great man-except, perhaps, that he delivered many opinions, which appear in many volumes of reports? And yet he presided for twenty-five years over the highest tribunal of that great state, with such transcendent ability and integrity of purpose, that those who were nearest to him almost worshiped him. It was Chancellor Kent who said that he was a "giant in intellect as he was in stature;" and his opinions can safely challenge comparison, for the vigor of his judgments and the purity and force of his judicial style, with those of the most eminent judges who ever sat upon King's Bench or Woolsack. His qualities as a