W. H. H. Russell, of Missouri, said:

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Bar Association, and Ladies, I hope the measure recommended by the majority of the committee may never go into force and effect; it is one of the most dangerous measures ever submitted to the consideration of the Congress of the United States.

Since the very able reports of the distinguished committee. have been carefully prepared and submitted to this Association, it becomes every member of the American Bar Association to consider with the utmost care the vote which he is this measure.

to give upon

It strikes at the foremost pillar of the fabric of this Republic-the judicial system of the United States.

Let us pause and consider for a moment some of the features that underlie this measure.

Of course, my friend from Chicago (Mr. Bonney) supports this bill, because it emanated from the judiciary, or part of the judiciary, of the state of Illinois; and allow me to pause there just one moment.

I regret to differ from my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Hitchcock), and am sorry I cannot construe this bill as he does. In June, 1878, there was a call signed by the most distinguished members of the Bar of the United States, such as B. H. Bristow, of Kentucky; W. M. Evarts, of New York; Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, and some twelve other gentlemen, calling members of the Bar throughout the United States to form a Bar Association, whereby delegates representing the profession in all parts of the country might meet together annually for a comparison of views and friendly intercourse. Its object was to be "to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice and uniformity of legislation throughout the Union," etc.

No higher or worthier object could we have in view than that; but we never shall attain such an object by supporting

such a measure as the one embraced in this Davis bill, socalled.

I must oppose the resolution of my friend Mr. Hitchcock because it seeks the adoption of the Davis plan, which consists, as we have heard, in the proposed establishment of nine intermediate courts, of five judges each, and limiting the jurisdiction to $10,000. If there is any member advocating that bill who can say that the administration of justice is promoted by such a limitation, I cannot agree with him; because one citizen of this Republic may have a case involving $9,000 cannot go the Supreme Court of the United States under this proposed plan, while another one, who may be a wealthy corporation, who has $10,000 involved, can avail himself of that resort. Does such a state of affairs as that harmonize with the principle laid down by the distinguished jurist Judge Story, whose language has been recalled here this evening? That author says one of the fundamental objects of a good government must be the administration of justice. I venture to suggest there is no justice at all in a measure that provides an appeal for $10,000, and refuses it for $9,000.

To obtain a final decision by the Supreme Court in any case under this Davis method, the amount involved must be $10,000, exclusive of costs; a sum so large that it is practically a denial of justice to the majority of suitors.

I could not make a more forcible illustration than by quoting a few words from the eloquent language of one of the most able statesmen England ever produced — Lord Brougham. In one of his masterly efforts, in discussing a bill like this, he said: "It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome of brick, and left it of marble; but how much nobler shall it be for that sovereign who can have it to say he found law dear, and left it cheap; found it the patrimony of the rich, left it the legacy of the poor; found it a sealed

book, left it an open page and living letter; found it a twoedged sword of oppression, left it the staff of honor and innocence?"

Yet the committee, by its majority report, asks the American Bar Association, which we have been told in one of the addresses is conservative in its nature, to ask a tribunal which sings only to the music of the almighty dollar, to pass a measure which compels a man of under $10,000 to submit to one of the most dangerous features of legislation of the present time.

The gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Bonney) spoke about the matter of expense, and said that was not an element to be entered into. I venture to disagree with him; it is an element, and an important one. The expense in the Federal judiciary has increased largely since 1869-70; and, instead of diminishing, the business of the Supreme Court of the United States has increased.

Will the establishment of these additional courts, from which appeals may be taken, diminish the business of the Supreme Court? No; it will largely increase it, and it will very largely increase the expense.

In 1850 the Federal judicial expense was $467,000; in 1860, $900,000; in 1865, $1,108,000; in 1870, $2,392,000; in 1875 the expense of the Federal judiciary of this Republic had increased to over $3,000,000; and you would put the additional expense of nine additional tribunals, thus incurring a heavy expense for the taxpayers of this country to bear in addition to what is now upon their shoulders.

Will any logic, such as was suggested by my friend from Chicago, convince the citizens of this Republic that such legislation is wise?

Of the present number of cases in the Supreme Court, onehalf of them come from five states-New York, Illinois,

Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. I refer to the present

docket of that court; it shows:

That will give some idea of the distribution of the business of the several states in that court.

The gentleman from Chicago urged as a reason why we should adopt this method, that it had passed the Senate of the United States. What of that? It has yet to pass the House of Representatives, whose members come nearer to the people. I am in the confidence that they will not pass the bill offered by the senator from Illinois.

I hope, Mr. President, that every member will carefully consider the elements contained in the minority report, and contrast them with the report of the majority. I trust that, when you come to vote upon it, you will vote down the majority report, and say that this Davis bill shall not receive the recognition of the American Bar Association.

Upon motion, the Association adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday morning.

Friday Morning, August 11.

The meeting was called to order at 10 o'clock A. M., by the President.

Isaac M. Jordan, of Ohio, read a paper: "Trial by Jury; its Defects and their Remedies." (See Appendix.)

Upon the conclusion of the reading

John W. Stevenson, of Kentucky, requested that his motion relative to the place of the next Annual Meeting be taken from the table. He said:

I have here a modified resolution to offer in place of the original:

Resolved, That the Executive Committee be requested to call the next Annual Meeting of the Association at the Green Brier, White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., provided satisfactory arrangements can be made as to terms and transportation.

Benjamin A. Willis, of New York:

I hope the last part of that will be eliminated; I don't know that we want to get there half rates, and as for the other part, we will trust ourselves in the hands of the West Virginians. I move to amend the resolution by striking out all after, and including, the word "provided," thus leaving the resolution in its original purity.

Seconded by William Preston, of Kentucky.

Mr. Stevenson :

I accept the amendment, and ask the Secretary to read the original resolution.

The Secretary then read the original resolution.

L. P. Poland, of Vermont :

That original resolution fixes the time; I think that should be left as a matter of after consideration.

Mr. Stevenson :

I agree to that also.

The Secretary then read the original resolution, which amended is worded as follows:

Resolved, That the next meeting of the American Bar Association be held on the day of August, 1883, at