committee during the interval between the Annual Meetings of the Association, shall be paid by the Treasurer, on the approval and by the order of the Executive Committee." Both of these By-Laws were adopted.

Rufus King, of Ohio, said:

I beg to submit a report from the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. There were two subjects referred to this committee last year, one being a resolution offered by Mr. Thomas, of Missouri; the other being a proposition made by the Bar Association of Philadelphia. I offer, first, a brief report upon the first subject, and Mr. Merrick will then offer the report of the committee upon the other subject.

The report on the first subject is as follows:

The Committee on Judicial Administration and Procedure respectfully report that the Vice-Presidents have failed, with but one exception, to comply with the resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Association, requesting them to "prepare and forward to this committee summaries of the judicial systems of their respective states."

The committee are, therefore, unable to comply with the further duty imposed upon them by the resolution; but as the information thus sought is deemed to be important, they recommend that a circular be sent by the Secretary to each of the Vice-Presidents, requesting their attention to the resolution, and if it shall be inconvenient to either of them to comply, that he will delegate some other member of the Association from his state to discharge the duty.

For the purpose of ready reference and comparison, it is recommended also that the reports be briefly made under the following heads:

1. The entire system of courts of the state in their order. superior and inferior.

2. The jurisdiction of each.

3. The number of judges in the respective courts, their districts, terms of office, and salaries, formulated briefly as possible.

4. Such further remarks as essential for explanation of the system.

RUFUS KING,

R. T. MERRICK.

The above report was received and its recommendations adopted.

R. T. Merrick, of the District of Columbia, said:

I have to present a report from the same committee upon the other subject referred to, as follows:

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND REMEDIAL PROCEDURE.

At the last session of the Association, the following resolution was referred to the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure:

Resolved, That this Association commend to the consideration of Congress, with its approval, the scheme for a single court of appeal to hear all appeal cases in which the jurisdiction of the circuit courts has been acquired by the citizenship of the parties only, and the appointment of an additional circuit judge, who, with the circuit and district judges of his circuit, shall constitute the circuit court in banc, substantially as the same is provided for in the bills proposed by the Law Association of Philadelphia.

The subject covered by the resolution has been considered by the members of the committee, severally, and it was appointed that there should be a meeting at this place on the day before the day of the meeting of the Association, for the purpose of agreeing upon a report.

Two members only of the committee are, however, present, and in view of this fact, and in view of the grave importance of the subject, and of the diversity of opinion prevailing, in regard to the different plans that have been suggested to accomplish the purpose contemplated, and especially in view of the absolute importance of unanimity among its members, if the influence of this Association is to have any useful or appreciable effect upon the action of Congress, the committee asks that it may be allowed to report at the next session of the Association, and that the further consideration of the subject may go over until that time.

RUFUS KING,

R. T. MERRICK.

Richard Vaux, of Pennsylvania, said: The report of the committee just read by my friend was made upon a resolution offered by Mr. Reed at the last meeting of this Association. The Philadelphia Law Association appointed a committee to which was referred this question of relieving the Supreme Court. That committee took up the subject carefully, and they made a report covering the ground as they thought fully. Knowing that this Association would meet here last summer, that committee was directed by the Philadelphia Law Association to appear before it and present that report. I had the honor to bring that subject here at the last meeting. It was discussed. That resolution was offered and adopted. The Law Association of Philadelphia then sent a committee to Washington, and they had an interview with the Judiciary Committee of the House. Mr. Reed, who represented the details of the question, had prepared, and Mr. Smith, who sits by my side, had aided him, in an elaborate discussion of the question, at the same time printing all the measures in the form of bills,

or otherwise, that had been submitted in the legislative body, with the criticisms upon each, in a pamphlet which is now on the table, open for inspection, and copies will be sent to all who desire it. This committee, to which the resolution was referred, has now made its report. It asks two things: 1st, That they may have further time to consider the question, or report to this body next year; and, 2d, In the meantime that the subject be laid on the table. I have some interest in this matter. I think I am familiar with the history of this effort to relieve the Supreme Court. Four hours a day for four days in the week is too much, and unless something is done, no one can be found who will accept an appointment on that bench. Having some interest in this question, I rise to second the motion and ask for its adoption as submitted by the committee.

W. P. Wells, of Michigan:

The non-attendance of the Committee on Judicial Administration, which appears by the report of my friend from the District of Columbia to be the reason why we have no report on this occasion, will not occur again. In 1882 this subject was fully discussed upon majority and minority reports of a committee composed of the most distinguished. members of this body. A conclusion was reached by a majority vote. It is true there was not unanimity; but, sir, if the influence of this Association is ever to be exerted, it is necessary that a conclusion should at some time be reached; and I suppose that the reason that it is discussed at all here, is to the end that some time or another we may exert an influence in accomplishing this most needed relief. Since I came here, a distinguished member from the District of Columbia told me of an instance which is heart-rending. In the state courts of Pennsylvania, a controversy arose upon a contract arising out of a patent cause. Judgment

went in favor of the inventor. His adversaries took the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and a motion was made on his behalf to dismiss the case on the ground that there was no federal question involved. His counsel said to me: "There is no pretense for argument that there is any federal question in the cause." When the motion was called up the Supreme Court, looking at the bulky record, said: "We will defer the decision of this question, whether or not we have jurisdiction, until the merits are argued." And, therefore, the decision of that question was deferred for three years. The poor inventor, with ruin and starvation staring him in the face, went into the lobby and burst into tears. Now, Mr. President, when such a thing as that can happen, the delay in the business of the United States Supreme Court is a shame to our jurisprudence. Let us, as soon as possible, have a determination by this Association which shall be unanimous. For myself, although I had decided views in favor of one scheme, opposed by the majority of the committee, I am willing to yield any personal opposition to any scheme which shall accomplish the relief, and I hope that at the next meeting of this Association we shall have a report upon which we can all agree.

Simon Sterne, of New York, said:

I desire to draw attention to the fact that there is now pending a bill in Congress which proposes to add to the labors of the Supreme Court the duties of a trial-court in a thousand or more causes, and that, therefore, any plan that we may devise for the purpose of relieving that court, so far as its docket is concerned, will probably be made nugatory and valueless, if that bill becomes a law. That bill has already passed the Senate, and been favorably reported by a committee of the House, and its passage is threatened as