porations that are threatening the liberties of the people? I think we can, and I think it consists in legislative and judicial control, and that our efforts should be directed to bring about successfully that legislative and judicial control.

D. E. BAILY-I have had the pleasure of listening to one of the most excellent papers that, I think, was ever read before this Bar Association. It was a scholarly production from a practical standpoint, and as such recommends itself, I think, to everyone that has heard it and to those who may read it hereafter.

The position that the trusts occupy now with the American people is a condition, not a theory. Every thoughtful man must have given it some attention, some thought. What will be the result of that, of the concensus of opinion of the American people, I know not, but I have that faith in the American people to believe that they will be able to work out their own salvation, though it may be with fear and trembling; but it will come. From the bar of the country, I believe, that the people, to a great extent, although they cannot acknowledge it, look for relief as to those questions which now confront us. As Magna Charta was forced from King John by the lawyers of that day, and as the declaration was from the pen of the lawyer, as the constitution of the United States, the great palladium of our civil liberties, was the work of lawyers, so, I believe, Mr. President, this question will largely depend upon the lawyers of the country.

While I may differ with the author of that paper in some of its minor points, yet in its great features I am with it. And, Mr. President, without further comment or criticism, I would recommend it to my brethren of the bar for their earnest, thoughtful, almost prayerful consideration.

Mr. E. F. Blaine then read before the Association his paper on the subject: "The Decennial of Our State Constitution.” Appendix.)

(See

THE PRESIDENT -- Are there any remarks upon the subject as discussed?

MR. FRANK D. NASH-What the gentleman has stated in regard to the legislative body of our state is of interest to me because of the fact that I have some personal experience in that body.

The idea will suggest itself to everyone who has been a repre

ences.

sentative in this state that some means ought to be suggested by which the laws should be made in a way free from any outside influThe trouble is to reach and find the particular remedy to apply to this disease. One of the evils of our system, which is manifest to you all, is the fact of the lack of legislative experience of the members who are sent to represent the citizens of the state, even admitting that they go there with the best intent.

It has seemed to me that some means ought to be provided by which a body should be appointed in a state whose sessions are as short as they are in this state, which would provide that the members of the Legislature, having subjects upon which legislation is desired, should submit them to that body for its review previous to the meeting of the Legislature.

The experience of the members is simply this: They are elected; the people throughout the state are anxious for legislation; they fire it into a member and see that it is passed. It is referred to a committee, and often a gentleman is appointed upon a committee who has to do with matters with which he has had no experience, and he has to pass judgment upon that measure, and it is all done in a few days.

The legislature of the State of New York continues its session until its business is finished, and is composed of members who go there session after session.

I sat in the Legislature of this state of 1893, and in the Legislature of 1895 there were not more than five members who sat there in 1893. It takes half of the time of the member to find out how to make the laws, and back of it all is the sentiment which prevails in not only this community but in every community, that the man who goes to the legislative body should feather his nest. The member is not at fault for this, but the public who give voice to that sentiment. The member should be sustained by the public sentiment of the state; and it seems to me that this is one of the duties that this Association, and every Association has, to create a proper public sentiment. In order that we may have well-digested legislation some means must be devised by which the members can be informed early in the session, by well-digested bills, what is expected of them.

MR. MCGILVRA -- Mr. President, I arise to simply endorse, in a

general way, the paper that has just been read.

I think mainly it

is a truthful and fearless statement and exposition of some of the evils that exist, and I refer particularly to the matter of legislation. I said in connection with the other paper that I thought the country was to be congratulated with one branch of the government, in which aspersion has not arisen as yet, referring to the judiciary. The fact is and it is not local- that our State Legislatures, to say nothing of the general legislation of the country, in some respects have become very corrupt. To say they are so is not making any new accusation. The last speaker hinted on the proposi

tion that the people are just as bad as the members of the Legislature, and a little worse. I think he is about right. The suggestion that came to my mind is this: I would suggest to the members of the State Bar Association, and the members of the profession in the state, that it would be a good thing for them to undertake a little missionary work in this very matter, although they are not generally supposed to do a great deal in that line; but the truth and fact unquestionably is that the moral sentiment of the people at large is at a low standard. It needs to be raised. It is generally conceded that dishonesty in politics and dishonesty in office is not the same as dishonesty in other matters. A man may put his hand in an individuals's pocket and if there is proof of it he is sent to the penitentiary; but the same people who would condemn petit larceny in private matters would condone grand larceny in connection with office.

Now, I do think that the members of the bar and the members of this Association could do a great deal in the way of reform, exerting whatever influence they have, and certainly they have as much as any other profession, in the matter of educating the people.

It is generally a fact that a class of people understand when a man is running for office (to use the expression of the gentleman who spoke here), he is seeking to feather is own nest in some way. For instance, a man running for Governor of this state, or Senator, or for the House of Representatives the office is worth $4,000, I think, a year and he spends ten thousand to get it, and everybody knows it. How is he to get even? The people expect that he is to get even in some dishonest way. The fact is the people of this state gen

erally are not up to the proper standard in these matters. Whenever the mass of the people will hold a man in office to the same responsibility that we would if he were our agent in a store, or in any fiduciary capacity, and I doubt not the evil will, in a measure, be remedied. But politicians, of course, keep an eye to the sentiment of the public, and whatever the public requires of them, as a general rule, will be heeded. And the suggestion, in a nutshell, is that the gentleman struck the keynote of the whole situation when he said that the people themselves needed reforming.

Usually they

W. H. H. KEAN - Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association: It is indeed refreshing, so far as I am concerned, at least, to witness the courage of Brother Blaine. As one of the members of the Superior Court of this state, I feel that he has been a friend to the judiciary and to myself. I do not believe that we ought to hold ourselves above criticism. If there is just foundation to it it is refreshing, to me at least, to see a member of the bar of the State of Washington with the courage Brother Blaine has used, to "spit it out," to use that expression. We ought to realize that we select members of the judiciary from the bar. After being elected to that position and qualifying and entering upon their duties, we ought to realize also that they are but men. are men who have made themselves what they are; that is, their disposition has been moulded, and after getting upon the bench they are exactly the same men as they were before, because their election to this office has in no way changed their character, not a bit. It is a dignified position, I will admit, but whoever enters upon it enters upon his duties with the same weaknesses and prejudices, and with the same bias that he ever had. It does not change his character in the least; consequently we ought to scrutinize him as a man. He ought not to feel that by the dignity of his position he is shielded from criticism, and I believe the judiciary would be better if men would have the courage that Mr. Blaine has to criticise them just as fearlessly as he would any other officer. As a member of the judiciary, it seems to me also that a court ought to be slow to declare a law void or to pass upon the constitutionality of a question. Now, we have this question that he cited, this question of exemption. We have always had an exemption, and it was never questioned; it was undoubtedly the ex.

press wish of the people. We also had a Constitutional Convention, representing the great people of the State of Washington. Lawyers were in that convention and they expressed themselves upon this question clearly and explicitly. Subsequently a law was enacted by the representatives of the people; they also expressed it clearly and forcibly. Yet the Supreme Court, with the knowledge of this before them, took upon themselves the construction of that law and adopted a maxim or the reasoning of some text-book writer rather than the reasoning or will of the people. To that extent they are legislating. It is said that the courts cannot legislate, but we do it, brothers, in many instances. To illustrate: Supposing now, as in that case, the Legislature, being the representative of the people, had enacted a law; the Supreme Court, by declaring that law unconstitutional and void, has exactly the same effect as if a subsequent Legislature should meet and repeal that law. To that extent the courts do legislate. And I can cite many other instances where the ultimate result is, where the real tangible thing done is, that they have legislated. And I believe that we ought to be slower in construing statutes and constitutional questions; to be very, very slow indeed in bringing about the nullification of what the people do desire and what, in substance and effect, is the thing that ought to obtain.

case.

MR. ROWELL It seems to me that the fact that lawyers constituted that Constitutional Convention is a reason why the Supreme Court should have done as it did do in the exemption It is an old saying, take an Irishman as he means and not as he says; but I do not believe that is a good doctrine to apply to a constitution, although it may be in regard to a legislature. It seems to me that in no way can the Supreme Court make lawyers definite in the use of the English language in the light of the legal decisions of almost centuries as they can by sustaining the well established doctrine of that case. It does seem to me that instead of blaming the court we ought to lay the blame at the doors of the Constitutional Convention. A line of decisions that is so well established as that which enunciates the doctrine ought to be a recognized factor in a Constitutional Convention.

BYRON MILLETT - One feature in regard to Mr. Blaine's paper.