I agree with him that with reference to these agreed cases that the practice ought to be discouraged. He referred to the case of Dennis v. Moses as a made-up case. That is something that I know nothing about. I know that there were three members of the bar, of which I was one, selected by the court to file a brief with reference to the constitutionality and the interpretation of that law relating to the sale of property on execution, and I know, as far as I am concerned, and I believe it is the same with reference to the other members of the bar who were selected with me, that we did our duty conscientiously and that we tried to throw upon the subject all the light that was possible.

A recess was then taken till 2 o'clock P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

TACOMA, July 7, 1899.

Association called to order at 2 o'clock p. м., President Stiles in the chair.

Samuel R. Stern then read before the Association his paper on the subject, "The Law and the Laborer."

There being no discussion, D. E. Baily, Chairman of Committee on Obituaries, submitted his report, which was, on motion, adopted unanimously:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON OBITUARIES.

To the Washington State Bar Association:

Your Committee on Obituaries would respectfully report that during the past year two members of this Association have passed over to the great silent majority; have gone to that Higher Court from whose decisions and decrees there is no appeal.

Frank M. Geoghegan, of the Vancouver Bar, was one of these. Your committee have not been able to obtain reliable data of the time, or particulars of his decease. From what meager facts they have been able to learn, they believe him to have been a capable and upright lawyer and a good and useful citizen. They therefore unite with those he left behind him in requiem at his death and extend to them the sympathy of this Association.

The other one of the decedents was a man widely known and universally

66

respected. "Those who knew him best loved him most." We need not enter upon any labored or extended eulogium of him, but only say, quoting from the report of the local Bar Association on the occasion of his death, that Judson Applegate, of the bar of Pierce county, was a learned and able lawyer, a courteous and honorable gentleman and possessing all those sterling qualities that characterize a manly man," and to add that we unite with them, with his family and friends, in deeply deploring his loss.

Your committee would not deem this report complete without reference to the loss sustained by the nation at large, indeed by the entire judicial world, in the death of the Hon. Stephen J. Field, Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Serving as he did for the longest period of any member of that august tribunal, his life and services are a part of the history of his country. We could amplify, did time and space permit, on his clear, logical and forcible opinions; on his high moral and physical courage; on his character as a man and a private citizen; on his "everyday walk and conversation;” but we deem it unnecessary and therefore only say: "We shall not soon look upon his like again."

All of which is respectfully submitted,

DAV. E. BAILY,
ORANGE JACOBS.

THE PRESIDENT-I believe that completes the regular order of business for this afternoon unless there is some matter of business which you gentlemen wish to bring up.

ORANGE JACOBS It is understood that in the case of Judson Applegate, deceased, that this afternoon the members and others who desire to speak at this bar should present some resolutions and make short addresses upon the character of our deceased brother. Judge Pritchard was selected by the committee to attend to that. It was thought advisable that there should be some recognition taken by way of short addresses and resolutions upon the death of Justice Field, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. J. B. Metcalfe was spoken to to deliver a short address on his life and character. He is not here, however, this afternoon. If that can be attended to to-morrow in the forenoon, if it is desirable, it would suit the committee.

THE PRESIDENT - It was with the expectation that something of that nature would follow that the chair waited a minute or two before taking up this other matter.

On motion, Association adjourned until Saturday, July 8, 1899, at the hour of 10 A. M.

THIRD DAY.

TACOMA, WASH., July 8, 1899.

The Association met at 10 A. M., President Stiles in the chair. Reports of standing committees called for.

Hon. Cornelius H. Hanford, of the Committee of Delegates to the American Bar Association, reported, as follows:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association:

I have not prepared any written report as your delegate, and the matters spoken of are perhaps not of sufficient importance to justify it any

way.

I have attended the last three meetings of the American Bar Association, representing this association under appointment as delegate. The only claim I put forward as to special ability as a representative is of a negative character, having only taken the floor once in the three days' session.

The meeting held in 1896 at Saratoga was attended by an ex-member of this Association, Mr. George M. Forster, and myself, and were, as there were but one or two delegates from California, Montana and Arizona, the only representatives from the Pacific coast states. At our meeting two years ago, there was one member from California and one from Montana, and at the meeting one year ago there was but one delegate from California, so, as the matter has been going it is rather a lonesome excursion for the Pacific coast members. I feel that who ever goes as a delegate the next time would enjoy company. I think it would not only be interesting, but to the advantage of the Pacific coast states if much more interest were taken in the meetings of the National Bar Association. The meeting this year will be held commencing on the 28th day of August. Three days' time is to be given to the meeting of the American Bar Association, and to be followed by the International Bar Association to be held the remaining three days of the week at Buffalo at the same time. The International Bar Association are to be the guests of the American Bar Association on Saturday night, closing the meeting. No doubt, there will be many distinguished lawyers from America and Europe in attendance, and it would be my wish that this Association be represented by a number of the lawyers of this state, and that others from the Pacific should meet there and have a sort of power in the convention by force of numbers, as well as ability.

Speaking now of the sessions which I have attended, the meeting of 1896 was especially interesting and notable by reason of the address on

"International Law and Arbitration," delivered by Lord Russell of Kilowen, Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain, a very able address and a very able man, setting forth many of the strong arguments in favor of peaceable adjustment of international affairs, and at the same time presenting the difficulties to be expected in carrying out such a program as the nations are now attempting by the establishment of an international court. That paper must be read, however, to be appreciated, and it would not be profitable for me to undertake to give a synopsis of the points that were made.

At the meeting held in Cleveland in 1896, the two features of that session were, first, the address by the then Governor of New Jersey, Governor Griggs (he is now the Attorney General in the cabinet of President McKinley), pointing out the evils of loose and slipshod and careless legislation, which were the chief topics, and it was a subject worthy of the careful and deliberate consideration of the American people as a whole, as well as lawyers.

The other feature was the request from the chairman of the senate judiciary committee for an expression of the views of the American Bar Association with reference to the reorganization of the federal courts. That subject was referred to a special committee created at that time, and no further action was taken at that session.

At the session of 1898, held in Saratoga, the committee made a report proposing many changes in the organization of the federal courts. One of the most important features, and which met with universal approval that is, with the unanimous approval of all of those who expressed themselves on the subject at all- was the merging of the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit and District Courts into one court as a court of original jurisdiction, instead of having two courts, usually presided over by one judge, as at present, for the trial of cases originally. I think that all lawyers who have reflected upon this subject realize that it is utterly useless to maintain two separate courts with two clerks and separate records, and a good deal of confusion to do the work of the court of original jurisdiction.

Then the subject of the Circuit Court of Appeals received a great deal of attention, and you all know that that court does receive a great deal of thoughtful attention from lawyers as to its constitution and efficiency. There is a feeling that it has not met the expectations in commanding the confidence of the American people as a court of last resort should command confidence, and whether there is any reason for that growing out of its peculiar organization or simply whether it is a new court and the people have not become accustomed to it yet, could not be determined; but various ideas were expressed. It was the opinion of the committee and of many of those participating in the discussion that the court would be more satisfactory if the judges of that court were relieved entirely from doing any of the work of the court of original jurisdiction, and it would

be established as an entirely independent appellate tribunal, the judges devoting all of their time to the duties of the appellate court, instead of going around the circuit and holding nisi prius terms, which, in fact, they do little of.

That idea, however, is not the unanimous opinion of the lawyers, nor was it the unanimous opinion of those in attendance. There were reasons urged for maintaining the original idea of the federal judiciary, copied from the English, that the judges should participate in the holding of terms; should be brought in close contact with the people, seeing how cases are brought, seeing how cases are tried, seeing litigants and jurors and witnesses, and receive in that way a certain amount of education from participating in the active business affairs of life; and that, on the other hand, from their participation in the work of the appellate tribunal, reviewing cases, they would be, in a manner, educated and more competent to proceed in the trial of cases, and less likely to commit errors in making decisions which would be regarded as errors in the appellate tribunal. That matter was strongly urged, but the prevailing sentiment was that the court would be better if the judges were entirely relieved from participating in the work of the nisi prius court.

Then there was a good deal of discussion upon the number of judges which should constitute the Circuit Court of Appeals. The committee recommended that the court should consist of only three judges, and they were very strenuous in supporting their determination in that regard. There was a good deal of opposition to that on the ground that the court would command more confider ce if the court were composed of more judges. And all arguments were met by the statement that the committee had taken the opinion of the present circuit judges, and they were all, without exception, in favor of having the court consist of three judges, and it was the sense of the Association, so far as it could be taken at that meeting, that the court as constituted, however it should be with reference to the work of the judges, should be a court of three judges.

My own individual opinion is very strongly against it. I think the court would be better if there were a larger number of judges. All my experience is that there should be five judges. It is less likely to render decisions which will silence contention than a court composed of a larger number. You can realize how the lawyer would feel if, after winning a case in the nisi prius court, he should be reversed in the appellate court by a majority decision, when he would feel that the judge deciding his case in the first instance, and the decision of the judge in the appellate court is just as likely to be right in the appellate court. There are other reasons, which I will not take time now to suggest, why I think the Circuit Court of Appeals will never be a satisfactory court to the American people while the number of judges is fixed at three.

I have the feeling that the American Bar Association ought not to hesitate in making final determination of what it would report to Congress