Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

as the sentiment and opinion of the lawyers of the United States, and as this matter came up for the first time for discussion in the Association I thought it would be unwise to have the Association commit itself at that time before there had been time for discussion of the features of this report in the periodicals of the day, and for lawyers who reflect and who have the desire that the courts when reorganized shall be placed upon a permanent basis and made as strong and efficient as possible, should have an opportunity to be there and express their views before a final vote was taken; and so I took the floor and advocated that the matter be continued until the next annual meeting for that purpose, and I urged as an additional reason that at the short session of Congress it would not be likely that the report would be acted upon if made. And that suggestion was adopted, thus far, that the different features of the report of the committee were voted upon by the Association, and the approval of the Association in that meeting was given, and then the committee was enlarged and authorized to put the matter in definite form in the form of a specific recommendation to be made to Congress, to be presented at the meeting to be held this year.

I regard this as a matter of transcendent importance, and it is my hope that the lawyers of the United States will not be content to allow the vote of fifty or sixty men to finally determine this matter until there has been more discussion upon it. The feature especially with regard to the number of judges which is to constitute the Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope there will be no mistake about it, for I do feel that that court ought to be composed of a larger number of judges. The country is wealthy enough to pay the small salary to have a court of at least five in the Circuit Court, even if they should be excused from participating in the work of the trial courts. There ought to be a court composed of not less than five judges.

And in concluding what I have to say now, I will express the hope that this Association will be able to find from among its members a number of gentlemen who will find it convenient and profitable to them to attend the next meeting. It will be an interesting occasion and worthy of any sacrifice that may have to be made, and if all who do attend will have this matter especially in mind, and if there should be a move to change the position of the American Bar Association with reference to the number of judges who compose that court, that our delegates will be there to advocate that change very strongly.

OBITUARY.

W. H. PRITCHARD- The members of the bar, of Pierce county, at least, were more or less acquainted with Judson Applegate during his residence in this city. He was a member of the State Bar Association, and was known to a considerable extent throughout

the state. He was a man of very great modesty and of a retiring disposition, so that he may not have been as well known as other lawyers generally possessing his ability were. These peculiarities of his disposition were known to those who knew him best, and he was best loved and appreciated by those who were most intimate with him. The Obituary Committee has called upon me as one of his close personal friends, to make a statement as to his life and character, which I have done, and will read, with the permission of the Association.

JUDSON APPLEGATE,

Late a member of the State Bar Association of the State of Washington, departed this life at his home in Tacoma, on the 8th day of February, 1899.

The deceased was a native of the state of New York, where he was born April 29th, 1835.

He had a good liberal education, having graduated at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, in the class of 1862.

He was admitted to the bar by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana at Indianapolis in 1869, and immediately began the practice of his chosen profession at Delphi, Indiana, and quickly took frant rank, not only in the bar of that city, but of the state of Indiana.

He there continued in business and enjoyed an extensive and lucrative practice until the year 1888, when, having visited Puget Sound, he became charmed with its climate, its mountain scenery, and its prospective business, and consequently he removed from Indiana to Washington and took up his home in Tacoma, where he lived and practiced his profession until death finding in him a shining mark, took him away over the river beyond the reach and the vision of the friends who loved him.

The life of the deceased was of a strictly professional character. He did not seek and never held any official position and took very little part in politics.

He was a learned and able lawyer, a courteous and honorable gentleman, and possessed all of those sterling qualities that characterize a manly man.

By his death his clients have lost an able champion of their

rights, the bar of the state a distinguished member, his fellow lawyers a worthy and genial friend and the public a valuable and useful citizen.

Be it Resolved, therefore, by the State Bar Association of the State of Washington, that we deeply deplore the removal from our midst, by the hand of death, of our friend and fellow-member, Judson Applegate.

That in remembrance of him, and in token of our mourning for his loss, we cause the foregoing brief epitome of his life and character, together with these resolutions, to be recorded in full in the journal of our proceedings at the present session, and that a copy thereof, duly engrossed and authenticated, be sent to the widow of the deceased.

I move that these resolutions be adopted as read.

GALUSHA PARSONS- In arising to second the motion which has been made, Mr. President, I feel that I should add something to what has already been said. My personal relations with Judge Applegate, after his removal to this state were such that I think I can say that I knew him well. For a portion of the time of his residence here his offices were adjoining my own. I was brought into daily relations with him, and he was a lawyer in the true and best sense of the word— thoroughly educated. He had studied the old books in his youth, which were then placed in the hands of students. Blackstone, Kent, Storey, Chitty's Pleadings, and such works as he could obtain on evidence, as Greenleaf had not assumed the proportions that it has to-day, were exceedingly familiar, and there were scarcely any works of the kind that he was not thoroughly well acquainted with.

He was a lawyer, too, in another sense, somewhat distinguished from the popular lawyer of to-day. He confined himself almost entirely to the study of bis profession and such kindred subjects as would naturally go with it. As I saw him daily I found him almost always in his office, and when he was not there I assumed he was absent in connection with his profession. He studied with great care, and in my judgment very clearly and with extraordinary discrimination, and distinguished between what was good law and what was mere dictum. Always respectful of the opinions of the court and to his professional brethren, he still had that independence of judgment without which, in my opinion, it is a fraud for anyone to pretend to be a lawyer. He never criticised the court,

and seldom, if ever, misconceived or overlooked. He was free to say what he thought about the courts, and I think that every lawyer ought to be. I hope that the gentlemen, like myself, will take it as no matter of offense. He was free to say what he thought about their decisions, and was very decided in the expression of an opinion that the bench owed something to the bar, while the bar owed a great deal to the bench. Among these things I remember was the idea that the court that merely decided a case without giving a reason for its decision, or reversed the decision of a justice, had but half done its duty. He thought that the lawyer ought to know when he went before an appellate court—had a right to know-upon what legal grounds the court had decided against him. In doing this he was in no way, in my judgment, wanting in respect for the opinion of the courts, but showed his respect for the profession to which he belonged. You can remember, although Judge Applegate was quite a number of years your own senior, when the study of the law was quite a different thing from the prescribed study of the law school. He felt that, too. He felt that what he had learned from the lights of the law was a part of his property; a part of his individuality; and that whoever trespassed upon that, excepting in legitimate and logical argument, was doing him and the profession to which he belonged an injustice.

Another thing I may mention here, that while Mr. Applegate had pursued the practice of his profession until his mature years, he came here feeling that it was possible that a man who had studied law and practiced his profession for perhaps twenty years or more in a little town like Delphi, Indiana, might have nevertheless treasured away the precepts of the old masters, that he might believe that he was something of a lawyer. He had another idea, in which I especially agreed with him, that the mere fact that one comes from a very large city-Chicago, New York or Philadelphia — was not absolute proof that he was a better lawyer than as though he had practiced in the town in which he had had his home. On that subject I have heard many opinions, other than his, many, many, many times expressed, that the ability of a lawyer was not at all to be measured by the census report from the town in which he lived. I remember being in the Supreme Court of the United States when a gentleman older than my Brother Jacobs appeared before that

honorable court. He had practiced law all his life, from a young man, in a little town in Pennsylvania. He had come there to argue a patent case; he came there first for admission to argue his case. The case was postponed to another day, and after it was heard I heard two of the judges of that court say that they had no recollection of a case that was better presented in all its details, although it was patent law, than that which was presented by this old gentleman who lived in this little town in the state of Pennsylvania.

Now, Judge Applegate, in my judgment, while his reputation. did not spread all over the country, was one who deserved to be known, not only in his own state but throughout the country. He was patient, careful, just in his criticisms and honest towards his clients. He felt that it was a duty that he owed when employed in a case to adopt every legitimate and exclude every illegitimate method in the trial of that case, and maintain that reputation as he was known to the profession and in his professional relations.

It is with great pleasure, mournful as it is, that I second the motion to spread these resolutions upon these reports.

THE PRESIDENT - You have heard the motion, which has been duly seconded, that the resolution as read, concerning Judson Applegate, be spread upon the records of this body in full. (Carried)

THE PRESIDENT The committee in its report yesterday stated that at this time opportunity should be given for some action regarding the late Justice Field.

ORANGE JACOBS - The committee on obituaries have thought proper for this State Bar Association to take notice of the life, character and services of so distinguished a lawyer and man as Justice Field of the Supreme Court of the United States. The committee made arrangements for Mr. J. B. Metcalfe to be present and deliver a review and synopsis of the life of Justice Field. He is not present; business has kept him away. He has sent to me his address and I will call upon the secretary to read it.

The following eulogy by Mr. Metcalfe was then read: Justice Field was of a family around whose members, in the same generation, the laurel leaves have twined in lavish profusion. David Dudley Field, by his reformed system of procedure in

« ZurückWeiter »