United States thirty-four years, six months and eleven days, being one month and six days longer than the term of any other justice. At all times, whether upon the bench or amidst a social circle, he was ever courteous, calm and resolute, his voice and manner having the tenderness of a woman. In private life he was loved and admired for his virtues and amiable character. Prominent among his many shining qualities was his fondness for the society of, and his unswerving loyalty, to his friends."

D. E. BAILEY-I do not know that anything can be added to the address that has just been read.

At an early day in California I lived in the town in which he practised law, and although he had been elevated to the Supreme bench, yet his name was a household word, esteemed and honored. There is one quality, however, that marked Judge Field's profes sional life that has only been adverted to there- the number of

cases that he decided in the district and circuit. His industry, however, Mr. President, was most wonderful. I was told that he wrote and rewrote one decision thirteen times in order to get it in accordance with what he believed to be right and just.

This was

Reference is made there to his absolute lack of fear. exemplified while he was living in Marysville on receiving a challenge, and he, being born north of Mason and Dixon's line, it was supposed would weaken. There was no weakening about Stephen J. Field, and he accepted the challenge, as I remember, with bowie knives and in a dark room! His antagonist weakened, not Mr. Justice Field.

In conclusion, Mr. President, permit me to say that with the monument of legal labor that Judge Field has left behind him, I can only say, in the language in which the obituary report was concluded yesterday, "We shall never see his like again."

GEO. DONWORTH Mr. President, I want to call attention to the fact that in taking action of the kind we are about to take, we are not doing it so much to show our appreciation and our sympathy with the relatives and friends, but as a duty to the public and those who come afterwards. The life of such a man as Judge Field, when properly appreciated, properly brought to the attention of the public, is a more valuable educator than any other

instrument of which I have knowledge. When the people of this country come to study, if they will, and consider the characteristics of Stephen J. Field, his career in life, his entire honesty and integrity of purpose, his fearlessness in the discharge of his duty, regardless of its immediate effects upon himself or his prospects, they will be led to efforts in themselves which will tend to the good of the country more than many of the colleges and schools, much as they benefit the community. It is for that reason that I believe that every organized body, at least where lawyers have anything to do with it, should, in the most marked degree possible, call attention to and place upon record their appreciation of the life of Stephen J. Field, and others, who, as fearless as he, defend law and order and live up to their convictions of the duty of people in a free country to obey the law, and to those who have nothing to do with the administration of the law, as they see it, regardless of the immediate consequences.

JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS-Mr. President, I see in the assemblage the distinguished district judge of this state on the Federal bench, and being one who has the personal knowledge of the personal esteem and confidence in which that esteemed jurist was held, I take it that from him will come a tribute as to the personal characteristics of the deceased more fitting than from any other gentleman who may be with us.

I

(Mr. Lewis then delivered an eloquent eulogy on the life and character of Justice Field, which the stenographer failed to report.) C. A. HANFORD Mr. President, I would add but a word. cannot feel that Mr. Justice Field has departed. His mere physical presence has been removed, but the grand character, the man of lofty ideas and inspirations, the true friend, the enterprising pioneer, remains in the history of this country, and is, and will be, in its example a potent force. The exalted character of a man, whose life has been as much as that of Justice Field, is immortal, and it is part of the heiritage of the American people. As long as this nation endures his name will be associated with the names of Marshall and Miller, and others in the front rank of American jurists, and it will be associated with his work in expounding and vindicating the law and the principles of justice among men.

It seems to me that more than this cannot be said; at least, I

feel that it would be temerity on my part to attempt to pronounce an eulogium worthy of such a character. I would simply say, in connection with all of us who have to any degree enjoyed the friendship of Justice Field, or whose privilege it has been to present the case of a client for adjudication before that eminent jurist, must carry with us through life the proud satisfaction of having known the man and having known an eminent jurist; and it is well for all at this time, it seems to me, to pause for a moment and contemplate this character which the American people will always hold as among the greatest of the judges that this country has produced.

J. P. HoYT I want to offer a resolution and I will feel that I have done a duty to myself. I deem it especially pertinent at this time by reason of the International Conference now in session at The Hague.

time.

I offer this resolution and shall not discuss it at this

Resolved, That this Association approves the principle of compulsory arbitration among civilized nations.

JOHNSON NICKEUS-Mr. President, I do not quite appreciate the wording of the resolution in this: that it provides for the compulsory arbitration. If so, are we going to war to enforce it? In what manner are we to enforce this principle? I am favorable to the matter but I do not see how we can enforce it.

GEO. W. FOGG -- Mr. President, I want to say one word as a member of the Association. It is in my mind that the word arbitration itself excludes force, and it is further in my mind that that has been the inherent defect and the fatal defect in all these proposed laws of arbitration, that the parties to an arbitration must volunteer, and the matters of arbitration agreed upon between them, not by pressure of force but by their own volition.

That

is the fatal defect in all these schemes of arbitration. Nowhere in the experience of any man, I take it, can be found an instance where arbitration has ever been sufficient to settle a difference between hostile men or differences in affairs, or between unwilling men. I think it is due to the Association not to make a declaration that questionable in point of logic; and further, I think we should keep our hands off in political matters and especially on diplomatic which is not within the scope or purview of the business or

is so

matters,

duty of the lawyer as such, or of courts as such.

This matter is a matter of diplomacy and not a matter for the consideration of jurists or lawyers; and the experience of all men in these days show that it is chimerical and fanciful and impracticable of operation.

J. B. REAVIS- Mr. President, I do not care to again discuss before this Association the question of arbitration. I remember some two years since, I believe it was, on the coming in of the report of the committee, formulated at the request of the gentlemen of the Bar Association, I made some remarks at that time which would now induce me to oppose the adoption of the resolution just as given, in the form in which it is submitted. I will not more than indicate what I think may be some of the objections to such an expression. It is true a civilized world is attempting to remove causes for war, or rather, to settle questions without resort to arms, and certainly all mankind—all civilized mankind, earnestly and ardently desire such a settlement. But satisfactory arbitration will not succeed and cannot succeed if we take mankind as at present constituted, if we can draw any lessons or any inferences from war. Again, Mr. President, as a matter of principle, the institution of a permanent international court of arbitration, endowed by international treaties with the power to assume jurisdiction of controversies between nations, would result, in my humble opinion, in the constitution of the most stupenduous despotism that this world has ever seen. The illustrations that we have had formerly of all aggressive powers have been that the Oriental system, as presented to us, has furnished us with power sufficient to compel nations to adjust their difficulties. But I do not think it desirable or conducive to at this time participate in the formation of an international trust, and, in my judgment, the adoption of a permanent board of arbitration with the power to compel independent nations to submit their differences will conduce to just that result.

ALLEN WEIR It seems to me that this resolution expresses a contradiction. In other words, that it is an exemplification of the statement made by the distinguished Hibernian when he said: "Sure! I am going to have peace if I have to fight for it." I appreciate the sentiment that prompted the resolution, and yet, it

seems to me, as expressed by the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat, that it would result in a most stupenduous despotism. I think we all believe in arbitration; in other words, in the settling of differences between individuals, as well as between nations, upon the plane of education and reason rather than upon the plane of resort to brute force and arms. But the very purpose back of all that, implies the consent of the person.

The laws of our own state and of our own land recognize this principle, that if two individuals have a difference it is their privilege to settle that by arbitration, and if they see fit so to do they are encouraged to pursue that course; and if nations see fit to settle their differences n that way I think that the trend of the thought of this century is in the direction of encouraging that kind of action. But back of all that must necessarily come the consent of the individuals who are engaged in that kind of a proceeding, and to say that you are going to sweep aside and coerce that consent is to say that you are going to sweep aside and destroy all the principles that underlie the principle of arbitration. In other words, if I am induced, as an individual, to compromise a case— or may sometime in the future, if I should have a cause of difference between myself and my neighbor- that I will submit it to arbitration, you are asking me at this time to promise that I will yield up the prerogative that belongs to me as an American citizen and waive my right to resort to the machinery of the law in order to settle such matters. This manner of arbitration, my friends, I think, has been very properly designated as the very acme of a stupenduous form of imperialism, or anarchism, that is subversive of the very liberties guaranteed by our constitution, and so I am opposed to the resolution as it stands. I believe in favoring this principle of arbitration; I believe that the nations of the world should be encouraged to follow up this line of action, but whenever any one of these nations sees fit to depart from it and to insist upon some other method of settling their differences with other nations, then that nation should be dropped out of the union. I am opposed to the resolution in its form although in sympathy with the spirit that I think is back of it. WALTER CHRISTIAN Mr. President, I move that this resolution lie upon the table until the next annual meeting.

The motion prevailed.