Abbildungen der Seite

should not be re-examined except by the method known to the common law; so you will see that the first question involved was a trial before a justice of the peace and a jury, was a trial by jury as provided by the Constitution, and the holding of the Court was that it was not; that the trial in the Appellate Court was, and that therefore the act was legal. But strange to say, Mr. Justice Brewer, who rendered the decision I have heretofore alluded to, held, that in his opinion the requirement of the act providing that on appeal a bond should be given for the payment of the judgment, rendered that act invalid. Now, Mr. Justice Brewer has rendered an opinion which has been cited by Professor Huffent, and which I do not think is in point, but evidently contemplated the aquisition of these territories. He says it would be a narrow construction to give to the Constitution of the United States to hold that a people which bad lived under the civil law should be required to surrender that law and adopt the common law of the United States with which they are not familiar, and on that statement Professor Huffent bases the proposition that inasmuch as the Phillipinos and Porto Ricans have lived under the civil law, we can go on and administer to them our common and criminal law without trial by jury. Of course, I am familiar with the proposition, gentlemen, that where a proceeding is according to the civil law, a man is not entitled to a trial by jury. Now, the question is, “Where,” in the language of the famous Congressman, “are we at.” It seems to me that Professor Wolsey has stated the course to be followed. We want to live under the Constitution, we do not want these people to have the same rights which we have until they are educated so as to understand them. Let us not, however, strain the Constitution, but let us amend the Constitution so as to provide for their just government.

THE PRESIDENT -- Any further discussion of this subject is now in order. Mr. THOMPSON - I would say, Mr. President, that I didn't allude

, to that particular branch of the question, because Mr. Howe says the Supreme Court of the United States has it under consideration, and I didn't want to unduly influence the Court. (Laughter and applause.)

[ocr errors]

THE PRESIDENT The next matter on the program is a paper on the subject of the practice in courts of admiralty, by H. S. Griggs of Tacoma.

MR. GRIGGS Mr. President and Gentlemen of the State Bar Association, I take it for granted that the selection of a member from Tacoma to read a paper at Seattle on that subject is a thorough acknowledgment of Tacoma's maritime supremacy. I beg to thank you all, therefore, and particularly the delightful host from Seattle for this delicate compiiment. (Laughter and applause.)

Mr. Griggs then read before the Association a paper on the subject, “Practice in Courts of Admiralty.” (See Appendix.)

On motion, Association adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow.


10 A. M., JULY 11, 1900. Association was called to order by the President.

On motion of Mr. Harold Preston, section 2 of the By-Laws were amended so as to read as follows:

“The Secretary shall be reimbursed from the treasury of the Association for his actual expenses in attending each annual meeting of the Association and Executive Committee, and shall receive an annual salary of sixty dollars."

The next thing in order was the reading of a paper on the “Limitations of Municipal Indebtedness," by Charles E. Shepard. Mr. Shepard having been called away from the city, the paper was read by Mr. Thomas R. Shepard. (See Appendix.)

Judge Hodgdon, of Montesano, then read before the Association his paper on the subject, “The Government Ownership of Railroads.” (See Appendix.)

JUDGE J. J. McGILVRA — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the State Bar Association: It seems to me that the subject matter of this paper is too important to be passed over without some discussion by the Association. I arise more for the purpose of calling out others than expressing to any considerable extent views of my own, and with that view, and also as an expression of my own opinion, I must say that every consideration -- every important consideration, it seems to me, should prevent the ownership of the railroads of the country by the general government, or a tendency to advocate such ventures. Our government is said to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a democratic form of government. The idea of government with us is to have -- to send — representatives to the state and national capitals-to the state and national legislatures, and to employ, through machinery of government, all that may be necessary, and no more than is necessary, and that it should be entirely divorced from the

commercial or manufacturing or other business of the country. With the expansion that we have bad, and perhaps may have, this has become a great country. The machinery of our government has become very extensive. It is no longer the simple republic and federal republic that we had in the beginning, and that government is constantly, and perhaps as a necessity, arrogating to itself power, and there is danger — it has always been considered that there was great danger-of our government becoming too strong and too powerful; so removed from the people as not to be really the machinery and the government of the people. It is true, as has been stated in this paper, that the postal department is under the operation of the government, and works well. That is a matter of necessity, but it doesn't follow by any means that the general government should undertake to operate railroads or any other branch of the commerce of the country. Why not as well engage in manufacturing as in commerce? The carrying trade?

I believe there are very few who would advocate the ownership of railroads or other transportation, or any branch of manufacturing by the general government unless it was an absolute necessity. To be as brief as possible, my view from my standpoint, it seems to me that the government will never engage, in this country, in the ownership of railroads unless it is compelled to do so by the expanse and growth of the enormous trusts, not only in transportation, but in general manufacture. These trusts, railroad or other trusts, are almost exclusively carried on by corporations. Those corporations are the creatures of some government - either the general or the state governments. I have always contended, and I believe, that the power that creates can control, if it is so disposed, and it is the people that form the opinions upon which our legislators act. I believe that railroads, railroad corporations, manufacturing corporations — all these corporations that compose the trusts of the country, which is certainly a great and overshadowing pall and menace to the country today - I believe they can be controlled by the power that created them, and if they cannot be controlled they can be destroyed. The common opinion of mankind, not only in this country but all over the world, until recently at least, has been that competition is the life of trade. The rule if not changed, is being changed now, and these trusts - railroad

and others - are for the very purpose of preventing competition in trade, and they are succeeding to a very large extent. Now, if these corporations are turned over to the government — referring to the railroad corporations alone as the subject before us — I cannot see why the government should not manufacture as well as do carrying trade; for if the government reaches out and takes control of the carrying trade and the commerce of the country, why not of the manufacturing of the country; and when they do that, what is left for the people?

The American idea --- the true idea, I believe — is to leave everything to the people that it is possible to leave to the people, and confer no more power in the general or state government than is necessary for the good of the people. I have expressed this view, especially in regard to street railways in municipalities. I am not in favor of the municipal ownership of street railways or any other of the municipal utilities, so to speak, where the people can conduct those enterprises properly. It belongs to the people. It is a part of the very life of the people, and when these utilities are turned over to the government I repeat, what is there left for the people? A part, or a large part, of their industry and independence is gone.

To return, I have taken this view in this city particularly, that the municipality should not undertake the ownership or operation of these utilities, unless these trusts compel us to do so. If we are powerless to control or abolish these trusts, as a choice of evils, perhaps it may be advisable for municipalities, and even the general government, to go into ownership and operation of the utiliities.

MR. RONALI) -- Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association: I do not agree with my friend, Judge McGilvra entirely. It was not the theory of our government that any public utilities should be farmed out or left to any private person. It was not until after 1865 that such a thing as farming out the public utilities was known in this country. Up until that time it was the theory of the government that the ownership of all public utilities was in the government. There was no means provided for the obtaining of a private coal mine or a gold mine or any other public utility prior to that time. Now, there is a difference between a private

« ZurückWeiter »