President Kinne was presented to deliver the

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS.

President Kinne: Gentlemen of the Association: It has been said that apologies are never in order, and I am not going to make one to-day, but if I should, I should say that, perhaps, it was hardly in order to deliver an address of the length of the one I have, considering the state of the weather. The only thing I have to say with reference to it is that it seemed impossible to shorten the paper and still fully cover the subject.

ANNUAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT.

Procedure and Methods of the Courts of Final Resort of the Republic of Mexico, the United States of America, and of the several States and Territories of the Union.

"The foundation stones of our free Saxon institutions have been laid by the members of the profession of the law, and the structure of Anglican and American liberty has been reared by lawyers. * * * That people has made the most progress that knows best how to try a lawsuit. The provision of a proper forum in which private controversies may be settled is the most important sphere of good government. On the proper and actual administration of justice between man and man depends more than on anything else the degree of a nation's prosperity, and the happiness of its people." Such were the words recently spoken by one of our most eminent thinkers and writers. That they but publish the truth must be conceded by every one at all conversant with the history of nations. The perfection of our system of jurisprudence then should. be a matter of the greatest personal concern to every citizen, and especially to every lawyer and judge. If the administration of the law is to command public respect and popular confidence; if courts are to be in fact, as in theory, the conservators of the peace and good order of society; if justice is always to be attained through the medium of the regularly constituted tribunals, wherein the rights of the citizen are enforced, and his wrongs redressed, it is manifest that the laws, creating and governing such tribunals,

must provide a plain, speedy, adequate and certain means of attaining the desired end. While the great principles of the law are unchangeable, still there are constantly arising new conditions, which require new applications of them.

If these conditions, so largely a result of our advancing civilization, are not promptly met, by a wise application of the principles of the law to them, it may well be said that, either they are inadequate to meet the wants and necessities of the people, or the laws are not what they should be, or they have not been properly administered. No one doubts that the principles of the law are broad enough, when properly applied, to meet every necessity or condition of the race. I think it must be conceded that, as a rule, the law-makers have endeavored to anticipate all proper subjects of legislation. It is also a fact that courts, in the administration of the law, are rightly becoming less technical. That we need some reforms in legal procedure and methods is hardly a subject of controversy.

The administration of justice should be more speedy, and the laws so framed as to prevent the escape of persons charged with crime, on account of mere technicalities. It is not, however, the purpose of this paper to enter into a discussion of all the details wherein the administration of justice might be improved, but rather to bring clearly before you for consideration, the procedure and methods now followed in the courts of last resort, to show the work accomplished by those courts, and if possible to make prominent the best methods by means of which a maximum of results may be attained within the shortest time, consistent with a thorough examination, and an intelligent understanding of the cases decided.

For several years I have been much interested in the question as to how our system of practice and our methods of procedure in submitting and deciding cases in courts of last resort might be improved. The matter has been fruitful of discussion among lawyers and judges, but as no data has been gathered as to the actual operation and results of the several methods followed, it was impossible to reach a conclusion which could be said to be reliable. I have thought that it would be both interesting and instructive to ascertain

fully the methods adopted and followed by each of the courts of final resort herein considered.

By a proper comparison of the several methods and the results reached under each, we shall be better able to say which one is in all respects the most desirable, or perhaps to take some parts of the several plans and develop a method preferable to any now followed. In order that you may understand what value to place upon the facts presented in this paper, it is proper that I state the sources from which they were obtained. As to the Republic of Mexico, my informants are the United States Consul resident at the City of Mexico, and the Mexican Minister resident at the City of Washington. As to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Courts of the States of Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, my information was obtained, in each case, from one of the associate justices of said courts. In the case of every other court considered in this paper, the information came to me direct from the chief justice of the court. I think, therefore, that it may be said that the facts stated, in so far as they are derived from those sources, are absolutely correct. After diligent endeavor, I have been unable to secure the desired information relating to the following courts, viz.: Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. With these exceptions, every State and Territory in the Union has been fully heard from. Early in the year I began a systematic effort to obtain as full information as possible touching the following facts, relating to every court of final resort in the Republic of Mexico, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and the courts of final resort of every State and Territory in the Union, viz.: Number of judges; term of office and compensation; number of terms of court; manner in which causes are submitted, and whether the submission is continuous or interrupted by adjournments taken for the purpose of deciding cases and preparing opinions; whether records, abstracts and arguments or briefs are required to be printed; how many opinions were filed in the year 1895; manner in which cases are assigned to the judges for opinions; method of pro

cedure of judges after cases are assigned; how many judges read the record abstracts, briefs and arguments, and the means by which their views are communicated to each other; whether the court is divided into divisions for the consideration of causes, and if so, the method pursued; whether all opinions are read to, and considered by, the entire court before filing, if not, what is the plan pursued; the per cent. of cases submitted in which oral arguments are made, the time allowed for such arguments, and the opinions of the judges as to the value of such arguments; whether cases are ever decided upon oral argument alone; whether oral arguments are permitted upon applications, petitions or motions for a rehearing, and if so, may such cases be again argued orally in case a rehearing is granted; number of applications for rehearing in 1895, number granted, and number of cases in which a different result was reached on the second hearing; number of motions filed in 1895, and whether oral arguments are allowed thereon, and if so, what time is allowed.

I also asked, in each instance, for a copy of the rules of the court, which were, in most cases, sent to me. As to the courts not heard from, I have gathered all the information possible, which is given in its proper place. I desire to express my thanks to the judges, clerks and others, without whose kindly aid the facts herein presented could not have been obtained.

NUMBER OF JUDGES.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Mexico consists of eleven judges. The Supreme Court of the United States and of the State of New Jersey consist of nine judges each. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and the courts of final resort of the States of Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Utah and Wyoming consist of three judges each. The courts of last resort in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin consist of five judges each.

The same courts in the following jurisdictions are composed of four judges each, viz.: Arizona, South Carolina and West Virginia.

Such courts in California, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont are composed of seven judges each. The Supreme Courts of Iowa, Ohio and Rhode Island are each composed of six judges. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the Court of Appeals of Maryland consist of eight judges each. The Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey is made. up of seventeen judges. The Supreme Court of California is aided by five commissioners, and the Supreme Court of Nebraska by three commissioners. In the following states there are Appellate Courts, having the number of judges indicated, viz.: Colorado, three; Illinois, twelve; Indiana, five; Kansas, six; Missouri at St. Louis and Kansas City, consisting of three judges each; New York, the Supreme Court, consisting of twelve judges; Texas has five appellate courts, having jurisdiction in civil causes and composed of three judges each. The Appellate Court of Illinois is made up of circuit judges assigned by the Supreme Court to sit on the appellate bench. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases.

Pennsylvania has a superior court consisting of seven judges, said court has appellate and in certain classes of cases final jurisdiction.

TERM OF OFFICE, SALARY, AND OTHER COMPENSATION.

Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and of the State of Delaware hold office for life, or during good behavior. In Massachusetts they are selected by the Governor and Council, and hold office during good behavior. In Rhode Island, the judges are elected by the General Assembly and hold office until removed by it, or until impeached. In New Hampshire, the judges hold office during good behavior, until seventy years of age. Judges of the following courts hold office for the time indicated, viz.: Alabama, Mexico, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada,