Wherever the American judiciary is known, or its history understood, the personnel of the court has been without reproach, and beyond suspicion. Of late years, there seems to me to be a tendency to make attacks upon the judiciary as a whole, which is really worthy of the attention of fair thinking lawyers, and which is well worth their while to attempt to check, lest the judicial system be so altered, and so shorn of power, that its best friends won't recognize it, and it will be left like "a painted ship upon a painted sea." Honest, fair criticism can do no harm. Indeed, it is doubtful whether any system could be devised which would do so much to keep the Judges right up to the work in hand as the certainty that this work will be examined and freely commented upon by their masters, the public. No sweeter music comes to the ear of the faithful public servant, than the well-earned commendation of those whom he honestly and conscientiously serves; no punishment more severe than the just condemnation of those whose interests he has not faithfully served. Every right thinking Judge desires to be well thought of and well spoken of. Honest criticism must not be discouraged. Of this I do not speak. I speak of that fault-finding, carping spirit which freely and unhesitatingly accuses and charges the judiciary with venality and favoritism wherever an adverse decision is made.

In this day and age questions of quasi-public character are constantly before the courts for solution. Many of them are thought by the politicians to be of vital interest to their respective parties; and so it comes that, whatever the Judge decides in this class of cases, he is subject to the unfair attack of those against whose interests he has decided. One political party wants the name of a candidate on the official ballot but once; another wants it on in half a dozen places. The case is submitted to the court for decision, and when the decision comes, the Judge receives such abuse from those he has decided against that he is in doubt himself whether honest people ought to recog

nize him on the street or not. The malignant cries of the defeated are directed against the fair foundations of justice.

The people of a great State are convinced that the use of a deleterious substance can be controlled by legislation and a change in the organic law is attempted; it is not done as by law provided; the court of last resort so decides; and to the everlasting shame of one of the great political parties of the State of Iowa, one Judge, at least, who had the courage to decide as he thought the law was, went down in political defeat because he so decided. Let me say right here, that had I been that man, I would have gloried that I had the grace and courage to make that decision, in the face of a coming convention, that, if a sacrifice of that sort had to be made, I was the victim. Peace hath its victories as well as war; and, while we talk of Dewey, Hobson and Sampson, let us not forget the heroes of peace, but remember that the man, in whatever position, who manfully, honestly and courageously does what he is called upon to do in the face of possible disastrous consequences to himself, is a hero.

A great nation desires the imposition of an income tax. Its law-making power passes the law. Great trusts and corporations attack the law as unconstitutional. It has been sustained in principle by the highest judicial tribunal of the country. That same tribunal now declares the tax to be unconstitutional. What abuse follows! One might think the very foundations of the Republic had fallen. And yet, where is the man who can satisfy his own mind, beyond question, as to what the construction of the clause of the Constitution in question should be and say, unhesitatingly, what the decision should be?

Evil disposed men, in large numbers, seek to interfere in the property rights of others. There is no question about the right of the court to restrain one individual from committing such trespass. Ought there to be any question about the right to restrain a multitude? Yet the Judge who attempts it is denounced as an intriguer against the government. Great polit

ical parties in annual convention solemnly affirm that, in contempt of law and rights of individuals, the judiciary has attempted the government of the country. Who ever heard of a Judge who wanted to govern the country from the bench? If he is a trial judge and governs his own court, he has usually all the governing he wants to do. The attack upon the judiciary was unfair. Thereby it was sought to secure a vote of want of confidence in the judiciary of the people. And note how groundless was the charge, because it cannot be said that any decision has been made by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the question of injunction against so-called strikers that is not in harmony with long years of precedent in equity practice.

Now, here comes the difficulty. In all these attacks upon the judiciary as being in the way of the wishes of the people, there are some who get ideas and notions which are not eradicated. They do not understand that the attacks are Pickwickian in character, without any just foundation. They do not understand that they are merely for effect. And so there comes a growing tendency to curtail the power of the courts; in fact, to displace them; to settle more questions by the will of the majority. It is the glory of our system of jurisprudence that the weak and the few have the same rights before the law as the many and the strong; and so, while the majority may be trusted to do right in the long run, yet it will not now, and never will,do to allow the questions arising for determination upon legal principles to be settled in a town meeting or a political convention. They must be settled by men trained in the solution of problems of this character. Do not let us join in the hue and cry against the bench. We know what the Judges are and have been doing. We know how, in self-examination and earnest desire to do right, they are striving to effectuate justice. It is our duty to resist the attacks of the demagogues, which are much in evidence in every political party. Unless our clients have respect for our courts, our vocation is a farce. The man who is

compelled to submit his life, his liberty or his property to the decision of a tribunal for which he has no respect, is indeed most unfortunate.

Let us remember that the judicial system we now have is the outgrowth of the wisdom of many generations. The protection afforded the individual by our system of laws is no myth. It is real, palpable, tangible. The people must surrender no part of it. The lawyers who have ever stood in the forefront where the rights of the individual were in jeopardy, must see that they do not surrender them.

Our judiciary and our judiciary system is respectable. It must be respected. We owe it to ourselves and to our country to see to it that neither the vile tongue of slander, nor the desperate assault of the demagogue be allowed to remove one stone from the judicial structure which has been such a mighty tower of strength to the weak, down-trodden and oppressed, through all the years of Anglo Saxon civilization. (Applause.)

JUDGE WADE: "Trifles light as air are to the jealous confirmation strong as proofs of Holy Writ.'

"That is not original; it is a statement of an old friend of the family. It means, in plain English, that substantial evidence is not always conclusive, and that the jury should be so instructed. To illustrate it, I will tell you a story. You have probably heard it, but I will insist upon my constitutional right to tell any story I can remember.

“You have all heard of Casey. Not Casey at the bat, but Casey at work on the Rock Island Railroad. His cousin died. in Australia and left him a fortune, and he and his wife moved to New York to spend their fortune. The Vanderbilts didn't seem to want to associate with them. They built a brown stone front on Fifth Avenue. But still they could not get in with the 'four hundred.' The 'four hundred' was crowded. In fact, someone had to die in order to give them a place. Finally, before the four hundredth man died, Casey died. His wife was very

grief stricken, and her neighbors and friends, of course, sent in large boquets of funeral flowers and floral designs, and among them was a very beautiful floral anchor, which was placed in the parlor, where the casket was, a short time before the interment took place. And the weeping widow came in-she had forgotten all about those days when Pat worked on the railroad, wielding the pick and shovel-and she saw this beautiful array of flowers, and she looked about at the mourning friends and said: 'Friends, I am very thankful to you, and all of you and everybody that has helped me in this trouble.' And then she cast her eyes at the anchor and she says: 'But it is no friend of mine, or friend of Pat that is gone, that sent that pick.'

""The Jealousy of the Law' suggested that quotation. That subject will be responded to by Hon. J. H. Quick, of Sioux City."

THE JEALOUSY OF THE LAW.

BY HON. J. H. QUICK.

Mr. Toast Master and Gentlemen of the Association. That man Casey, I will say, by way of prefatory remark, was the same fellow who was wandering through the ship yards in New York and saw an anchor lying there; and on being ordered away by the foreman, after he had stood and gazed at it for the space of about half an hour, said, "Divil a step will I stir, till I see the man that's going to use that pick." This story is told merely by way of asserting my constitutional right. It is not any part of my remarks.

I wish to congratulate you upon the response which I am about to make. I don't know just what I am going to say, but I know it will be a good speech. The circumstances are so auspicious. Our Toast Master has done so much to make it so, and to give me an untrammeled freedom,-with reference, for instance, to the time I am to consume,-that with this and the stimulus of your presence, I know I cannot fail to make a success of it.

Seriously, however, if the restriction applied to me,