« ZurückWeiter »
permitted to be so clever in drafting his answer that the removal of the cause to another tribunal seems essential to the accomplishment of complete justice. Let the court, whatever may be its name, which assumes jurisdiction of a cause, have power to do full and complete justice to the parties. The layman looks to the end, not to the means. The public wants results, and there is no gainsaying that the public is entitled to results.
My experience with courts leads me to the opinion that instead of the City Courts, we should have only one court, the Superior Court, and that the practice in the Superior Court should be simplified. To be specific, we should abolish the terms of our Superior Courts and substitute in lieu thereof rule days. The court should be in session on each of these rule days, with juries drawn to attend to the business that is before the court. Grand-juries should be drawn at stated intervals, and during their period of service, should be subject to the call of the judge.
Courts should be in session only as long as there is any business to be attended to; but the court should convene whenever there is business in the court. It occurs to me that in this way we would do away with much of the present justified complaint against delay.
As the law now is, accusation may be preferred in misdemeanor cases, and therefore since 1915 a great advantage which the City Courts had over the Superior Courts has been done away with.
The judge should be permitted to have some power in his own court, especially as to convening the court, disposing of the business before the court and adjourning the court.
For all matters which the judge can dispose of without a jury, the court should be always open. For the litigation now coming within Justice Court jurisdiction, I favor the plan suggested in Section 17 of the Proposed Judiciary Act.
The practice in these courts should be uniform throughout the State, and the rules of practice should be exclusively in the hands of the judge of the court. There is nothing new in these suggestions. In fact probably nearly all lawyers are agreed in the foregoing respects.
(Stenographically Reported.) Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am improperly advertised as having an address to make to this Association. I have no address to make. It is supposed when a lawyer addresses an Association of his own profession that he must read or prepare an erudite essay upon some theme of interest to them. This I have not done. When I received the request of my friend Strozier to address you, unconscious of the fact that Orville Park was still going to dominate the Association, I was under the impression that the Association was to hold its meeting on the twenty-first day of this month. I sent a wire to Savannah to Alex Lawrence. I chose him because, bland of manner, blue of eye, and bird-like of voice, he seemed to me the perfect vehicle of deception, to tell the Association that I was unable to come on account of pressing business in Washington upon the twenty-second. I received a letter calling my attention to the fact that the Association did not meet until the twenty-eighth. So I have arrived here without any address.
I really do not know what to talk about. I am like the negro who came home one day and said that he had heard the new pastor preach a fine and powerful sermon. Upon being asked, “What was his text” ? he replied, “He didn't say”. I heard a text yesterday, though—and right here let me state that this is not an address, it is a ramble. Since such it is, first I want to ask what has become of those beautiful women lawyers that we were going to have in this Association? You know, I stood here and fought for ten years to deny them the privilege of blessing my profession. I was finally whipped and was persuaded by my good old friend, Judge Hopkins—and I stand uncovered in his memory- upon the proposition that they might elevate the profession by their presence. I have wandered far and near since that day. None of them have joined our local bar, and I have never met any of them yet. The ladies who come here seem to be merely the masters of the lawyers, not the co-laboreis of that unfair and sovereign sex, and none other have attended the Association to my knowledge.
But be that as it may, let us ramble a little further. When I arrived here on yesterday, I discovered another terrible thing had happened. I walked in and I met Professor Pound, of Yale
A Voice: You mean Harvard. -Harvard, yes. It is equally as bad. I sat over there and listened to that man and I believe that he has absolutely destroyed the bulwark of our jurisprudence in this State. The idea of getting members of our Court of Appeals and members of our Supreme Court into a hall and letting them listen to this proposition that there are five different kinds of law! (Laughter.) There is a strict law; there is a natural law; there is a moral law; there is an equitable law, and-well, there is no man by any process of certiorari or rehearing on the face of the earth who can ever get those men to make a decision that anybody can understand from now on until the day of doom. I saw my friend here from Harvard 'ast night, late in the night, when my brother Rosser was educating him as to the value of a hand, in which my brother Rosser proved his own inferiority, because the distinguished Dean of Harvard knew and showed that an ace full beat a tray full. (Laughter.) I said then how sad it was that this man had not devoted his talents and his splendid ability to that profession in which he was then engaged, instead of coming down here and confusing my friends on the bench, who are hard enough to get the law out of, even now. (Laughter.) He told them about the natural law. You know they are going to be rendering decisions on that. When they want to re-state anything, or take it back, they are going to put it on one of these new branches of the law that you (Prof. Pound) have illustrated to them. We will never get any more precedents to follow. Those men can now make their reasons do almost anything they want to in the wildest flights of their imaginations. I thought last night what a calamity it was that this man had misdirected his energy. However, I was glad to meet him this morning, when I introduced him to my old friend, Mr. Gordon, who makes gin; and believe, as time goes on he is going to be an ornament to the profession; but he ought to understand here and now that he should be slow about the way he goes around and confuses our courts. (Laughter.)
A man cannot ramble without talking about a skirt, and so we have got to go into the ultimate subject of every man's conversation. The ultimate subject of course everybody knows. I had said that I prayed for the day when, under the advice of leaders of the profession, we granted the privilege to our sisters to join us, we might have them to collaborate with us in our work. They have not seen fit to do that. They have spurned us practically throughout the nation with one or two exceptions. In New York recently, where I had started for at the time I had sent that telegram, I gathered around me a few erudite ex-professors, and we decided to explore some of the archaic portions of the great metropolis. Of course we wandered in that cruise around Greenwich Village and Washington Square. There were sculptresses and paintresses and actresses and waitresses, and there were others of enlightenment and culture of the gentler sex and of the sterner sex, to which I am supposed to belong, but I didn't meet a lawyer-ess in the lot. I looked with delight upon the arts of all these, but I saw nobody there who was helping the lawyers any. They could spend the lawyers' money. .