their rectification, including costs and counsel fees of all the litigants, and should create and maintain as many courts as are necessary to keep the work up to date.

The second cause of litigation, the application of established principles to new conditions, is the source of what we call our "judge-made law." Such litigation is unavoidable except by legislative action, and, in fact, is often the result of such action. As it seems to enter into the general scheme of things for which none can be held individually responsible, probably the fair thing is for the people to provide the courts and the litigants do the rest.

The dicta in judicial opinions and the publication of dissenting opinions may be considered together. Both suggest, invite and protract litigation, add new uncertainties to those already existing, and both should be absolutely prohibited by law. The court should give its decision and the reason therefor without argument or illustration and there stop. We should lose many informing and delightful bits of literature. We should lose exhaustive and authoritative expositions of law and legal principles. What is worse, we should lose the restraining effect of legal and public opinion operating on the most august tribunals and which impels them to seek to convince as well as decide; but in my opinion as a rank outsider, we should gain more. We should save the time of the courts. We should reduce the labor of legal research and the necessary cost to litigants. We should also reduce the number of legal uncertainties growing out of conflicting views of occupants of the bench.

Remedies

The time allotted me admits of no further discussion. It is possible only to propose a category of remedies such as occur to the layman. without even adding the reasons except as already expressed in reference to some fundamental difficulties. Instead of more courts, I propose the following as they occur to me as I write and which may not be in the logical order or the order of relative importance:

1. Increase jurisdiction of justices' courts to an amount somewhat in excess of probable cost of appeal to superior court, including expense to the public as well as all litigants, and absolutely prohibit appeals from these courts. Justice which costs more than it grants is not worth having.

2. Authorize justices' courts, upon consent of both parties, to proceed informally, without lawyers, in disregard of legal rules of evidence, and with free initiative in questioning or otherwise by the court,

and always dealing directly with the merits of the case and make the decisions final as in formal cases.

3. Encourage arbitration, regardless of the amount involved, and make the judgments final and enforcible like judgments of a court of record. I think we have some law of that kind.

4. Restrict appeals in all cases to controversies in which the amount involved is substantially greater than the cost to all parties, including the public, of the appeal. In cases in which there may be a public interest in having a decision by the court of last resort, but in which the amount involved does not justify the expense and delay, arrange some equitable method by which the public may share in the cost of the appeal.

5. Make decisions of district appellate courts final except in cases where the amount involved is very large or where the appellate court shall certify to the Supreme Court some questions of law to be decided.

6. Empower the Supreme Court to prescribe and prepare rules of practice for all courts which must provide for the summary correction of all technical errors by the court before proceeding to trial on the merits and prohibiting all appeals whatever off technical points, or from the verdict of a jury except upon certificate of trial judge of probable miscarriage of justice.

7. Compel all suits to be tried upon the date set except where substantial cause, satisfactory to the court, is shown, which must not include convenience or courtesy of counsel.

8. I would say, give the judges more power over their courts if they probably have not already all the power that they need, or if they would exercise any more power if they had it. What I will say, knowing it to be impossible, is appoint judges for life after the age of forty and not less than ten years' successful practice at the bar. So long as the people choose judges from young lawyers without clients because they are good fellows and belong to their lodge, they will be too much afraid of the strong men who practice before them to control their courts. The only man fit to be a judge is the lawyer who at the bar has won the respect of his competitors for his learning, character and masterfulness. Clothe such a man with judicial authority and he will expedite justice while expediting trials. I believe that virtually all judges wish to be just, but very few judges can be just who have reason to fear either the bar, a governor or the people.

Practical Suggestions

No one not in continuous touch with the administration of the law is competent to make all the suggestions for improvements which could be made, or to deal with the details of all suggestions which he does make. I am satisfied that any experienced lawyer entrusted with absolute power could relieve our courts from congestion on the basis of all my suggestions except the last.

I doubt whether as a result of such reforms as I propose the brand of justice which would be turned out would be quite so perfect as that which is reached by study and argument extending over years and through a succession of courts, during which the subject has been considered and weighed from every angle, so that the court of last resort is aided by the labors of counsel continued for years.

But the mass of litigants would be better off, substantial justice would usually be done, and the great principles of law would be elucidated and settled by the decisions of the great cases where the amounts involved justify the prodigious expense of the settlement. When the cost of a particular brand of justice exceeds its value to the successful litigant, it is best for him and best for society that he take his chances with a cheaper article. (Applause.)

Discussion by the Meeting

Remarks by President Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: I congratulate Mr. Adams on supplying a very humorous contribution to the legal literature of the country. (Laughter.) He has conclusively proven himself to be a layman. I have but one criticism to offer-probably not entitled to offer that—and that is, that I doubt that it is a dissenting opinion because he neglected to tell us what he thought of this amendment.

MR. ADAMS: I explained that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Being a lawyer, I could not understand it.

MR. ADAMS: Being an amendment, it does not include the substance of my paper. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I have no doubt that the committee will accept the amendment. It has also occurred to me that the clause of the statute under construction in the illustrious case which arose from the board of education of Alameda, and which the speaker complained was a lawyer's law, was drawn by himself and caused by him to be inserted in the statute.

Mr. Adams is a good sharpshooter and lawyers are favorite targets. I was just telling the Chief Justice and Justice Shaw of an interesting case tried here some years ago before Judge Sloss, in which we were compelled to depend for our main witness upon a distinguished member of the bar. At the close of the trial we concluded that the weakest point of our case was the evidence.

This question is open for discussion, and there are so many eminent speakers here that I do not know where to begin-but I see request for recognition in the person of Mr. Stafford, who evidently has something to submit.

Remarks by W. V. Stafford

MR. STAFFORD: I think we had just now a sight for the gods, that venerable old standpatter, that Joe Cannon of the West, that Czar emeritus of the Club, has turned reformer; but he is somewhat a consistent reformer. He started for the high places. He has seen reforms sweep down the valleys and take the laymen, and he now seems to be turning his attention to the high lights. When he put that fifteen dollar ante into that ten dollar jack pot, he stood pat, until the world, which do move, finally with its reforms moved around to where he consistently turned reformer and started after the profession that is well represented here tonight.

Reform is with us, and, speaking as a layman, it has been pretty well over us and through us, and it is turning its attention seriously

without question to the specialist. The world for a few centuries. has done its work very largely through specialists, and, as Mr. Adams says, the specialists are beginning to take themselves seriously, and they have forgotten they are but hired men. He referred particularly to the legal profession, but perhaps that is true of the military and the teachers. I recall recently we were at a meeting at the Palace Hotela section of this Club-and the teachers had invited the laymen to come, and the leader, one of our prominent and most intelligent teachers in the state, with a galaxy of teachers of assorted sexes present, declared openly, publicly, that they had reached the place where they could not possibly handle the situation, that they were congested, that the situation seemed to be hopeless, and that they begged the laymen, who looked on with unprejudiced eyes, to suggest how they wanted their work done, and especially what they wanted done. These teachers were as competent as any, did not want to dodge any issue, but they had got into a groove and the situation swamped them, and they asked the laymen to please assist them.

I gather that Mr. Adams approached this subject in something the same way. I think that possibly when that slight bickering going on in Europe is over the laymen will tell the military men "that in the future we are going to have something to say about when the guns will shoot."

With that idea, with the idea that possibly Mr. Adams has touched upon a germ of truth that may help this situation, I have a resolution here that I desire to offer as a substitute for the recommendation of the committee:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the members present tonight that there should be no increase in the number of our appellate or other courts until a reasonable attempt has been made to secure relief by diminishing litigation, especially by limiting appeals and otherwise, as suggested in the paper of Mr. Adams, and whatever other devices may be found practicable.

THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is open for discussion.

MR. ZION: I second the motion.

THE PRESIDENT: The motion is made and seconded.

Mr. Gray wishes to speak on a subject which is in a general way germane to this question. He is chairman of a special section of the State Bar Association on the subject of governing the procedure of the court by rules of the court instead of by statute. Possibly we had better hear from you at this time, Mr. Gray, on this question.