now under any circumstances, and I doubt very much if the result of this amendment will reduce their work to less than their actual capacity, at any rate, during the terms of the present incumbents. It will always be necessary for them to work to their utmost ability to keep abreast of the necessary things they have to do.

Perhaps I might give you a little of the observation and experience I have had while on the Supreme Bench. History is not always remembered by those not interested in it. I became a member of the bench in January, 1903. At that time the court was three years and a little over behind the work, so that I found myself deciding cases that were filed in the court during the previous century. (Laughter.) That sounds a little worse than it really is, because that was in 1903, so that three years took it back into the previous century. That congestion continued, in spite of all the endeavors of the members of the court to discharge it, aided by the five commissioners who were helping us, until 1904, when, as has been stated, the present system of appellate courts, or District Courts of Appeal, more accurately speaking, was adopted. That court did not become organized, because of delay in making appointments, until the spring of 1905. At that time the nine justices were appointed and they immediately took hold with considerable vigor of the accumulation of business that was before it.

It has not been stated here distinctly this evening that the work of the three District Courts of Appeal at the present time, and from the very beginning, has consisted very largely of cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. They do not confine their work merely to the cases that are made appealable to that court. The Supreme Court constantly transfers to the District Courts of Appeal a large number of the cases originally appealed to the Supreme Court. When the courts were first organized in 1905, and, in fact, prior to that organization, I remember very distinctly that Judge Angellotti and myself went through our calendar looking over the transcripts of the cases and the briefs, very assiduously, necessarily, with a view of selecting a large number of the cases to transfer immediately to the District Courts of Appeal, because at that time they had no cases on appeal at all. We transferred several hundred cases to that court, so that our court was brought up immediately very much closer to date than it was before, and for probably two years those district courts were engaged entirely in closing up the arrears of the Supreme Court as far as it could be done. They continued at work on that, and appeals began to be taken to that court, and, as has been shown, the growth of this state, the marvelous growth of this state, and the advent of new people to this state,

strangers to each other, caused a great volume of litigation, which has been increasing ever since, and that has prevented the District Courts of Appeal from accomplishing what was expected, not because they did less, but because the work was greater. The result of the adoption of the district court plan was to bring the court up to within one year from date about the year 1910; I think that date is the correct one. The whole appellate system of the state was behind less than a year in the work—I mean, for illustration, so that if a transcript was filed today you could expect that to be on the calendar within a year. Few lawyers knew that fact, but that was the condition, and it illustrates the rapid growth of this state, both in population and litigation, to know that since the year 1910 it has increased so fast that, notwithstanding the fact that the district courts and the Supreme Court have kept up their volume of work, the volume of their accomplishment to the standard existing before, it has fallen behind two years, and at the rate litigation is increasing it will soon be back to the three years it was when I first became a member of the court. That is the situation we are confronted with.

I have no doubt that, a much better plan could be adopted than this one, but not very much better in its method of doing the work, because I am quite sure that a system which consists of separate courts, instead of a large court, is very much more efficient than any other; but if I was providing for a permanent plan I would provide for some means of increasing or diminishing the courts as the business increased or diminished, and that could be done without very much inherent difficulty. Preparing a law is harder to do than anybody supposes when he has not tried it. There are a lot of things you cannot think of in advance, and when you have considered a long time to provide everything you should have provided for, usually the first thing that happens after you have prepared such a law is something that you had not thought of. That is one reason why this committee did not attempt to do more than provide temporary relief.

Now, with the experience before me of the advent of the District Courts of Appeal, I am morally certain that these new courts, if created, will bring the courts up to date within the first four years; and then, if you have devised a better system and such new system is adopted, we can go on with some expectation of continued promptness in the transaction of legal business. (Applause.)

MR. GRAY: I move that Mr. Stafford's motion be laid on the table.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any second to this motion to lay the reso lution on the table?

Remarks by W. V. Stafford

MR. STAFFORD: I want to call your attention to two rather prominent things in connection with that matter: First, that every speaker of the legal profession has admitted that this is only a temporary relief that probably will not relieve. We have also been advised that when the appellate courts were instituted everybody was satisfied that everything would always be up to date for all time. Mr. Adams in his paper is the only speaker here tonight that suggested any other system or anything that should bring about the necessary changes in order to bring adequate and permanent relief. The point that we have had wonderful development in the state goes without saying, but I will submit that if all of the other industries of the state were as far behind as the court actions are, that you would not have any wonderful increase of either population or business.

Action by the Club Meeting

THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready for the question? The question arises on the motion to lay on the table the resolution offered by Mr. Stafford. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion is carried.

MR. STAFFORD: You did a great deal better than I thought you would.

THE PRESIDENT: Any further business to come before the meeting? MR. MCCLURE: I wanted to say a word on the adoption of the proposed amendment that has been discussed, but the time has passed.

THE PRESIDENT: We have passed the hour of adjournment. There is really no motion before the body.

MR. MCCLURE: It seems to me that in the light of the facts that have been brought to our attention this evening, nothing could be more beneficial to the procedure than the proposed amendment to the constitution for a temporary relief, and I wish at this time to heartily recommend it as a member of the profession.

THE PRESIDENT: If there is no further business the meeting will stand adjourned for one month.

Statement by Hon. F. W. Henshaw

MR. JUSTICE HENSHAW:* If the people can be made to understand the fact that this amendment is proposed wholly in their interest and in the interest of nobody else, they will adopt it. If they do not so believe, they will defeat it.

The truth is, the measure is devised wholly and solely for their immediate welfare.

It is a waste of time to argue whether some other expedient would be better. This is the only one now before them for consideration. They may later formulate other and better plans, and if there be any unanimity of judgment on the merits of their new plans, they can easily be made into law.

But now the two real questions are: Do the people need quicker dispatch in appealed cases, in the final determination of their litigation, and will this measure give it to them?

The first of these questions may at once be answered by, Yes. The business before the courts of appeal, Supreme and Appellate, is of ever-increasing volume. Do what they can, the courts can not keep pace with it, and the time between the perfection of an appeal and its determination is lengthening with ever-increasing strides.

To account for this we need not accuse ourselves of being excessively litigious. Our system of government has been radically changed, and these changes make necessary judicial definition of the new rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of officials and citizens. It is no reflection on the character of those statutes to point out that there are many thousand pages of them, without any attempt as yet to harmonize and codify them with pre-existing laws. That important duty is cast upon the courts. Indeed, one of the truisms of the law everywhere is, "New laws, new litigation."

The second question: Will the proposed amendment expedite decisions? also may be answered in the affirmative and without much discussion. It should be sufficient to point out that the lawyers think it will, and the judges think it will, and the layman who holds a contrary view is not open to conviction.

Assuming, as is surely the case, that the people desire a quick dispatch of their appeals and an end to their litigation, what may be urged against this amendment, which will measurably and materially accomplish this result?

*Circumstances having prevented Mr. Justice Henshaw from being present at the meeting, he was requested to prepare his views for publication in the Transactions.

The expense of the new courts will be negligible in comparison with the results.

It is not a lawyer's measure. The litigation is the same and the lawyer's compensation the same, whether the decision come in ten days or ten years.

It is not an executive measure. His must be a small mind that thinks the executive can desire judicial patronage or will use the power of appointment otherwise than as his judgment dictates for the best welfare of the people. The truth is, the measure was framed without any knowledge on the part of the executive.

It is not a judge's measure. The judges have and will have all and more than they can do, whether the measure be adopted or defeated. If it be thought that it is for the relief of lazy or incompetent judges, the conclusive answer is, that such judges will still be in the courts even if you defeat the measure, and your defeat of it makes them no less lazy or incompetent, precisely as your adoption of it lessens no whit the work they can and will do.

It is a people's measure. If they wish to expedite the decisions of their cases they will adopt it. If they do not they will reject it. It is for them to say.