indented with narrow gulfs or fiords, deep and still, sheltered from the wind, bounded by precipices and mountains, and extending sometimes more than a hundred miles inland.

Small and isolated patches of tillable soil are found along these fiords in nooks and crevices of the rocks, and the deep waters contain inexhaustible supplies of fish, which supported the emigrant on his journey and supplemented the produce of his little farm. The small estate and its isolation transformed his family from the patriarchal to the particularist type. There was simply not room enough on his estate for the old system. It furnished only work and sustenance for himself. As his sons grew up they were obliged by the necessity of the case to take to the small boat and find other estates for themselves among the nooks of the fiord.

The estates were too small to be subdivided, and so when the owner of one could no longer work he turned it over by agreement to one of his sons who could use it, on condition that the inheritor should support him on the place and should confer certain benefits on the other children in order to equalize things between them. Here was the germ of different estates in the same piece of land and of burdens upon estates. These arrangements differed according to circumstances, and were discussed and agreed upon by the owner and his children as suited them, in entire contrast to the former principle that everything belonged to the family in common.

As these little estates were isolated from each other, the owner had no neighbors and necessarily became independent and selfsufficient. He did not look anywhere for help and there was no one to interfere with him. There was no occasion for any central authority or public life. Each man was too much engaged with his own work to trouble himself about other matters, and each was sovereign on his own estate. This independence, preoccupation with the affairs of the private estate, and aversion to governmental interference have been preserved by the remotest descendants of these people, including the Saxons, the Franks, the English, and ourselves. A people who own the soil do not want to be troubled with the affairs of government, and governments established by them are subordinate to private affairs and merely

supplemental to them.

In communal societies it is considered proper for the government to furnish everything and manage everything.

Migration also went on from the Norwegian fiords to the great Saxon plain (northwestern Germany), and here the Roman lawyer and writer, Tacitus, found these people eighteen centuries ago and wrote his famous description of them, giving them the preeminence over all the other German tribes. They had maintained the same characteristics and institutions which they had acquired in Norway. Tacitus says:

"They live isolated and scattered, as spring or field or wood takes their fancy. They are the finest of all the German tribes and strive more than the rest to found their greatness upon equity. A passionless, firm, and quiet people, they live a solitary life, and do not stir up wars or ruin the country by plunder and theft. They give this excellent proof of their worth and power, that they never heap insults upon their chiefs in order to force them into action. And yet they are always ready to a man to take up arms or even form an army if the case demands it."

In the Saxon plain they found other people, whom they made serfs. In doing this, however, they followed a plan similar to the one they had adopted with their associated heirs in Norway. This was the origin of serfdom as it came to be known later under the feudal system. The owner gave each serf a separate hut, with a plot of ground, the produce of which was assigned to the serf himself and his family. The serf was not required to render personal services to the master himself, but to the master's estate, by working upon it a certain number of days in the year. One part of the estate served the other part;-dominant and servient estates. The serf was also bound to the soil. So instead of the tie being between man and man as in the patriarchal family, it was between man and the estate. In all the history of this race the landed estate has been the main stay and has influenced the whole social system.

Again, bands of emigrants from the Saxon plain, calling themselves Franks or freemen, under leaders chosen by themselves, invaded northern Gaul, giving their name to the country and

bringing their Saxon customs and institutions with them. Here they came in conflict with the Roman ideas and system of government already established among the Gauls. The Roman idea was that of the absolute authority of the central governing power over everything. The Frankish landholder had ideas just the opposite, derived from his remote ancestors in Norway. He denied the right of the rulers to levy taxes upon his estate, or to administer justice between the people of his estate, or to demand military service. These were his own prerogatives. In the language of Tacitus concerning the Saxons, he stood ready to form an army "if the case demanded it," if he thought it worth while, but he was to be the judge. He was still the sovereign on his estate. He made good his position that his people could not be summoned to war by any other authority than his own. They owed service to his estate only. When this became settled, the small independent land owner, who was not powerful enough to protect himself against exactions from the central authority, hastened to put himself under the protection of the large landholder, which he did by agreeing that his estate should render service to the large estate. Thus he became the vassal of the large landholder and escaped the arbitrary power of the king, and the feudal system became an established fact.

The estate won against everything. Charlemagne was not the owner of vast estates because he was king, but he was king because he and his forefathers had become the owners of vast estates. His rule and his life were those of a country landholder.

The feudal system was brought to its most complete development by the Normans and by them imposed upon England, where the Anglo-Saxons had long maintained their personal independence and the supremacy of the small estate, in accordance with their ancient ideas. How the estate fared in the struggle with the Norman system in England, and finally triumphed over arbitrary power and established individual freedom is a matter of familiar history.

Such is the theory. To here examine the proofs adduced in its support would take too long. It is adopted by Edmond Demolins as the basis of his notable book entitled "Anglo-Saxon Superior

If correct, it shows that the founders of this Republic, when they declared that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, were declaring exactly the fact so far as our race was concerned, of which an instinctive race consciousness had existed for two thousand years.

It also shows how we have inherited our natural apathy toward the details of public affairs and why we do not turn out to vote at primary elections and special or referendum elections. It suggests that we have an innate aversion to such things and will pay no attention to them except on some special occasion when, as was said of the ancient Saxons, we deem the matter worth while, or when some great danger impends. It may be that primary elections and the referendum are not suited to the genius of our race and that they are so contrary to the habits and ideas of centuries as to fail of success. We have had our governmental and political affairs attended to by delegates for so long that it will be difficult to get out of the habit.

These same inherited tendencies have caused socialistic theories to make much slower progress in England and America than in other countries. The independence of the individual on his own small estate has been the very source and foundation of the English and American systems of government and society, the only systems that have been superior to the Roman. Socialism is an importation from the communal races and is a direct attack upon this personal independence based on private ownership, and it will not be easy to persuade men to surrender such independence in favor of a reversion to a communal form of society from which they were weaned two thousand years ago and against which they have fought ever since.

So the study of this theory of the origin of our institutions may give us increased confidence in their stability.

THE PRESIDENT: I will appoint at this time the Auditing Committee, to pass upon the Treasurer's report: J. B. Weaver, Jr., of Des Moines, Judge J. J. Clark, of Mason City, and Judge H. M. Remley, of Anamosa.

JAMES O. CROSBY: There is one matter I would like to see fully discussed by the members of this Association. Two years ago I

offered a resolution asking for the repeal of the Collateral Inheritance Tax Law, and it was referred to the Committee on Law Reform. At our last meeting the subject was continued over until the present time. Now this is put at the tail end of the program, and in the nature of things it cannot receive careful attention. I deem this a matter of great importance. I see the Committee on Law Reform concludes with the statement: "A further report with reference to a resolution favoring the repeal of the Collateral Inheritance Tax Law and to some other matters will be made during the session." It seems to me this is a matter of sufficient importance so that it should receive serious consideration by the members of the Association.

THE PRESIDENT: The members will notice that we are well up with the program, and I think we will have ample time tomorrow to cover the subject in a satisfactory way.

The Association will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock P. M.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

2 O'CLOCK P. M.

THE PRESIDENT: The Association will be in order. Will the Vice President, C. G. Saunders, assume the Chair?

VICE PRESIDENT SAUNDERS: The first number on the program this afternoon is the President's address, "John Marshall," by Senator J. L. Carney of Marshalltown.

JOHN MARSHALL

The selection of a subject for an occasion like this, when representative members of the Bench and Bar of the State are present, is a duty requiring grave consideration. Believing that at our annual meeting it is well at times to review the history of some of the distinguished lawyers of the past and that the annals of the Iowa State Bar Association should bear testimony to the respect and reverence we feel for the subject of this paper (although such sentiments may be conveyed by one quite inadequate to the task), I have determined to invite your attention to the