PROCEEDINGS.

to it, in my judgment. I have sat in these courts here and have listened to the erroneous instructions given to the jury, and the lawyers sitting by knowing, and speculating upon the verdict, knowing that it is erroneous, and yet he is permitted to file his exceptions during the term, when he should have risen and advised the Judge of the error. That ought to be done by the practice commission. The application of the seal -that most senseless of all things, the application of the seal to the bill of exceptions ought to be abolished. Causes involving a million dollars in the Supreme Court of Illinois would be lost by the absence of the seal. It is true that in the last few years they have said that unless the objection is made in order to give the other side an opportunity to go back and have it added, they will pay no attention to it. I am thankful for that, but let the commission take that in hand and abolish it altogether. But these are some of the thoughts that are on my mind. I do not wish to take up more time because I know there are other gentlemen that have some things to say.

(Calls for Mr. Hirshl.)

MR. HIRSHL: Mr. President: I am at a disadvantage in some respects over the prior speakers. I have not practiced in Illinois probably as long as the others, but I suppose I have practiced altogether, probably, as long as any one of the speakers who have preceded me, perhaps longer than some of them. I have had the advantage, however, of practicing in a code state, and I may say my experience is almost equally divided between the two kinds of jurisprudence. I trust I may escape the odium, therefore, of being one of those visionary creatures not yet turning bald or gray, who seems to be a mere theorist and don't know practically what he is talking about.

I had not the advantage of hearing the first part of Mr. Gross' paper, but I trust it was more logical than the latter part which I did hear. One thing I gathered-written as it

PROCEEDINGS.

were, or spoken, so to say, between the lines, was a strange inconsistency, first that our present system is so good that we shouldn't attempt to meddle with it, and second that it is so bad that no Chinese cheap labor can reform it, and it should require the highest priced and best skilled labor to undertak it. Now I agree with some of the thoughts suggested by Mr Gross, that there should be many amendments, I agree also that it were far better if the State had seen fit to command the best labor in this momentous undertaking, but I speak simply-and by the request of my friends back of me-to suggest to the thinking men of this convention, the ladies are always thoughtful, I need not urge that upon them-but to the thinking men of this convention who are not carried away by sophistry well put or sarcasm ill timed, that you take heed before the convention adjourns as to the ultimate expression which you may utter-which we may utter. No motion is pending, and I am at loss, therefore, to address myself to any issue, nor would I intrude upon your time to any great extent, but for the fear that the motion may be put and it may be put perhaps to-morrow when the watch dog of reform, Judge Bradwell, may not be present, and in his absence you may kill the entire reform commission by voting not to select a dele gate. If it is the feeling eventually of the Illinois State Bar Association that this commission is ill timed, you may simply refrain from selecting your delegate. I do not believe it has yet been done, if I am correctly informed, and if we do not select a delegate the commission goes up in the air because it can never be complete, and I apprehend that perhaps a move of that kind might be made and possibly be carried. Now I trust no such a thought may come into this convention, because I believe this commission, and the appointment of the commission, is a step in the right direction. It may not be the best, we cannot always get the best. I was before Judge Tuley once and wanted $100, and he gave me $50. (Laughter). A half loaf is better than nothing. We can't always get every

PROCEEDINGS.

thing, but we want to get what we can. Now look at the absurdity of the present system. Does any one know of a jurisdiction where the English language is spoken, where a reform system having once been adopted was ever absolutely rejected afterwards? Have you ever heard of anything of

that kind?

MR. ANDREWS:

What about New York?

MR. HIRSHL: They never absolutely rejected it. It may have had a little amendment from time to time because New York was a pioneer state, so to speak. The reforms must be on a broad and extensive scale and not be patchwork. I agree with Judge Gross that an old common law declaration supported by Chitty is a mighty strong bulwark to stand behind. Why the other day I had an experience before Judge Dunne. I had drawn a declaration that the maker of a note had signed the note in, to-wit, the city of Davenport, in the county of Scott, in the State of Iowa, and a demurrer was interposed because it was argued that I should say that he had signed the note in, to-wit, the city of Davenport, in the county of Cook, and State of Illinois, and they argued it against me for two or three hours before Judge Dunne, and I said, "Your Honor, I think they are right, but my children were born in the city of Davenport, in the county of Scott in the State of Iowa, and while I may in argument mis-speak, yet when I sit down to write, if I should write that Davenport is in Cook county, Illinois, I couldn't look my children in the face when I go home tonight." And this is common law pleading. (Laughter.) The old fossils are very good, they are safe, they are all right. I know just what is in one of those old declarations and one of the old pleas and old similiters. They remind me of the ox team that my father drove over the plains of southern Iowa fifty years ago; they are perfectly safe, they never break a chain, they never burst the boiler, to any great extent to hurt anybody; they never cause any great accident killing fifty or sixty people, as the Pullman car does when it stands on its

PROCEEDINGS.

head, but the old ox team would be just as well suited to our needs and necessities as the old common law pleadings would in our courts of justice, exactly. I say it without fear of successful contradiction. It is not so Mr. Andrews, for whom I have the greatest respect, and at whose feet I sit as I learn, it is not so that the code states have abolished the distinction between law and equity.

MR. ANDREWSs: I did not say it was so, they attempted to. MR. HIRSHL: Nor have they attempted so to do. It is there with all its vigor, but they have said, if your cause of action contains in it a right, if it is just and right that you should have the remedy you will get it, call it what you please or what anybody else pleases, and you will get it right soon; you will get it, as the constitution of Illinois says we should, promptly and without delay-tautological, of course, but it is there and freely, without being required to purchase it, and a lot of other things heaped up, which are always forgotten when they come to the exact act. Now I simply desire to conclude with this suggestion, that this commission has a great work before it. The men who have been thus far indicated for this commission, themselves are a life-long refutation of the derision that has been cast upon the commission by the speakers. A man owes something to his profes sion; the greatest physicians are those who at the sacrifice of their time and money have studied out and urged upon the people and carried into successful execution without price, without reward, the great sanitary and hygienic reforms bettering all classes, driving off the destroyer, the angel or the demon of death, prolonging human life, increasing human happiness. They owe it to their profession not simply to increase sickness and put fees into their pockets, but quite the contrary, to labor for the cause of humanity, and I undertake to say that I know, from the men who have thus far accepted places upon this commission that it is a safeguard, and

-5

PROCEEDINGS.

the entire commission will prove to be a credit to the State and their labor will result in great good. (Applause.)

MR. RIGGS: But I would like to get a little information. The gentleman, our friend who has just spoken, asks a question of us, I want to ask one of him. He asks what state or jurisdiction having adopted a reform or code procedure has ever abandoned it? I don't know, I can not answer that, maybe he can answer me and tell us where the code procedure was 'first adopted in any jurisdiction in the United States?

MR. HIRSHL: My memory is, 1852 in New York, was it not, Mr. Andrews?

MR. ANDREWS: 1849. 1852 in Indiana.

MR. RIGGS: Let us go back to 1848, let us imagine we are in 1848-I can imagine it without any violence to the facts. Now we are in the year 1848, we are in a bar association in the Beach Hotel of Chicago. I inquire what jurisdiction, what country on the face of the earth that has ever adopted the common law and the common law system has abandoned it? Now what argument is that? How does that help us? Go back then, I can ask that question with more force than you ask one. It just simply proves that some states have adopted the code procedure and have not abandoned it, that is all it proves. It doesn't prove the code is any better than the common law procedure. All the talk, it seems to me, about delays-I came near saying was out of place in connection with this subject, and as the subject has been developed, I wouldn't be far wrong in saying so I believe. I want to inquire of those who know-I don't know-whether or not that great city of New York where there are gathered together some millions of people just as there are here, in a proportionate number of courts is any more business done, do they get to the end of litigation any more expeditiously there than they do here?

MR. MOSES: No, they do not.