Page images


With the foregoing report there were presented the following lettersFROM EX-PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND.

GRAY GABLES, Mass., Aug. 20, 1899. I have received your letter and circular in relation to a movement for the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the accession of John Marshall to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In my opinion the Bar of the United States would honor itseli in thus honoring the memory of this great American judge.



PARIS, Aug. 10, 1899. I heartily concur in the suggested celebration of the day on which Chief Justice Marshall took his seat.

The sympathy of bench and bar in the movement may be assumed and it did not need this note to assure you of mine.

Very truly yours,



4 ENNISMORE GARDENS,S. W., 10-8-99. DEAR SIR: I very readily comply with your request to write a letter approving the celebration on February 4, 1901, of the centennial anniversary of the day when John Marshall, third Chief Justice of the United States, took his seat at Washington. It would be impossible within the limits of an ordinary letter to deal adequately with his history as a stateman and advocate, but I will borrow a phrase from one of your countrymen in speaking of him when he said: “It is principally on his character as a magistrate presiding over the highest tribunal of the nation that his fame must rest and there let it rest, for the foundations are deep and strong and the superstructure fitted for immortality."

It is true to say that he had studied diligently our English jurisprudence and no English lawyer would willingly admit that he had not studied Chief Justice Marshall's judgments, and arguments when at the bar. Imperfect as are the reports of these latter, and specially in the great case of Ware v. Hylton, they sufficiently disclose what a keen and accurate intellect, what a powerful and lucid style distin. guished your great Chief Justice.

During the fourteen years that I have occupied the position of a


judge and during the six years during which I was a law officer for the
Crown, I have had frequent occasion to have recourse to his recorded
wisdom and not infrequently to be guided by principles laid down by
Believe me,

Dear Sir,
Very truly yours,

Lord Chancellor of England.


PARIS, 28th July, 1899. DEAR SIR: The enclosures, which reach me from Chicago, will explain how I come to address you. In answer, I desire to say that I shall be glad to join in paying honor to your great Chief Justice Marshall on 4th February, 1901, (should I be alive and well), or on any other day.


There were also presented letters strongly approving the proposed celebration from:

Joseph H. Choate, Ambassador to England; Charles F. Manderson, Vice President American Bar Association; Charles Claflin Allen, of St. Louis; Francis Rawle, Treasurer American Bar Association; William Wirt Howe, New Orleans; John W. Griggs, Attorney General of the United States; John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States; Adlai E. Stevenson, Bloomington, Ill.; David J. Brewer, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; Henry B. Brown, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Frederick Pollock, London, England; Andrew D. White, Ambassador to Germany; William L. Wilson, Lexington, Virginia; William Lindsay, of the United States Senate; Shelby M. Cullom, of the l'nited States Senate; William Wirt Henry, Richmond, Virginia; Henry Wade Rogers, President North Western University; Hampton L. Carson, Philadelphia; D. H. Chamberlain, West Brookfield, Massachusetts; U. M. Rose, Little Rock, Arkansas; Robert Mather, Chicago; Roger Foster, New York; Spencer Clinton, Buffalo, New York; Jackson Guy, Richmond, Virginia; Mrs. Sallie E. Marshall Hardy, Louisville, Kentucky; Burwell Keith Marshall, Louisville, Kentucky.

John B. Cassoday, Chief Justice of Wisconsin; Charles B. Love, Chief Justice of Delaware; John A. Peters, Justice of the Suprem Court of Maine; J. R. Tyson, Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama; Charles V. Bardeen, Justice of the Supreme Court of Wiscon


sin; George M. Harrison, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; H. C. McWhorter, Justice of the Supreme Court of West Virginia; James H. Cartwright, Chief Justice of Illinois; J. B. Winslow, Justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin; Charles N. Potter, Chief Justice of Wyoming; James G. Jenkins, Judge United States Court of Appeals, Milwaukee.

John Campbell, Chief Justice of Colorado; William H. Seaman, Judge United States District Court, Milwaukee; Addison Brown, Judge United States District Court, New York; J. B. Moon, Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan; Selden P. Spencer, Judge of the Circuit Court, St. Louis; W. H. Gabbert, Justice of the Supreme Court of Colorado; T. F. Palmer, Monticello, Indiana; U. H. Hanford, Judge United States District Court, Seattle, Washington; James A. Gibson, Los Angeles, California; R. E. Twitchell, President Bar Association of New Mexico; Charles H. Carey, Portland, Oregon; George L. Buist, President of South Carolina State Bar Association.

J. W. Bonner, President Tennessee State Bar Association; James 0. Crosby, President lowa State Bar Association; J. H. Bosard, President North Dakota State Bar Association; Richard B. Shepard, Salt Lake City, Utah; P. K. Ewing, Sewane, Tennessee; George E. De Golia, Oakland, California; Richard S. Tuthill, Judge Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois; 0. N. Carter, Judge County Court, Chicago, Illinois; Philip Stein, Judge Superior Court, Chicago, Illinois; Thomas G. Windes, Judge Appenate Court, Chicago, Illinois; John Gibbons, Judge Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois; John Goode, Bedford City, Virginia.

Paul Bakewell, St. Louis, Missouri; John C. Black, Chicago, Illinois; William D. McNulty, Saratoga Springs, New York; Gardiner Lathrop, Kansas City, Missouri; Alexander Porter Morse, Washington, D. C.; Charles E. Shepard, Seattle, Washington; Levi L. Barbour, Detroit, Michigan; C. C. Bonney, Chicago; E. B. Sherman, Chicago; William S. Hammond, Altoona, Pennsylvania; George W. Heiges, York, Pennsylvania; Myer S. Isaacs, New York City, N. Y.; Moses E. Clapp, St. Paul, Minnesota; R. H. Wood, Charlottesville, Virginia; Wesley Mollohan, Charleston, West Virginia; Luther Laflin Mills, Chicago.

Charles H. Pennypacker, West Chester, Pennsylvania; James De Witt Andrews, Chicago; E. A. Otis, Chicago; Isaac N. Blodgett, Franklin, N. H.; James H. Raymond, Chicago; R. M. Bashford, Madison, Wisconsin; Charles M. Oampbell, Denver, Colorado; Benjamin Rice Forman, New Orleans; Reuben Hatch, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Ogden H. Fethers, Janesville, Wisconsin; S. S. Gregory, Chicago;


Ephraim Banning, Chicago; John M. Smedes, Cincinnati, Ohio; R. W. Breckinridge, Omaha, Nebraska; A. B. Cummins, wes Moines, Iowa; Morris M. Cohn, Little Rock, Arkansas; Thomas Dent, Chicago; D. K. Young, Clinton, Tennessee.

Charles Martindale, Indianapolis, Indiana; J. J. McCarthy, Dubuque, Iowa; J. M. Parsons, Rock Rapids, Iowa; James Pirtle, Louisville, Kentucky; J. W. McLoud, South McAlester, I. T.; Albert A. Baker, Providence, R. I.; C. Floyd Huff, Hot Springs, Arkansas; Darius H. Pingrey, Bloomington, Illinois; E. K. Summerwell, New liik; J. W. Douglas, Washington, D. C.; Smeltzer V. Kemp, Bedford City, Va.; James H. Webb, New Haven, Connecticut; David W. Yancey, Muskogee, Indian Territory; Francis J. Swayze, Newark, New Jersey; C. Suydam Scott, Lexington, Kentucky; William S. Windle, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

F. W. Stevens, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Henry T. Rogers, Denver, Colorado; Gilbert S. Hawkins, Bel Air, Maryland; Duncan J. Fletcher, Jacksonville, Fla.; Walter I. Dawkins, Baltimore, Maryland; S. S. Wheeler, Lima, Ohio; F. C. Winkler, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; R. S. Woodruff, Trenton, N. J.; Gustave A. Wolf, Grand Rapids, Michigan; R. W. Williams, Tallahassee, Florida; George W. Radford, Detroit, Michigan; W. H. Farnsworth, Sioux City, Iowa; L. Frank Ottofy, St. Louis, Missouri; Alexander New, Kansas City, Missouri; Philip Lindsley, Dallas, Texas; Thos. J. Pereles, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; M. Norris, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

John Morris, Jr., Fort Wayne, Indiana; C. S. Montgomery, Omaha, Nebraska; U. S. Lesh, Huntington, Indiana; Burr W. Jones, Madison, Wisconsin; John H. Dinneen, Baltimore, Maryland; Morris Brandon, Atlanta, Georgia'; John C. Avery, Pensacola, Florida; S. H. Allen, Topeka, Kansas; W. P. Stafford, St. Johnsbury, Vermont; John D. Milliken, McPherson, Kansas; F. C. Dillard, Sherman, Texas; Charles E. Gast, Pueblo, Colorado; P. W. Meldrim, Savannah, Georgia; Henry H. Ingersoll, Knoxville, Tennessee; James H. Hayden, Washington, D. C.; C. A. Dudley, Des Moines, Iowa; Lynde Harrison, New Haven, Connecticut.

Wm. A. Meloy, Washington, D. C.; T. J. Johnston, New York City; W. P. Hubbard, Wheeling, W. Va.; Robert R. Baldwin, Chicago; W. H. Bryant, Denver, Colorado; John F. Burke, Milwaukee, Wis.; William P. Breen, Fort Wayne, Indiana; H. P. Judson, Chicago, III.; Prof. Herman von Holst, Chicago 'University; Edward J. James, Chicago; E. C. Ravenscroft, Nashville, Tenn.; H. N. Ogden, Chicago; B. J. Ramage, South Sewanee, Tennessee; H. B .Hutchins, Ann Arbor, Michigan; George W. Warvelle, Chicago; Frederic S. Hebard,


Chicago; John L. Bridges, Tarboro, N. C.; John A. Rohbach, Indianapolis, Indiana.

PRESIDENT Wood: The next matter is, “The Law Reform Report of 1899, consideration and discussion by the Association." That report has been distributed, it is now in order to take it up.

Mr. Moses: I have a suggestion to make regarding this report, namely, there is a schedule of proposed legislation in it, and I understand from members of the Practice Commission that many of these proposed laws have already been adopted by that Commission. If Judge Gross is here I would like to hear from him upon that proposition. But I know from the publication made by the Commission that they have adopted several of these, if not all, but I have not seen it stated that they have adopted the first proposed law, "An act to provide for and regulate appeals from interlocutory orders in cases of injunctions, receiverships and applications for injunctions or receivers.” And I consider that a very important matter for discussion and adoption by this Association. The law has been prepared with considerable care. The present act, which was passed in 1887, was greatly impaired very soon after its passage by a decision of the Appellate Court of this district, holding that the title was restrictive, and we have suffered here in this county considerably by reason of that decision. No attempt has ever been made by the Legislature to change it. This act is an attempt to cure that error of legislation, and also to enlarge the scope of the act. For instance, the first section, which is the most important, provides that whenever an interlocutory order is entered in any suit pending in any court, granting an injunction or overruling a motion to dissolve the same, enlarging or diminishing the scope of injunctions, appointing a receiver or removing a receiver already appointed, or in case the court refuses to appoint a receiver, or grant an injunction when applied for, an appeal may be taken from such order as the case may be, to the Ap

« PreviousContinue »