Abbildungen der Seite

I love them all." M. Labori, famous defender of Dreyfus and Zola, gave half of his speech in English, half in French, and was equally persuasive and appealing in either, whether one fully understood him or not. He is a big man in every sense.

Mr. Kellogg, who had by that time, because of the election of Mr. Taft as President of the Association, become an ex-president. started a good deal of banter about ex-presidents. In opening his speech, he said: "No one wishes to hear from an ex-presidentif he will only remain one. But the trouble is some of them whom I know have a habit of not remaining so; and then, of course, everybody wants to hear them." Mr. Choate took this up in introducing Mr. Taft, saying, "There are ex-presidents and expresidents; and when a man ceases to be President of the United States for the purpose of becoming president of the American Bar Association, he is not stepping out of the frying pan into the fire, but out of the frying pan into one of the most cooling, respectable and comfortable positions that human agency can devise. Think of sweating through July, August and September in Washington over the currency, the tariff and democracy, when one could be enjoying the cooling breezes of Murray Bay and Montreal and the delightful embraces of the members of the American Bar Association and their families!" President Taft replied that he felt perfectly at home in Canada, because there, as in the United States, he had been abused and commended to the disapproval of Canadians, by means of graceful cartoons. "Therefore, it is," he said, "that when through a fortuitous, or fortunate or calamitous circumstance I lost a presidency in the United States, I have come over to Canada to get another."

The next meeting has been called at Washington, in October.
Respectfully submitted,


For the Delegates.






July 10, 1914.

To the President of The Colorado Bar Association:

Sir: The Special Committee appointed by you on the Promulgation of Rules by the Supreme Court, has the gratification of reporting that the Supreme Court, under the provisions of the statute passed by the last General Assembly authorizing the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, has prescribed certain rules which the committee understands will be furnished to the Bar at this meeting of the Association.

The committee feels that this action of the Supreme Court, as Brother Hood said last year, is the culmination of that brighter day dawning for our State in regard to its courts.

The Supreme Court has worked faithfully and assiduously in the compilation of these rules, and while they may not satisfy us all, it is the beginning of a practice of great power for the betterment of the judicial procedure in the State of Colorado.

The committee earnestly requests that the members of the Bar Association and of the Bar of the State before criticising these rules, read again the able address of Mr. Roscoe Pound to the meeting of our Association of last year, and that address also of our fellow member, Mr. Thomas H. Hood, presented last year. Your committee, believing that our profession-the only one of the learned professions so endowed-is adequately possessed of

the piety, the learning and the common-sense which the canny Scotch professor declared necessary for his calling, desires to earnestly impress upon the Bar the necessity of upholding the Supreme Court, not only in the action which it has taken, but in whatever action it may take hereafter relative to such rules of practice, and quotes again from Mr. Hood's address:

"At the request of the Bar Association of this State, the legislature has put a great burden and an extraordinary honor upon our Supreme Court. How will that burden be borne so that the honor may surely be won? The court is entitled to the loyal and enthusiastic support of the Bar in its great task; how shall we respond to our opportunity."

Respectfully submitted,


For the Committee.

July 7, 1914.

William H. Wadley, Secretary State Bar Association. 701 E. & C. Building, City:

Dear Sir: On June 23, 1914, the Denver Bar Association, having been advised that the Supreme Court was about to make a radical change in the code relative to the issuance of summons, instructed the Judiciary Committee of that Association to inquire into the matter and report.

Pursuant to that authority, the committee ascertained that the Supreme Court was about to promulgate, among others, the following rule, effective September 14, 1914:

"Summons shall be issued by the clerk only, under the seal of the court, but not until after the complaint is filed. Plaintiff may have summons issue at any time

within thirty days after filing his complaint. If not
issued and delivered within that period, the clerk shall
enter an order dismissing the action."

At the suggestion of the Judiciary Committee a special meeting of the Denver Bar Association was called and held at 5:00 o'clock p. m. on Wednesday, July 1, 1914, for the discussion of the proposed change in the code and for the discussion of the following substitute, suggested by the Judiciary Committee:

"Summons may be issued by the clerk of the court, under the seal thereof, or by an attorney at law under his hand; but if issued by an attorney at law the complaint in the action shall be filed with the clerk of the court within ten days after the date of the issuance of the summons, unless such time be extended by written stipulation of the parties or their attorneys. In case complaint be not filed within ten days, and there be no stipulation, the plaintiff shall be barred from proceeding with the action begun by said summons, and the court shall dismiss the same and enter judgment in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff and his attorney or attorneys signing said summons, for the costs thereof, including a reasonable attorney's fee of not less than $25.00. Such order shall be entered upon the oral application of the defendant, without notice, upon his filing with the clerk the copy of the summons served проп him, and paying to the clerk the actual costs of such application and judgment."

There were thirty-five members present at the meeting which was thereupon opened to the discussion, which discussion was participated in by a large number of those present. Every speaker was opposed to any change in the code or the rules which would

deprive the attorneys of the power to issue summons. Not a word was spoken in favor of the rule promulgated by the Supreme Court.

A majority of those present were in favor of leaving the code provision on the subject of issuance of summons as it stands at the present time. This sentiment was crystalized in the following motion, being the final result in motions and amendments made by Judge Hubert L. Shattuck, John Hipp, and Judge R. H. Gilmore: "That the Denver Bar Association recommend to the Supreme Court that no change be made in the present rule relative to the issuance of summons, and that the Judiciary Committee be instructed to present the matter to the Supreme Court, to the Colorado Bar Association, and to other local Bar Associations."

After the foregoing motion was carried, Judge R. H. Gilmore moved that the Judiciary Committee be instructed to confer with the Supreme Court and make known the views of this Association as expressed at the meeting, but that if the court believes that the statute as it now stands has been abused the committee recommend that additional safeguards be provided so that such abuse be corrected. This motion was carried.

Mr. A. W. Gillette referred to another of the new rules promulgated by the Supreme Court which shortens the stay of execution pending the application for supersedeas from a discretionary time not exceeding ninety days to an absolute limit of thirty days, and he moved that the Judiciary Committee be instructed to call the attention of the Supreme Court to the present act, and ask that the court expunge the proposed change and allow the code to remain as it now stands. This motion was carried.

In view of the fact that the new rules have not only been proposed, but have been actually adopted by the Supreme Court, it is our belief that it will take concerted action on the part of the various Bar associations to induce the Supreme Court to make

« ZurückWeiter »