Mr. Hardcastle placed the name of Lucius W. Hoyt, the present incumbent, in nomination for this office for the coming year, which nomination was duly seconded by Mr. Manly.

Mr. Doud moved that the President of the association be instructed to cast the unanimous ballot of the association for Lucius W. Hoyt for the office of Secretary and Treasurer for the ensuing year.

This motion having been duly seconded, was carried. The President cast the ballot as instructed, and declared Mr. Hoyt the duly elected Secretary and Treasurer of the association for the next year.

Judge Yeaman-Mr. Chairman, is not now a proper time for the consideration of our next place of meeting?

The Chair: Yes, sir, I believe that is in order now.

Judge Yeaman: Moved that the next meeting of the association be held in Colorado Springs, commencing on the 6th day of July, at 2 o'clock p. m., and continuing as many days as the Executive Committee and the association may think proper.

This motion was duly seconded by Mr. Manly.

Mr. Ritter: I move as a substitute that Denver be the place of meeting.

This motion, in the form of an amendment, was duly seconded by Judge Rogers, whereupon the question was put and the motion lost.

The question again recurring to the motion of Judge Yeaman, the same was put and duly carried, and Colorado Springs was declared by the chair to be the next place of meeting.

Mr. Platt Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Secretary be instructed to acknowledge the courtesies extended to this association by the Country Club and the El Paso Club.

This motion being duly seconded by Mr. Haynes, the question was put and duly carried.

Mr. Gast: I wish to say, Mr. President, that the committees for the ensuing year will be appointed some time during the present month, and notices will be sent out by the Secretary.

Judge Yeaman: Mr. Chairman, I move that it is the sense of this association that the office of President of the association expires at 12 o'clock midnight, on the night of the banquet.

This motion being duly seconded, the question was put by the Secretary and regularly carried.

Secretary Hoyt: Mr. President, section 22 of the By-Laws provides that at all meetings twenty members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. I move to amend by making the number fifteen instead of twenty.

Mr. Haynes duly seconded the amendment.

President Butler: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, and unanimous consent will be required for its adoption, and if there is no objection, unanimous consent will be presumed.

And there being no objection, the motion carried.

Judge Decker moved that the meeting adjourn to 2 o'clock p. m., which motion was duly seconded and carried, whereupon the adjournment as moved was taken.

SECOND SESSION.

July 7, 1898.

The meeting was called to order by President Butler at 2:30 o'clock p. m.

President Butler: The exercises this afternoon will consist of addresses by the Hon. John F. Phillips, United States District Judge, of Missouri; Mr. Justice Brewer, of the Supreme Court of the United States, and an address by Mr. Charles E. Gast, of Pueblo, President-elect of the association.

I now have the pleasure of introducing to you the Hon. John F. Philips.

The Hon. John F. Philips then delivered his address. (See Appendix.)

President Butler: Gentlemen of the Bar Association, I now have the honor of introducing to you Mr. Justice Brewer, of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Justice David J. Brewer then delivered an address. (See Appendix.)

President Butler: Gentlemen, I now have the pleasure of introducing to you our President-elect, Hon. Chas. E. Gast, of Pueblo.

Mr. Gast: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association-I must explain, as Mr. Brewer has done, that what I have to say upon this occasion will not be in the nature of an address.

I believe he stated that his remarks would be in the nature of a talk. If that was the case, I think we will have to invite him to be out to the next meeting of the Bar Association and have him deliver an address. But when I was asked to deliver an address, or to read a paper at this meeting of the association, I preferred to read a paper and to take up a subject that would be of some local interest to the members of the bar of Colorado. Mr. Gast then read his paper. (See Appendix.)

President Butler, after announcing the banquet to take place at 7:30 p. m., adjourned the meeting until that time.

BANQUET.

July 7, 1898.

The banquet was called at 7:30 p. m., lasting until 9:45 p. m., when President Butler arose and said:

Gentlemen of the Colorado Bar Association-We are now approaching the end of the first annual banquet of this association. We have satisfied the inner man; we are now prepared to address that other part of our system. For that purpose a distinguished member of our bar, one who has served in many capacities and who is unexcelled in every capacity in which he has served, has been selected as toastmaster for this occasion. I refer to ex-Mayor, ex-Judge, but present distinguished lawyer of the Colorado bar, Hon. Platt Rogers. (Applause.)

Toastmaster: Gentlemen, you will please rise to a standing toast which I will propose. To our soldiers and sailors who, by their magnificent achievements, have added to the glory of our common country. (Applause and toast.)

Gentlemen of the association, in these stirring times, so pregnant with important questions connected with the history of our country, we should bear in mind as members of the legal profession that this government of which we are so proud, is not entirely the product of military glory. It can justly be said that the foundation of this government, upon which its present power rests, does not reside in the strength of our arms. I question whether the historian will ascribe the foundation of the federal Union to the military arm of the government. It is

my belief that the power, dignity and integrity of the federal Union may be attributed, not to the federal Constitution alone, but to the judiciary brought into being by that instrument to adjudicate the rights and interests of the American people, and the functions of the several states. (Applause.) As lawyers we can never forget that it was a Marshall who, as chief justice of the United States, so directed the federal Constitution that nullification was nullified, and the American Union made one in fact as well as in theory. It is our pleasure upon this occasion, as it has been our pleasure during the two days of our meetings, to have as our guest a representative of this august tribunal, and I question whether any Bar Association in any of the forty-five states was ever inaugurated under more favorable auspices than the Bar Association of the state of Colorado. (Applause.) We have with us not only a representative of the Supreme Court, before whom we bow with due reverence, but we also have judges of courts inferior, not in learning, but in grade, whose continual errors will serve to keep the Supreme Court of the United States to the performance of its constitutional duty. (Applause.) You all know to whom I refer as the representative of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is my happy privilege, speaking for the bar of Colorado, to welcome to this first meeting of the Bar Association the representative of the Supreme Court, given to it as the tribute of the state of Kansas when it embraced prohibition, and parted with its only Brewer. (Applause.) Permit me, therefore, to introduce to you our distinguished guest, the Hon. Justice Brewer. (Applause.)

TOAST OF JUSTICE DAVID J. BREWER.

"THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."

The justice, after telling some amusing stories about the court and its members, proceeded as follows:

So you will see that there are sometimes interruptions to that solemn procedure which you all notice when you go there, and yet, for all that, let me say that there is no wasting of time, no unnatural or unseemly levity in its proceedings. I have been a member of almost every court that the law knows of in this country; served in almost every judicial and professional position that any man can fill, and I must say that in all my experience I have never known a tribunal that works more

diligently, more laboriously and more faithfully than the Supreme Court of the United States. (Applause.) Many go there and see us in session four hours, from 12 to 4, and go away saying that the life of the justices of that court is wonderfully easy; that we hear what counsel have to say, and then meet and decide that the case should be affirmed or reversed, and that is the end of it.

The visible work of the court is but a fragment of its toil. Sitting four hours to listen to the arguments is nothing compared with the work which it has to do. We may not, we do not, we can not dispose of as many cases as some other courts because there come to that court cases involving sums of large amount and questions of the vastest importance; questions not merely of general matters of common law, but also those of the national constitution and of the separate Constitutions of forty-five states; affecting the relation of the national government to each separate state; questions which will determine the limit of the power of the state, and the limit of the power of the nation; questions which involve the relation of the nation as a whole, or of one state as a part of the nation, to all the nations of the world. You can not conceive of a kind of a case or a question arising under the law which does not come to that tribunal for decision. To-day we will listen to arguments of counsel from the state of Colorado discussing some intricate question of mining law, and to-morrow, of counsel from New York upon questions of admiralty law, or from Boston upon questions of patent law, or from some other state upon questions arising under the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of that state. Cases like that can not be guessed at, and the members of that court feel that there is a solemn responsibility resting upon them which they can not lightly disregard. I have never met gentlemen who approached the discussion of cases and questions with a more solemn sense of the responsibility which rests upon a judge than that which each feels rests upon him. The hardest day we have is our day of conference. When we go there to discuss the several cases we find, of course, that some are easily disposed of, requiring little discussion, while others are discussed from week to week and from month to month.

It is also the most democratic institution that ever was organized. No one has precedence in that conference.