people, expressed in the instrument known as the ballot-box. There are now cogent reasons, which may not heretofore have existed, why he should be authorized to speak on momentous questions. The growth of the country, its unforeseen development, its giant stride for supremacy among the older nations, the universal renown which it enjoys in the civilization of the century, has no place for an automaton.

He may vote, on accidental occasions,-if there is a tie among the Senators This is such a rare privilege, that it may be regarded as an appendage to the office, rather than an endowment of authority. His power to appoint com mittees, shaping the course of legislation, has been practically destroyed. The treaties with foreign governments are made by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the voice of the Vice-President is silent. While he cannot enjoy the hon rs of some great international bargains, there is recompense in the thought that he is without responsibility to the public, in its disapproval of the meas

ures.

A mixed and diametric population, having varied ideas of government, renders it desirable that the Vice-President should be entitled to membership in the Cabinet. In the event of succession to the Presidency, during the term for which he has been elected, he enters under present conditions without experience in perpetuating a policy of improvement, however desirable its continuance may be. No business institution would tolerate such a possibility. According to precedent, the Vice-President is selected from a State different from that of the President's residence, and we may conjecture, as a sensible reason for it, that by interchange of views each would be the better acquainted with the necessities of the people. We may expand the confines of our country, because there is no Asiatic "Monroe Doctrine," but let us be

careful that a limitation is preserved against the eligibility of a Kalakua and an Aguinaldo.

THE FEDERAL COURTS.

The Federal Courts have grown largely in public favor in recent years. The multiplied number indicates that they serve satisfactorily the demands of the public as well as litigants. Congress is constantly importuned for the creation of new divisions and the location of courts at dditional points. This is demanded as a matter of convenience. The effort to curtail the influence of these courts has only resulted in the demand for an increase in number.

The business of the Supreme Court of the United States had become congested, and an appeal was not expected, in the regular course of business, to be heard in less than three years. An effort was made to furnish relief to the overburdened docket, and the Act to establish the Circuit Courts of Appeal, known as the Evarts Act, was passed. It is clear that without these courts there would be a denial of justice. Lawyers grow pessimistic, and deplore the decadence of the profession and the dearth of business in the future. This is altogether an error. The business for lawyers is greater, and the volume of litigation has become magnified. The vast number of Federal cases leaves no doubt of this fact. Only twelve years have elapsed since the Circuit Courts of Appeal were created, and from time to time a number of judges have been added, and we may confidently expect within the next two years that each court will consist of five judges. It is now recognized that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must be further restricted. Appeals must be limited to constitutional principles, questions of treaties, commerce and the national revenue.

The Judges of the Courts of Appeal should not be required to preside over nisi prius causes. They should only

hear the appellate cases. The present system of District Judges should be changed, and these judges made in name, as they are in effect, Circuit Judges. I may step further and say, that the vast horde of causes in violation of the revenue, postal or timber laws, should not be charged against the present District Judge. It is needful to dispose of such cases speedily, and the present delay results in crowding out of hearing civil causes of great importance. The criminal branch should be so separated from the civil-law and equity -cases, that it should be a separate court, presided over by a judge for criminal cases only.

The American law has grown up through the deliverances of the State Judges. The erudition of the State courts throughout the past has shown in splendor. Logic became rehabilitated, and the field for argument became bright and fresh in the deductions and reasoning developments of the master minds presiding over many of the State courts.

The law was constructed upon solid thought and comprehensive consideration, and was not dependent upon the afflictions of the present day, in the form of cases innumerable, padded text-books, and encyclopedias of erroneous statement.

I am not unmindful of the great learning exhibited by the Federal Judges, and it is from this source that we have been taught the great tenets of constitutional law. The rights in property, commercial law, provisional remedies, domestic relations and equitable doctrines, have been thrown upon the canvass for the study and admiration of the coming generations by State Judges. Has this influence been checked? Is their lustro less brilliant than in former years? In the past decade the Federal courts on these questions have made a giant step forward. The personnel of these courts is striking. It is a rare instance when a lawyer is disappointed in the Federal Judge before whom he appears.

The questions involved in commercial life have leaped into the arena of the Federal courts, and the pronouncements of the Judges have stirred the best thought of the profession, and challenged the most exalted admiration.

Surely I am not to be understood as indicating the decadence of the State Bench, but the elective system is on severe trial, and paralleling it, with that of the Federal system, we have a race to be won only by the stronger. The rotary system, with the lottery attachment, provided for in our Constitution, is of doubtful expediency.

In the early history of the Supreme Court there were a few cases ranking in the highest degree of national importance. The argument of these causes commanded the talent of America, and the entire country remained in suspense during the deliberations of the court, anticipating the final decisions, as the triumph or overthrow, according to individual predilections of the principles of liberty, announced in the Declaration of Independence. Cases of equal dignity

have been before the court in the past decade. The Legal Tender Cases, the Slaughter House Cases, the Income Tax Cases, the Insular Cases have never been magnified in their far-reaching importance in the development and maintenance of the teachings of our fathers.

The case of Champion vs. Ames, decided February 23, 1903, is probably the most significant of all national causes at the last term. The case was an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, and involved the constitutionality of the act of Congress of March 2, 1893, entitled "An Act for the Suppression of Lottery Traffic through National and Inter-state Commerce and the Postal Service, subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United States." The defendant was indicted for a conspiracy, with others, for violating the first section of the act, in the disposition of tickets for the monthly drawing of the Pan American Lot

tery Company, at Asuncion, Paraguay, and sending the same by express from Dallas, in the State of Texas, to Fresno, in the State of California. Every prior device to conduct a lottery scheme, within the reach of the people of the United States had failed. Lotteries were no longer tolerated. They were forbidden entrance into the mails, and the covert expediency of the Express Companies was denied them by the Act of 1895. The lottery business was at the last ditch, and it openly defied the Act of Congress, and made aggressive war upon it, as an infringement of civil liberty, violating the Federal Constitution.

The statute was maintained, as a proper exercise of the power to regulate inter-state commerce. This case is worthy of the attention of the busiest in the profession. While lotteries cannot survive, the views here announced touch every moneyed evil whioh is susceptible of being conducted through means of transportation from one state to another.

It is true that the decision is from a divided court, and so were the decisions in each of the cases just mentioned. It has become a matter of remark that all great cases are decided by divided courts, and the possible power of one man is sounded as a midnight alarm. The case of the Northern Securities Company has been determined by four Circuit Judges, speaking in unanimity. Should this cause be reversed on appeal, by a divided court, five Judges favoring the validity of the merger, we would have eight Judges denying the validity of amalgamation. This is an extreme supposition, but it serves well to illustrate the point of criticism, which, if permissible in the press, is not excusable in the legal profession. The judgments of courts are not affected by the number concurring in the opinion of final result. The judgment is the judgment of the court. Is it reasonable to expect a unanimous opinion on great questions? What makes these cases except the difference in opinions among great lawyers and