matter on the program is the paper by Prof. Mechem, on "Employers' Liability." We will now hear from the professor. (Applause.)

PROF. MECHEM: Owing to the length of my paper and the late hour, I beg that you will give me leave to print, and excuse me from presenting it. It seems to me it would be an unjustifiable act on my part at this time in the afternoon to keep you here.

Cries of "no," and "go on."

PROF. MECHEM: I will state, the fact is clear that I cannot read my paper in less than an hour, and it seems to me I am not justified at this stage in taking your time.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will shorten the other routine, Professor, go ahead with your paper.

PROF. MECHEM: You must do it on your own responsibility. I feel as though I am not justified in doing it.

THE CHAIRMAN: I will request all members of the Association not to engage in audible conversation while this paper is being read.

(The address will be found in Part II.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, we will complete the program, we have plenty of time. The discussion of this subject will have to be limited to ten minutes to each speaker.

MR. MCMURDY: I had expected to make a few remarks upon this question, but we will have to give way to the program, somewhat, and on behalf of myself and of all those who are similarly situated, I move that any one who desires to speak upon this question be given leave to print.

The motion was seconded and carried.

MR. MCMURDY: I do not rise to take part in this discussion but merely to present a few figures and to express some fugitive thoughts.

Having in mind the relation of this subject to the other topic under discussion, procedure in our courts, and desiring to acquire in a general way some figures to confirm the common impression that personal injury suits occupy a large portion of

the time of our courts, I addressed a letter to the Judges of our Circuit and Superior Court who are calling common law calendars at nisi prius. I have replies from 13 stating in answer to my inquiry the proportion of their official time consumed by these cases. The average estimate of these judges is over 72 per cent.; three fix it at 80, one at 90 and one at 95. None estimates it at less than 50 per cent. In view of these figures it is easy to perceive that any system, which, if adopted, will effect a large diminution in the number of these cases, will come very near solving, if it does not entirely solve, the problem of congested calendars in Cook County, and this would be true to a less degree of course in the larger communities of the rest of the State. While I appreciate, of course, that the fact that this. class of litigation congests our calendars is an incident merely of the serious problem we are now discussing it is nevertheless well worthy of note.

It is strange that we have delayed so long in entering upon a solution of this great problem-that we have for so long a time looked with complacency upon this dolorous procession of crutches and coffins in its diurnal passing.

It would seem that even in a civilization founded so largely upon commerce, we should long ago have discovered a plan of doing away with a system under which it frequently results that the wife and mother, (so often a victim of the system,) is compelled to do the rough work of the world and leave her children to grow up at random without the natural right of an American child-the privilege of a public schooling.

It would seem, also, that our evolution would be worked out with much less friction if the bitterness between employer and employe engendered by these contests in the legal arena could be largely eliminated, and certainly every lover of the professions, of the ideals which they expound and for which they stand, must lament the conditions in our large cities where medicine, as well as law, is so largely degraded (even if individuals are helped in a material way,) by the practices of defendants as well.

as plaintiffs which seem to be inseparable from this class of litigation.

I hope that this Association will continue to agitate the question until, at all events, we can say we are really started on a solution.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next person to speak upon this subject is Mr. J. A. Connell. Is Mr. Connell present?

MR. CONNELL: In view of the extreme lateness of the hour I will not make any remarks. I understood the motion to prevail that no discussion was to be had on this subject.

THE CHAIRMAN: No, you just have leave to print. You take leave to print.

JUDGE WORTHINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I think the motion was broad enough to cover the remarks of those who are on the program on that particular question and all others, I think that was the intention?

THE CHAIRMAN: It was the intention, and the motion does cover all; but the motion was that they be given leave to have their speeches printed, it does not cut off discussion. The next speaker, Mr. J. B. Mann.

MR. MANN: If my remarks are printed somebody will have to write them.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we will hear from you.

MR. MANN: I understand that I have ten minutes in which to discuss this question?

THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. MANN: There was a bad man down in a western town on a mule one day, and a committee waited on him and told him he had fifteen minutes in which to leave town and he says, "If this mule don't buck I only want five." (Laughter.) If I undertook to tell you what I know about this thing it would not take one quarter of the time allotted to me, and if I undertake to tell you what I think about it it would take a much greater time and perhaps be a trespass upon your patience and your attention.

The relationship of master and servant and their respect

ive liabilities, or the liabilities of the master, has been one of evolution, coming down through what we call the common law. There is now an attempt made in this country to disregard evolution and undertake to fix the relationship of master and servant by revolution, and there is a great difference between the two. I am opposed to those so called laws concerning the relationship of master and servant, and I am opposed to them for several reasons and I can not give you all of them because, as I have said before, it would take more time than you would give to hear me, and secondly, would take more time than I am going to give to you.

The Federal statute concerning the relationship between master and servant has gone so far as to prohibit the making of a contract whereby the servant shall absolve the master from liability in case the servant is negligent. Now I do not believe that law will be declared constitutional, or rather, I believe it will be declared unconstitutional by any court in this State or any other state. The Legislature of this State undertook, several times, to prescribe the relationship between master and servant, and in one notable instance to say that the servant of a coal mining company should not be allowed to agree that there should be any other measure of the amount of his production, which means the value of his services, except by a scale furnished by the coal mining company, and our Supreme Court decided that to be unconstitutional, and they decided it on the ground that it destroyed the right not only of the employe but of the employer to make a contract, which was a valuable right. The Federal statute concerning the liability of the master of the servant was declared unconstitutional not because it was in derogation of the right to make a contract, but because it did not distinguish between interstate commerce and intra-state commerce. But I think when that matter is finally presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, so far as that part of it which declares that there shall be no release of liability upon the part of the servant to the master will be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it interferes with the right of private contract.

But outside of that I am opposed to these laws on general principles, and I want to say to you right now, and lest anybody should misconstrue my position in this matter, that while. I have all my life, practically, up to this time, or until a few years ago, been employed by corporations and had a very large experience in the defense of corporation matters, for ten years in the City of Chicago, that I am now entirely clear from all entanglements of corporations. There has been a time for repentance. That is, I do not know that I have repented, but the corporations have repented. (Laughter.) So that I feel now entirely as a free lance in this matter. But the reason why I am opposed to laws of this kind is that they are an advance in the direction of having the public, by public law, taking care of the individual. We are all getting along to that more or less. There is a feeling abroad in the land that every time a man is hurt somebody ought to pay for it, and there is also a feeling that when a man gets unable to support himself why somebody ought to support him. And there is another feeling that everybody ought to take care of everybody else anyhow. In other words, that we ought to pool our earnings and make a common pot, you know, and divide the kitty at the end of the game. (Laughter.) Well now, I would make by that, undoubtedly, because you gentlemen here who are making money would have to contribute to my support in the end. But at the same time there is nothing else,-I do not want to use the word now that is used so often as a bugaboo-we are drifting in that regard towards socialism, where a man shall work for everybody else and everybody else shall work for him and nobody shall work unless he wants to, and that is the whole theory of these laws.

Now the Federal law says that the employe shall be allowed to recover from his employer providing the negligence of the employer is gross as compared to the negligence of the employe which is slight. Why, bless your souls, gentlemen, we have been through that in the State of Illinois. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois established that doctrine years ago and you have no idea, you young men, what a time we had in dif