dred copies of the code of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association for distribution among our members.

The members of the Association will find the register on the desk in the adjoining room, wherein it has been suggested all lawyers attending this meeting should register as such record will be of service in innumerable ways. Complimentary tickets to the banquet will there be issued to all members of the Association and to applicants for membership upon application to Mr. Geo. Shurtleff who is in charge of the register, and who has a diagram of the tables and seats for the banquet, which latter may be reserved, on request.

Respectfully submitted.

JNO. F. VOIGT,
Secretary.

MR. RICHBERG: Mr. President, I move that the report of the Secretary and Treasurer be received and take its usual order.

THE PRESIDENT: It is so ordered, if there is no objection. The next in order will be the report of the Committee on Organization. Judge Curran, its Chairman, requests that this be passed till tomorrow morning, while Mr. Richberg, Chairman of the Committee on Uniform State Laws, reports that it is impossible for him to be here tomorrow morning, at which time his report would otherwise come up, and Mr. Curran asks that Mr. Richberg's report take the place of the report of the Committee on Organization this afternoon.

The report is as follows:

To the Illinois State Bar Association:

Your Committee on Uniform State Laws begs leave to submit the following report:

Thirty-eight States, two territories and the District of Columbia have commissions on Uniform State Laws which meet in annual conference, namely: Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsyl

vania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.

The first Board of Commissioners of the State of Illinois was appointed in 1893. In 1907 the General Assembly passed an Act creating a Commission on Uniform State Laws consisting of five Commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor. In June, 1908, the Governor, Charles S. Deneen, appointed Ernst Freund, Oliver A. Harker, Nathan William MacChesney, John C. Richberg and John H. Wigmore Commissioners for a term of four years. The new Commission organized by electing John C. Richberg (who has been a member of the Commission since 1893) President and Nathan William MacChesney Secretary.

At the Annual Congress of State Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at Seattle, Washington, in August, 1908, the Commission was represented by Oliver A. Harker and John C. Richberg. Col. MacChesney was unable to attend by reason of his regiment being in active service at the time.

The conference lasted three days and adopted the draft of an Act on "Uniform Laws of Sales" and recommended the same for adoption by the legislatures of the different states of the Union. This bill was introduced into the General Assembly of this State at the instance of the Illinois Commission at its recent session but was not enacted into a law, There were also two other bills introduced, which passed the Senate, but failed in the House by reason of lack of time, one amending an Act in regard to Wills, limiting the disqualification of subscribing witnesses in certain cases, and the other was an Act concerning limitations of interests in property and abrogating the rule of law commonly known as "the rule in Shelley's case."

The next Congress on Uniform State Laws will meet at Detroit on August 19th next and will be in session four days. The subjects for special consideration will be uniform laws on "Partnership" and "Stock Certificates" and "Bills of Lading."

JOHN C. RICH BERG,

Chairman.

MR. RICHBERG: I may say a word, perhaps, in addition to the report; that there are now thirty-four states in the Union that have adopted the uniform negotiable instruments law which was first drafted and first recommended for adoption by the Congress of State Commissioners in 1896. The first few years there were only a few states that adopted it, but now there are thirty-four that have precisely the same law; that the uniform bill on warehouse receipts was recommended and is now in

force in twelve states of the Union and it is still being presented to the members of the Legislature and it is hoped eventually at least as many states will concur as have the negotiable instruments law. And while not as much has been accomplished directly as was expected by the creation of these different state boards of commissioners, and meeting in annual conference, yet at the same time much has been accomplished in this particular; that a widespread interest has been awakened, not only among the members of the Bar of the different states, but among the laity with reference to the desirability of enacting uniform laws co-extensive with the boundaries of our country. And the subject has received considerable attention in the National Congress. President Roosevelt gave the subject considerable attention, and wrote one or two messages upon it. President Taft has now taken the subject matter in hand and is urging, to a certain extent, the desirability of uniform laws in many particulars, and it is in that respect perhaps, that the commission has accomplished more, and is accomplishing more than in direct legislation, which of necessity is a matter of slow growth. And with that, I move you, Mr. Chairman, that the report submitted be received and published as usual. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: It will be so ordered if there be no objection. The next in order is the address of Judge Hiram T. Gilbert, of Chicago.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. President and members of the Illinois State Bar Association: The subject of the paper which I will read to you is not, as has been indicated, the Gilbert Bill, but The Administration of Justice in Illinois. If, after reading this paper I shall not have tired you out, I may see fit to make a few remarks upon the bill in question.

(The Address will be found in Part II.)

MR. GILBERT: And now, gentlemen, just a few words about the bill which your President was pleased to call the Gilbert Bill. Time is flying and I will be very brief. That bill is the result of a great many years' experience in the practice of the law, a great deal of study, and a great deal of work. I am not

going to throw myself any bouquets, and when I get through I hope none of you will throw any bouquets at me, whatever I have done, I have done with a motive. The motive is not financial gain, because the work has cost me a great deal of money and I can not see how I will ever get it back. It is not ambition for office, for I have none. It is not the advancement of my business interests, for it is a fact, which most of you will realize, that the more a man mixes in affairs of this kind the less business he gets. What I intend to say to you is simply a few words explanatory of my position, so that I will not be misunderstood.

When this bill was prepared it was printed at my expense and sent all over the State, with a short introduction. It was sent to every County Judge, Circuit Judge and Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, and it was circulated largely among the Bar. This introduction reads in part as follows:

"The measure here presented is the result of an endeavor to construct an act in relation to courts which may be one suited to the conditions surrounding the administration of justice in this state, one calculated to bring about a speedy and satisfactory disposition of business in our courts, and one which the General Assembly may be induced to adopt. * As now presented the proposed act is not claimed to be complete or perfect, it is but a preliminary draft, to be revised to meet all just criticisms, to correct all errors and to make all necessary additions before it is introduced in the General Assembly."

Let me suggest that it was apparently fair to print this bill, distribute it throughout the State, write to all the judges as I did, call their attention to it and ask for their criticisms. No attempt was made to conceal anything or to take any advantage of anybody. The bill was introduced in the Legislature, was then printed, and I attended the entire session, missing but ten days of the session. It was referred to a committee and that committee appointed a sub-committee of five lawyers, I think they will average up with you gentlemen here. I do not know you all, but I know them. They examined the bill and made a favorable report. About that time some of the lawyers in the State got aroused and they began to write letters and Bar Associations began to adopt resolutions. I believe the Peoria Bar Asso

ciation adopted one, also the Quincy Bar Association. Finally the Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association appointed a committee, a part of whom acted and made a partial report, and thereupon the members of the Board of Managers got together and prepared a printed circular which they sent to every member of the Legislature and to lawyers throughout the State. Among the statements in that circular are the following:

"The general plan of this bill is essentially bad. Not only will this bill fail to simplify the practice, but its enactment will render practice in Illinois more complex and obscure. Said bill not only revolutionizes our system of practice, but also rewrites and materially changes many chapters of our statutes relating to substantive law. Many of these changes are unnecessary, some are obscure and not a few are obviously dangerous."

Now that is a general demurrer to the bill. I do not know what the particular grounds of the demurrer are, and I do not believe the gentlemen who sent out the circular know themselves. I simply call your attention to that statement in order to show the manner in which lawyers act in respect to a measure of this kind. It seems to me, if any other lawyer in this State would do the amount of work that was done, and spend the money expended in this matter, I would at least read what he had prepared, and, if I had any criticisms, I would state them specifically. It is impossible for me to answer any criticisms of that kind.

As I have stated repeatedly, this act was not prepared with the expectation that the Legislature would adopt it in its present form, entirely, and without change. It was prepared in good. faith, for the purpose of presenting to the lawyers of this State a plan which I thought was good, and which they could take and consider, and with the aid of the criticisms which it might receive, construct a proper court act.

I am not opinionated, as some people have charged me with being. I am ready to take suggestions and I am ready to see it when anybody points out something that is wrong with this act. Changes were made in the General Assembly, both in the committee and on the floor, and if the lawyers of the State had paid