them. Accordingly, the present practice which we try to follow and our rules are laid down specifically in that view is to get out what the facts are and if the pleadings do not enable the parties to prove or rely upon these facts, amend the pleadings. If one party is inconvenienced or put to disadvantage, make him who has made the mistake pay the costs. Amend your pleadings, get out all the facts that bear on the issue and determine the matter according to the very rights and merits of the case. It is the client, after all, who has to pay the shot, and it is the client that should be considered, what harm if the record does get a jolt now and then.

I know too many lawyers, and perhaps too many Judges, look upon the client as a simple Scotsman looked upon his wife. Donald met Sandy one day and said to him, "Sandy, ye're lookin' verra glum." Aye," said Sandy, "ma wife's deid." "Oh, man, an' hoo did that happen?' "Weel, ye

66

see," said Sandy, "about a week ago, I was waukened up i' the middle o' the nicht be the woman grainin' unco' grievousan' I says to her, 'What's wrang wi' ye, woman?' and she said, 'Man, but I'm verra seek, wull ye no gang for the doctor?' and I said, 'I canna gang for the doctor in the middle o' the nicht.' But she lay there grainin' sae bad that I could na' sleep, and I happened to think o' some pooders the doctor had left for me the day afore; and sae I got up an' lookit at the directions, an' it said, ‘Take ane every three hours,' an' I thocht she was that bad that I had better gie her eneugh — sae I gied her three at ance, an' in half an hour she was deid, stane cauld, an' I had to gang for the doctor in the middle o' the nicht after a'. Weel, I buried her, an' I'm unco' lonely, for while she had her fau'ts like a' folk, she was a guid wife, tak' her a' thegither; but was it no' God's mercy I didna tak' thae pooders mysel'?" (Laughter.)

In the theory of law we first mentioned the lawyer may have the misfortune and mortification of losing a righteous cause by technicality; but it's God's mercy that he is not personally ruined or deprived of his rights. That is the part of the unhappy client.

Now, gentlemen, if you really desire and so express a desire through your Secretary, that I should write you something on our practice I shall be glad to do so. Perhaps what I have said will be sufficient. I thank you. (Applause.)

(See Appendix for paper, "The Courts of Ontario," by Mr. Justice Riddell.)

Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York:

Mr. President, I wish to move that the thanks of the Association be communicated to Mr. Justice Riddell, with the request that he comply with his very kind offer to provide us with a written report of anything else that is in his extensive and luminous mind. I want to add one word in support of that. When he announced to us that Parliament could do anything except make a man of a woman or a woman of a man, I would say that Professor Wesley of Cambridge University, writing on that subject, said he was not sure that that was quite an accurate statement because, after all, it was a mere question of terms. (Laughter.)

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

The President:

I wish at this point to put upon the records of the Association a note of the fact that the committee appointed by the Association on the reform of procedure of the Courts of this State wrote to the Presidents of the

various Bar Associations in the United States asking for à selection of some member of the Bar to prepare a paper giving an epitome of the practice in that State, and that in response to that letter about one-half of the number of States had been kind enough to furnish such papers already; and I wish, in behalf of the Association, to express our acknowledgment of the kindness of Mr. Lynn Helm, of Los Angeles, California; Mr. John H. Denison, of Denver, Colorado; Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin. of New Haven, Connecticut; Clarence R. Wilson, of Washington, Dist. of Columbia; Alexander W. Smith, of Atlanta, Georgia; Hon. Charles S. Cutting, of Chicago, Illinois; Stephen H. Allen, of Topeka, Kansas; William W. Crawford, of Louisville, Kentucky; Raymond Fellows, of Bangor, Maine; William L. Rawls, of Baltimore, Maryland; Mr. Dan H. Ball, of Marquette, Michigan; Judge Edw. Mayes, of Jackson, Mississippi; Thomas K. Skinker, of St. Louis, Mo.; W. T. Pigott, of Helena, Montana; Samuel C. Eastman, of Concord, New Hampshire; Edw. Q. Keasby, of Newark, New Jersey; Alonzo McMillen, of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Hon. Robt. C. Strong, of Raleigh, North Carolina; John E. Greene, of Minot, North Dakota; Hon. Louis H. Winch, of Cleveland, Ohio; Charles H. Woods, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Henry B. Patton, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William A. Morgan, of Providence, Rhode Island; Martin Mason, of Deadwood, South Dakota; George B. Young, of Newport, Vermont; J. F. Bullitt, of Big Stone Gap, Virginia; John B. Sanborn, of Madison, Wisconsin, for the papers which they have furnished and which will appear in the printed proceedings of the Association.

I am happy to say that we have the privilege of welcoming as guests with us here, and at the banquet this

evening, among those who have furnished these papers, Hon. Charles S. Cutting, William L. Rawls, Raymond Fellows, George B. Young, William A. Morgan, Clarence R. Wilson, William W. Crawford, Edward Q. Keasby, Henry B. Patton, Henry C. Hall and John E. Greene.

I am sure the Association will ratify the expression of appreciation which I have just endeavored to make. We will now go on with the discussion of the report of the Committee on Workmen's Compensation on the Amendment to the Constitution.

J. Hampden Dougherty, of New York:

Mr. President and Gentlemen, after the very interesting and delightful address of Justice Riddell, it is somewhat difficult to resume the discussion of a serious topic. The question, as I understand it, embodied in the resolution before the Association has been misconceived. If you will allow me I will take a moment to re-state it; that you empower your committee, after increasing its numbers, as proposed, to formulate or present resolutions to the Legislature looking to an amendment of the Constitution of the State as a substitute for amendments before the Legislature, or which are likely to be proposed, with reference to the subject of Workmen's Compensation. In other words, you are not empowering this committee to propose any amendment of its own motion. The simple question, as I conceive it, is, and I want to state the subject frankly, will you or will you not clothe this committee with power to commit this Association? Upon that question one gentleman stated that through the City Bar Association, the other evening, by a vote of forty-eight to nineteen, or possibly a larger vote, we condemned the due-process-of-law clause of the State Constitution. That is a misapprehension. That impu

tation is unjust to the Bar Association of the City of New York. We did not condemn anything of the sort. Let me state just what has been done, so you can understand. The Bar Association of the City of New York first asked its committee on Law Reform to make a report. That committee made a report. It was not accepted. The Bar Association of the City of New York appointed a special committee. That special committee made a report to the Association and that report was discussed. Mr. Abbott made a minority report, and after two full discussions the subject was laid over to a third meeting. The report of the Committee on Law Reform, and the report of the special committee, bear in mind, had been distributed to every member of our Association of over 2,000 men. After two evenings of discussion there was a divergence of opinion, as I believe there always has been and will be when you get a body of lawyers together. I thought I might play the role of peacemaker, and I undertook at some little expense of time and with some degree of mentality to formulate what seemed to me might be a compromise. The vote — and I want you to understand this because it meets the imputation against the Bar Association of this city - the vote that evening was first on the amendment of Mr. Abbott, tacked on to the Special Committee's resolution, that nothing in the Special Committee's resolution should be considered as abrogating the due-process-of-law clause. That amendment was voted down. Does that vote put this great Association on record as opposed to an amendment which embodied due process of law? I think not. That vote was made in the light of what that Association intended, which was to accept the substitute proposed by me. That ought to take care of the imputation that we were against due process of law. That is irrelevant