The paper of Judge Scott, read by that distinguished jurist, was as follows: It is said that a general well founded opinion among the people on any question of public concern or needed reform, will ultimately produce conforming legislation. In a certain degree this proposition is correct. This fact warrants the discussion-perhaps the oft repeated discussion-of questions supposed to affect the public welfare. It is under the belief the public judgment thus created will ultimately become incorporated in general law, or at least in some way become a controlling influence in public affairs, that discussions constantly go on. It is seldom any needed reform is ever incorporated into the laws of the land, or into national polity, except after long continued and earnest discussion. In no other way can public interests be so well advanced. This thought justifies the frequent presentation to all concerned of the subject now before you, viz: the location of the Supreme Court. The Constitution declares "terms of the Supreme Court shall continue to be held in the present grand divisions at the several places now provided for holding the same." It is also provided "the present grand divisions shall be preserved and denominated Southern, Central, and Northern, until otherwise provided by law." In another clause it is declared the "times and places of holding said (Supreme) court may be changed by law." No one doubts that under these provisions of the Constitution, the General Assembly has power to require that all the terms of the Supreme Court shall be held at any designated place that may be fixed by law. The only question is, whether the exigency of the public business to be transacted in the Supreme Court, requires that its sessions should be held at one place. All that I propose to do is, to submit my own opinion on this question, and do not intend to elaborate it or to try to sustain it by any considerable illustration. It is doubtless true no one knows, (I am sure I do not), the views of the members of the Supreme Court upon the proposition to locate the Court at any particular place. Were their wishes in that respect known, I for one would most cheerfully concede they should, as a matter of course, control. It can not be said there is any warrant for the proposition they are either in favor or against any movement that may be made to locate the Court, if any shall be made. That leaves the question open for discussion as one of public policy. Althougth the matter has been subjected to some reflection, no plan has suggested itself against which no objections will lie. Doubtless great diversity of opinion exists both with the bench and the bar, as to how it should be done, and as to the practice that should be adopted in the event the Court should be located. Only a few suggestions will be ventured that have occurred in thinking on the subject. There is one plan that has seemed to me to have many-perhaps more-considerations in its support than any other, and that is there should be but one term of court in each year. It matters little when it should commence. Usually the year for judicial labor begins about the 1st of October. It would be well to leave it largely to the discretion of the Court to adopt rules from time to time in regard to practice. It could be better done in that way than by positive Statutes. But some matters would necessarily have to be fixed by legislation, as, for instance, how and when appeals from, and writs of error to, inferior tribunals would lie. On this subject there would also be much difference of opinion among the bar. One thought ought always to be kept in mind-that is, it is desirable that both civil and criminal cases coming before the Supreme Court, should be disposed of as speedily as possible consistent with the due administration of the law. Sometimes delay in civil suits in this country, where values of property change so rapidly, amounts almost to a denial of justice. Whatever plan would seem to afford the greatest relief in this regard, should of course be adopted, all other things being equal. One plan having seemingly much in its support would be, as already suggested, is to provide by law for but one term of the Supreme Court in each year. That would render it necessary to provide also, by law, appeals should be taken and writs of error sued out without reference to the fact whether the Supreme Court was in session or not. That is, the appeal, for instance, should be taken simply to the "Supreme Court," and should stand for hearing in twenty or thirty days, or in any other time that might be deemed reasonable after the appeal shall have been perfected by giving the usual bond. In like manner a writ of error might be sued out, and the cause set for hearing in the Supreme Court in such reasonable time after service of process. Should this plan or practice be adopted, and the court remain continuously in session, as no doubt it would do, except on account of temporary adjournments, to dispose of accumulated business until it should adjourn at the end of the annual session-say the first of July in each year-there would be no necessity for stay-orders on filing petitions for rehearing, as the practice now is. In such cases the petition could be considered and disposed of at once, and the delay now occasioned by the present practice would be avoided, and the litigation would be sooner ended. But the most marked advantage to follow from the plan proposed, would be observed in the early disposition that could be made of the criminal business that comes to the Supreme Court, as to a court of last resort. By the practice as now regulated by law, if the writ of error issued in a criminal case in the Northern Grand Division should be made a supersedeas by order of the court, or any judge in vacation at any time during or after the September term, in that division, the case could not be heard until the March term next thereafter. Much complaint is heard, and sometimes much censure in no wise just to the court is indulged, on account of what is thougt to be unreasonable delay in the disposition of criminal cases. It will be perceived it is not the fault of the court, but the delays in that class of cases arise out of defective laws on the subject-the remedy for which is alone with the legislative department of the State government. All this delay in criminal cases would be avoided if the plan now proposed, or some better one should be adopted. Criminal cases could then be heard in the Supreme Court in twenty or thirty days, or within any other time that might be thought to be reasonable after the issuing and service of process, or the suing out of a writ of error. It could be provided criminal business should have precedence over all civil suits pending in the court. The advantage to be secured in this respect alone would make it all important the sessions of the Supreme Court should be held at one place. It might be thought best to fix two or more terms, as is now provided by law, shall be holden in the respective Grand Divisions, and to provide that appeals shall be taken to, and writs of error sued out to, the next succeeding term after taking or suing out the same. While some objections might be suggested to this plan, it would still be a vast improvement on the present system. It is possible it could be so provided, either by statute or rules of practice, that the beneficial results it is thought would be obtained by the one term plan suggested, could also be secured by the two or more term system. But how that can be done is not quite apparent. All this, and more of the details, however, are within the legislative discretion as shall be deemed best for the public interests. It is apparent, however, there should be but one court and one clerk. The theory of the constitution is, there is but one Supreme Court in the State, and whether holding its sessions at different localities, it is always the same court, It is an anomaly in our present system that one court should have three distinct clerks, each independent of the other. In this matter, private interest, if any exists, should give way to public welfare. Whatever plan would best conserve public convenence should be adopted. The great end to be attained in the administration of the law is to secure equal and exact justice to all citizens, and that as speedily as can be done consistently always with due deliberation and careful consideration. To enable them to accomplish this great work, the judges of the Supreme Court should be afforded every possible convenience, and whatever hinders or has a tendency to hinder their labors should be swept away. There is another thing that may be suggested in this connection. If the Supreme Court should be required to hold its sessions at only one place, of course it should be at the capital of the State. In that event it would add greatly to the convenience for the transacting of public business, if a separate building should be constructed for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court, in which good rooms might be provided for each judge of the court, and where rooms thoroughly fire proof might be provided, for the safe keeping of the records and transcripts and other files now in the several divisions, and such as may accumulate hereafter. Much more space for this purpose is needed than has ever been set apart, in either division. No one who has never examined the matter has any idea of the immense amount of records, transcripts and other files now stored in the respective court houses in the Northern and Southern Grand Divisions, in places totally unfit for depositing important papers, and where they are without any adequate protection from fire or other causes that might destroy them. As before remarked, the rooms now provided for storing transcripts and files are so inadequate, it is impracticable to so arrange them, that old records or files when wanted can be readily found. If nothing else is done, more and safer depositories for old records and files should be provided, and it is of the utmost importance it should be done at an early day. All that has been attempted is to give expression to personal views. There is one opinion, however, in which most if not all of us will perhaps concur, and that is, the Supreme Couut of this State has been "on wheels" long enough, and that it is time it should have a permanent abiding place. The exigency of the public business to be transacted in that Court would seem to make it imperative. CHICAGO, October 14, 1889. E. CALLAHAN, ESQ., President Illinois State Bar Association: DEAR SIR: I have your favor of the 24th inst., desiring my views on the desirability of locating and holding the Supreme Court of the State at one place only. During the time I occupied a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court, and since, I have thought much upon the subject of the location of that Court, and of the times or terms when it should be held, and am well convinced that both should be left to the determination of the Court itself. There can be no doubt that the judges of that court are better qualified to judge when and where that court should be held, than the legislature can be; and if they are honest men, and may be intrusted with the final decision of the causes which come before them, they certainly should be intrusted with the less responsible duties of determining when and where they shall hold the terms of the court to hear and decide those causes. They know the conditions of their dockets, and the exigencies of their business better than anybody else can, and so are best qualified to judge how the public interest may be best promoted in this regard. Why should they not be intrusted with the power to determine when and where they shall hear and determine the causes which are brought before them? Who can know as well as they in what way the profession, as well as themselves, can be best accommodated in this regard? To withhold from them this power, which it must be conceded they are best qualified to exercise, bespeaks a distrust in the integrity and discretion of the eminent jurists who compose our Supreme Court, which I am sure is not really felt in any quarter. They are, and I trust ever will be, entitled to our utmost confidence, and I am sure would willingly take the responsibility, which the suggested change would impose upon them, as readily as the far greater responsibilities which they have always hitherto discharged. This, too, would remove from the legislative department, matters in which private interests may sometimes be supposed to have an influence. Should these powers be vested in the Court, we may well assume they would be discreetly exercised by the adoption of rules which would give all necessary stabilities as to times and places. If we have confidence in our courts, let us manifest it in such a way as to strengthen their hands in the discharge of their greater responsibilities. I would also give them supreme control over venues, believing that they would exercise that control wisely and discreetly. Very truly yours, JOHN DEAN CATON. ROCKFORD, ILL., December 27, 1889. E. CALLAHAN, Esq., President of Illinois State Bar Association. MY DEAR SIR-In answer to your request for the expression of my views as to locating the sitting of the Supreme Court of the State at one place only, instead of at different places, as now provided, I would say that I am in favor of the proposition. The change would insure fuller cooperation of the judges in their work. Under the present system, the judges during vacation, when their opinions are mostly written, are separated at their several homes, away from sufficient libraries, and there is not opportunity for consultation with each other. Unforeseen difficulties will present themselves there, rendering mutual conference most desirable. The holding of the Court at one place only, would tend to drawing the residence of the judges at such place, and would result in the keeping of them together more of the time than at present. The tendency would be to make the opinions more the actual work of the whole Court, be promotive of harmony and consistency therein, and improvement in quality. The proposed change would make each session of the Court one for the whole State, instead of a particular division thereof, as now. Not infrequenty now, when the Court is in session, there is found urgent need of making application to the Court in respect of some cause or matter within the jurisdiction of some other division, and action must be delayed until a session of the Court comes around in that division. With the Court located at one place only, at any session business might be transacted for any part of the State. Of especial advantage would this be found in criminal cases, enabling their hearing to be expedited, and avoiding consequent increase of imprisonment from delay, in awaiting the recurrence of the Court's session in a particular division. It is a great inconvenience for the records of the Court to be scattered in different places, as they now are. The Court's whole records should be present at the place of its sitting, ready of access there. As it is now, while the Court is in session in one division, there arises constant need of the examination of the records in some other division, for the inspection of unpublished opinions on file there. There is continual necessity of sending records from one division to another, involving expense, hazard to the records, and very much inconvenience. With but one place of the Court's session, there would be need of maintaining only one law library for the Court, instead of several, as at present, and the State could afford to furnish, for its Supreme Court, one well equipped law library, adequate to all its needs, which is not now the case, and its judges be spared the humiliating necessity, as has been within the writer's experience, of resort to the private law library of a local bar association, to consult authorities not to be found in the Court's own library. The constant packing up and moving of the judges from place to place, like a strolling troupe of performers, to hold their sessions, entails loss of time, discomfort, and is rather belittling to the dignity of the Court. The public interest, the convenience and usefulness of the Court, its character and dignity, call for the striking away of its present feature of itinerancy. Very respectfully yours, BENJ. R. SHELDON. E. CALLAHAN, President Illinois State Bar Association: DEAR SIR:-The manner of doing business by the Supreme Court for some years, has not been satisfactory to me, nor do I think to the profession generally. An impression prevails that cases do not have the deliberate consideration of all the members of the court, which they would have if the court was held at the place where the judges resided. If the sessions of the court were to be permanently located at Springfield, the judges, during the terms of their office, would probably make that their residence; and thus being together permanently, would, in the decision of cases and the preparation of opinions, counsel more fully and freely than it is possible for them to do when they are together a few weeks at a 34 PROCEEDINGS, ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. time, and that from the place of their residence. I think the decisions of the court would be more satisfactory to the profession and receive better consideration from all the judges, if the court were to be held at one place. Yours very truly, 15. HISTORIAN'S REPORT. LYMAN TRUMBULL. The report was presented and read by the Historian of the Association, Hon. J. B. Bradwell, and embraced the year ending January 11, 1890. Being too voluminous for publication, it should, however, be here recorded, that it consisted of carefully prepared historical notices of the lives, character, and public and professional services of the following members of the bar of this State, deceased during the period named. John Mattock, of Chicago, Hon. John S. Lee, of Peoria, Judge Grant Goodrich, of Chicago, Hon. Elijah M. Haines, of Waukegan, April 26, 1889. June 8, 1889. August 8, 1889. September 2. 1889. Hon. John Hutchinson, of Chicago, 66 The cordial invitation of Governor and Mrs. Fifer, tenderdering a public reception to the officers and members of the Association, at the Executive Mansion, was accepted for the evening of January 14, 1890. The attendance was general, and the occasion marked by that "spirit of brotherhood," to cherish which, is one of the objects of the Association. W. L. GROSS, Secretary. |