Illinois Bar Association was held up as a model "poor people's court," by Horace G. Lunt of Colorado. The delegate from Indiana urged the devising of a system whereby one appeal should suffice and the parties be saved the burden which in many states is put upon them by the ordering of a retrial. On the other hand there were dele gates who, like Victor G. Gore of Michi gan, found reason for jubilation — he because "we are free from the complexi ties of the codes of New York and Indi ana and equally free from the anti quated system prevailing in Illinois; our constitution gave our Supreme Court power to regulate legal procedure, and practice proceeds under the direct con trol of the Supreme bench." John G. Schaick of Missouri also ventured a boast to the effect that in jury trials that state no longer insists upon a unanimous verdict, but requires merely the con currence of nine men, thus admitting that principle of majority rule which is recognized everywhere in this country except in courts. Alfred G. Ellick of Omaha, representing Nebraska, also urged that the jury system of the coun try be changed so that the verdict of a majority of a jury shall be accepted. The delegate from Washington, H. H. Field, congratulated himself and his brethren that the Legislature of that Pacific state has concerned itself chiefly with substantive law and has not both ered much about questions of practice. The representative of Tennessee, Albert W. Biggs, recalled with pride that his state was not making very large addi tions to the existing tonnage of printed reports. "Every lawsuit can be taken to our highest court," he said, "and the Supreme Court of Tennessee disposed of about 1,500 cases last year; but no opinions were written save in the im portant cases, as the court has abandoned the practice of writing opinions which
247
merely reaffirm a previous decision upon the same question of law." The representative of Wisconsin, B. R. Goggins, suggested that the appellate courts should disregard all errors com mitted in the trial of a case save those which have wrought actual injustice to the litigant who complains of the judg ment. The argument of Mr. Schaick, of Missouri, went further. "Where the jury is instructed in writing," he said, "the Court should require the lawyers to state their objections to these in structions before they are read to the jury, and should not allow error in such instructions, to which no objection is made at the time, to be made the basis of complaint in the upper court as a means on the part of the defeated party of obtaining a reversal. The judge should be permitted to comment upon the evidence, so that the jury in deter mining its weight and credibility may have the benefit of his views. Finally, the Appellate Court should never be permitted to reverse a case unless upon an examination of the whole record it appears that there has been a miscar riage of justice." Major Edgar B. Tolman, president of the Chicago Bar Association, in advo cating a reform of rules of procedure, said : "Nearly all the evils of the present system of procedure are due to the fact that sometimes on both sides of a case there is a desire to delay the adminis tration of justice in the particular con troversy, and for that reason resort is too frequently had to technicalities. Fully half the changes agreed upon as neces sary can be accomplished by rules of court without the slightest change in existing law." John H. Wigmore, Dean of the Col lege of Law of Northwestern University, emphasized the necessity for changes in legal procedure. Delay, expense and
