ADDRESS

OF

EDWARD J. PHELPS,

PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION.

GENTLEMEN OF THE ASSOCIATION:-Your Constitution, which requires of your president to "communicate the noteworthy changes in statute law" since our last meeting, has imposed upon me a dry subject, and one I have not found easy to deal with. Only five states (Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, Iowa, and Kentucky) have been so fortunate as to have escaped a meeting of their legislature during the past year. One other (California) has been happily relieved from the usual consequences of such a session, by its law-makers becoming so deeply involved in controversy among themselves as to be unable to agree upon any other legislation. The modern invention of the "dead-lock" is not without its advantages..

From each of the other states comes an octavo volume of fresh enactments, on an infinite variety of subjects. To digest all this incongruous material, to classify and present it here within any reasonable limits, so as to render the result even intelligible, not to say interesting, is difficult. But for the felicitous manner in which it has been accomplished by my distinguished predecessors in office, I should have thought it impossible. I am compelled to pass over most of it hastily, and to dismiss with mere mention many topics, which if time allowed, would invite more careful statement, and more extended comment.

I should add also, in explanation of inaccuracies that may be hereafter apparent, that while by the courtesy of members I have been furnished with all available information, the sessions of various legislatures have been protracted to so recent a period, that from two states (New Hampshire and Indiana) I have been unable to obtain any report, and from several others only abstracts and titles of their session laws, at a late period.

In Federal legislation but two acts of special interest are to be noticed.

The first grants lands to the territories of Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Idaho, and Wyoming, for the founding of future universities. It is not for us, nor for our generation, to anticipate the advantages that will be derived by this forethought, to the great states that will some day surround the solitudes thus appropriated.

The other act referred to, provides for the registration and protection of trade-marks. It was enacted in consequence of the former law on the subject being held unconstitutional.

This statute limits the right of registration under it, to those trade-marks used in commerce with foreign nations which afford similar privileges to citizens of the United States, leaving other trade-marks to the protection of the general rules of law,

or to state enactments.

Turning over the mass of state legislation, while some of it is useless, some of it ill-advised, if not positively pernicious, and some of it probably invalid, there is still a considerable portion that is undoubtedly beneficial, and that shows in some directions a real advance. It is pleasant to advert first to that which is most salutary.

Various statutes have been passed for the better protection of human life. Illinois, Arkansas, Delaware, and South Carolina have prohibited the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on the person, and Pennsylvania the sale of them and of gunpowder to minors. In Nebraska cities are authorized to pre

vent the carrying of concealed weapons; a provision of questionable validity.

In Arkansas, West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky, acts regulating the sale of poisons, and requiring them to be conspicuously marked, have been adopted.

Laws restricting the business of the dealing out of medicines to those licensed for that purpose, upon suitable qualifications, have been enacted in Illinois, West Virginia, Missouri, Connecticut, and Wisconsin.

Provisions regulating the storage of inflammable oils have been adopted in Wisconsin and Arkansas.

In Connecticut and Maine, fire escapes have been required to be attached to manufactories. And in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee statutes for the protection of miners against explosions have been passed.

In Ohio and Michigan, provision has been made for inspection of buildings, and in the latter state, of coal oils, with a view to their safety.

In Vermont, a protection against danger from the bursting of water reservoirs has been devised, under which application to judicial authority for a survey of such structures, and repair if found necessary, may be made by inhabitants of the vicinity, when danger is apprehended.

Various provisions affecting the safety of passenger transportation on railways have been adopted.

In Vermont, requiring brakes on all passenger trains that can be operated from the engine; prescribing the size of bridges, and the management of trains at crossings.

In Massachusetts, prohibiting the employment of color-blind persons in any position requiring power to distinguish color signals, and providing for the examination of those so employed. And giving an action to the representatives, in case of death resulting from negligence of a railway company.

In Rhode Island, prohibiting the lighting of cars with certain inflammable oils.

In Missouri, forbidding the transportation of nitro-glycerine, and in Michigan that of inflammable oils, on any train used for the conveyance of passengers.

In Michigan, requiring all such trains to be provided with axes, saws, and lifting jacks, and making provision for the protection of the lives of employees.

In Vermont, forbidding the leaving of hand cars, and other objects calculated to frighten horses, in the highway near railroad crossings.

In Tennessee, a supervision of roads and rolling stock in matters affecting the safety of passengers has been given to the railroad commissioners.

The advance in the direction of adequate laws against murder has not been great.

South Carolina has passed an act against duelling, and has also provided that where a person dies in one county in consequence of a homicidal injury received in another, prosecution may be instituted in either.

In Texas, the form of all indictments has been greatly simplified.

Vermont has adopted a provision obviating the necessity of describing in an indictment for murder the precise means by which it was committed.

And in Mississippi, a change of venue in criminal cases is authorized on motion of the state.

In Texas, it is enacted that intoxication or insanity from excessive use of ardent spirits shall not be a defence in indictments for crime, but may be given in evidence to reduce the degree of murder.

On the other hand, the facilities for the escape of assassins have been further enlarged in Michigan, Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Jersey, by making them witnesses in their own behalf; and in the latter state, by allowing wives to testify in criminal cases in defence of their husbands. All experience proves that criminals will perjure themselves to avoid convic

tion, and that women of a certain class will habitually swear falsely to protect their husbands; and the influence over the average jury of an attractive or adroit woman is proverbial, especially in causes where sympathy can be excited.

The authors of such provisions lose sight of the salutary principle of the common law, that requires the sources of evidence laid before a jury to be free from suspicion, so that the testimony shall be at least more likely to be true than false.

There is no subject within the domain of legislation, in my judgment, in which improvement is so needed as in the law against murder. The practical immunity that crime enjoys in some sections of the country, and the delay, difficulty, and uncertainty in enforcing the law almost everywhere, is a reproach to our civilization. Efforts to save assassins from punishment are so strenuous, the chances of escape so numerous, and the proceedings so protracted, that the law has few terrors for those disposed to violate it.

It is time to be rid of the mischievous idea, that in proportion to the heinousness of crime the chance of escape from the consequences should be increased. The proposition should be reversed. That all reasonable safeguards should surround even possible innocence, lawyers will be foremost to maintain. But we need a system of criminal justice that shall secure the prompt and certain punishment of those who can be legally proved guilty of murder, and a curtailment of that complicated machinery which affords no additional protection to the innocent, and is a constant means of escape for the guilty.

Various regulations for the protection of public health have been adopted in different states. The most prominent and the most useful are those regulating the practice of medicine and surgery, adopted in the states of Pennsylvania, Arkansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, and Wisconsin. They restrict the practice to those, who upon evidence of suit. able qualifications, are licensed by a board of competent exam. iners, or are graduates of regular medical schools. Such was