Lewis, John H

English

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 9 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 9 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss9/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEAt this time attention is naturally centered on the annual meeting,to be held at Valley City on Sept. 4 and 5. Our efficient secretary, andthe hospitable lawyers of Valley City, have the program well in hand.As'usual, the securing of an out of the state speaker is fraught with lastminute disappointments, and his name cannot yet be announced. Thespeakers from our own bar have been announced in a previous issue ofBAR BRIEES. We shall have the pleasure of having with us as our guestsa representative of the Manitoba Bar Association and, I hope, the presi-dent of the South Dakota Bar Association.I hope the attendance at Valley City will be large. Our bar associa-tion, like many others, has been through various vicissitudes, and at timeshas had a struggle for existence. Since its incorporation by the legisla-ture, interest seems to have increased consistently from year to year.Some of the meetings years ago were attended only by a corporal's guard.I have had the pleasure of attending most of them for many years, and,speaking generally, it has been a pleasure. I have felt it to be a duty alsofor a lawyer, when he reasonably can, to take part in the organized ac-tivities of his profession. There is so much that is waiting for us to do,that we can do if we really try; and I think we are trying harder, and ac-complishing more, year by year.It is hoped that most of the committee reports will be printed in thisissue of BAR BRIEFs, and they should be well worth careful attention.The splendid suggestion of Secretary Wenzel in regard to youngchildren at the Mandan Training School has attracted much attentionand is bearing fruit. I have appointed a committee, with Judge Chris-tianson as chairman and H. F. Horner as vice-chairman, to study thisproblem and to present a reporf to the annual meeting, looking towardthe passage of legislation which shall give these youngsters a square deal.This is the kind of reform which the Bar Association should bend all itsenergies toward accomplishing.JOHN H. LEWIS,President.REPORTS OF COMMITTEESFEE SCHEDULEMy report will necessarily be brief.I have received perhaps a half a dozen inquiries during the yearfrom attorneys who were in doubt about some item of the schedule.I have endeavored to ascertain, as much as possible, whether theschedule was being used and its standards maintained by the bar gener-ally. From information obtained I believe that it is. Here and there Ifind complaints by attorneys that it is being violated. The worst of-fenders that have come to my notice are in the bar of the City of GrandForks. I am sorry to say that the complaints that have come to me havebeen against some of the leading attorneys of that city. This is regret-table, inasmuch as the schedule is certainly low enough for attorneys tomake a living wage.To my mind, the schedule of fees involves more than an economicproposition. An ethical principle is involved, as lawyers who chargeless than the stipulated amount are not only unfair to themselves and their

The President\u27s Page

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 8 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 8 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss8/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEAs the President looks out of his office window on this hot Julyday, and thinks how much pleasanter it would be in the garden, whilehis fellows are rushing through the afternoon's work to get out to thegolf links, the whole question of vacations comes to mind, and a broadersubject than vacations-how hard should we mortals work?A century or two ago manufacturers thought they could make nomoney unless they forced their employees to work twelve or fourteenhours a day. Vacations would have been scorned if they had ever beenheard of. Perhaps they were right; what was there to do with a vacationthen? Nothing much except to get drunk, and for that the money waslacking. When they were forced, in spite of their cries of approachingruin, to cut down the daily hours to ten, they discovered to theirimmense surprise that their more refreshed workers accomplished morein ten hours than previously in several more. Henry Ford is satisfiedthat a forty-hour week is better yet.In England the barrister is apt to breakfast at nine, get to his officeat ten, stop for afternoon tea at four, and leave soon afterward. Herelawyers are regarded as something akin to loafers if they work only'from nine to five.Certainly lawyers have no right to be loafers; there is, unfortunately,too much for them to do in the world. But how can they work togreatest advantage, for their clients and themselves?It is a good principle to work when you work and play when youplay, and to do both in strenuous Rooseveltian manner. But not toostrenuous. In the war we did things we would have thought impossible,but the strain of the war told afterwards nevertheless.The custom of closing offices at noon or one o'clock on Saturdaysis penetrating to the larger towns in North Dakota. It may not besuitable to the smaller villages, where Saturday is still a great tradingand consulting day. Some lawyers say they cannot afford to lose theirSaturday afternoons, but do they really lose anything? Personally, ifI can forget from Saturday noon to Monday morning that there is sucha thing as law, I am satisfied I can do twice as much work Monday.It is not the amount of work that counts; it is its efficiency. Wehave all seen men, in law as in every other trade, who potter along insuch a way that ten hours can accomplish little. We have seen mensuch slaves to detail that they can never-catch the broader implications ofa problem. And, of course, we have also seen men who for lack ofattention to detail come to false and fatal conclusions. It is hard toimprove on the golden mean.We must all do more or less drudgery. Probably it is good for oursouls. Young men must be willing to do a good deal of it. As we growolder, if we have developed our minds as we ought, we should havesecured a release from the worst of it, should have reached the placewhere our judgments are reasonably quick, where our experience has avalue, and where we can, not indeed take our ease, but do our work witha smoothness and facility that is gained only by long practice. And thatwill give us more time to think of bigger problems-of how the admin-BAR BRIEFSistration of justice can be improved, the economic machinery oiled abit, the world made a little better as we go along.And so, as soon as I have mailed this screed to the Secretary, I amgoing up to my garden to admire the delphiniums.-JOHN H. LEwis, President.JURY TRIALSContinuing the article by John H. Wigmore, of which the Mayissue carried items i and 2, covering Demerits Erroneously Imputedto Jury Trial, and Demerits Non-inherent in Jury Trial, and the Juneissue the three items of Demerits Inherent in Jury Trial but Remedi-able, Demerits Alleged but not True in Fact, and Demerits Inherentand not Remediable, this issue takes up the sixth item, under thehead of:MeritsSupposing that all the remediable demerits be cleared away, andjury trial be revised to its utmost inherent efficiency, the questionwill still remain, "Is it superior to judge trial ?"The writer believes that it is, in that it possesses four merits thatcan never be possessed by judge trial. The first two of the four areso vital, yet so seldom appreciated, that they will here be emphasized.i. Prevention of Popular Distrust of Official Justice: Mostpolitical revolutions have had either their origin or their touch-off insome phase of the administration of justice. The Peter Zenger trialfor seditious libel in New York in the 1700's, James Otis' speechagainst general warrants in Massachusetts, the Seven Bishops' trialin London, the Boston Massacre, the Dred Scott case, John Brown'shanging-all the way back in our annals we see these notable land-marks. And this is because the legislative law, as well as the com-mon law, gets enforced through the courts, and not by the legislaturesthemselves.Hence, the popular attitude toward the administration of justiceshould be one of respect and confidence. Bureaucratic, purely officialjustice, can never receive such confidence. The one way to secureit is to give the citizen-body itself a share in the administration ofjustice. And that is what jury trial does. And judge trial wouldnever do it.In the Civil War of 1861-65 the military draft broke down, for amain reason, because it was conducted by Federal military officerssent out into the towns and villages; they came as strangers, withuniformed independent State authority. In the World War of 1917-18this error was avoided. The draft was administered by 4,5oo boardsof three men each, chosen from the very locality on recommendationof the mayor. They were given no uniform (though several werethoughtless enough to ask for it) ; they had no soldiers and no bailiffs;they were just respectable fellow-citizens. The draft was a complete

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 6 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 6 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss6/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEDoes the jury need to be saved from its friends? In the days ofmonarchical tyranny, it is easily conceivable that this institution wasthe greatest bulwark of the people's rights; and today, when that par-ticular, danger is past, it is a bulwark against the tyranny of law. Lawin its nature must be a strict and rather iron-bound thing, else it wouldnot be law at all, but anarchy. Fortunately, men are bigger andbroader than their institutions, laws and doctrines; and the province ofmaking exceptions to fit hard cases is particularly suitable for the jury,who can more easily perform that function than can a technicallytrained judge.For many years, and today in England and our own federalcourts, the jury was an all-powerful trier of questions of fact, butunder the supervision of an unbiased expert, the judge. The superin-tending power of the judge has disappeared in most states, and theone unprejudiced man of experience in the court room is absolutelydisqualified from giving any help to the jury in their determination ofquestions of fact. The judge has become little more than a time-keeper, and must, as one jurist remarked, learn to model his conducton the meek and lowly oyster.This change has apparently been caused by two things which arealmost one, democratic dislike of even the semblance of authority, andsuspicion of experts. Democracy has many virtues, and some un-doubted faults; among which its unwillingness to use experts is pos-sibly the greatest. Yet democracy is the very form of governmentwhich most needs experts; and in our complicated modern life it per-haps cannot survive permanently unless it learns to make use of themand place a certain amount of confidence in them.The suggestion is frequently heard that a substitute for jury trialmust be found. Those of us who believe that the institution has avital part in our civilization wish it preserved, and to that end desirethat it be given the most efficient form. The subject is a large one,meriting careful study, but two main features easily suggest them-selves; the formation of the jury, and expert aid to it.The theory of the jury is that it should be a cross-section of thebody politic; but if the better citizens endeavor to escape jury service,the less desirable court it, and mere newspaper acquaintance with acase of public concern, such as intelligent men generally have, is to betreated as a disqualification, then we will get in practice sub-standardjuries. A selective system, it would seem, might well be applied tothe panel.It is indeed sometimes said that if the judge may comment on theevidence, he will exercise too great an influence on the minds of jury-men; but such a statement is calculated to provoke a smile from thoseacquainted with our democratic fellow-citizens. Bowing too low toexpert opinion is not a fault of Americans.Unless a sincere effort is made to make the jury more efficient, itsexistence may well be endangered.-JoHN H. Lzwis, President.JURY TRIALSBeginning this month we publish, in three installments, the gistof an article by John H. Wigmore in the April issue of the Journal ofthe American Judicature Society, in which he voices his opinion con-

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 3 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss3/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEChanging conditions have caused a demand for changed require-ments in the admission of lawyers. We live in a world utterly differentfrom that in which the older ones among us were brought up. Thecircuit-riding lawyer of Lincoln's day, with his saddle bags, was efficientfor his time, as were the roads, knee-deep in mud, over which he travelled.Wealth, comfort and knowledge, none of them existed as we know them.In the glamour of distance, those were interesting and romantic days; insome respects they were undoubtedly sterling days, when men weretested by certain tests that they do not face today. Our own tests areof a different kind, but perhaps not much different at the bottom.Unless we are prepared to give up the automobile, the bathtub and theradio, we can hardly, with reason, ask to give up the other developmentsof the last twenty-five years.A few years ago study in a law office was really possible, becauselife flowed on at a gentler pace; and there was not the same chance tostudy elsewhere. In this age of specialists the law school is the inevitablecenter of legal education; and today, with changed conditions, everyoneworthy can go to it. The controversy, which raged at bar associationsas recently as ten or even five years ago, between legal education inoffice or law school, has run its course and quietly died away. Today'squestion is whether a certain amount of pre-legal education, generallyput at two years of college, shall be required.There is no magic about two years at college. There is no magicabout four, or six. The "educated fool" is as much of a fool as he everwas, and the man of ability and ambition will take his education wherehe finds it, and take it all his life long. But rough and ready tests haveto be employed. Today, to go to college is about as easy as rolling off alog, and the difficulty the colleges are facing is to get rid of too manyapplicants.Law, like everything else, is just one part of life. Life cannot beseparated into water-tight compartments. A man cannot be a goodlawyer if he is poor at everything else. And a certain acquaintance withthe knowledge the world has accumulated, particularly in kindred do-mains like history and economics, is essential for the best service. Infact, though we sometimes say law is founded on logic, it is reallyfounded, in large part, on intuition and experience. The business of thecourts is not so much to reason out a proposition in the laboratory as tofeel out its practical application and limitations in actual life.So, sooner or later, we shall have a requirement that the younglawyer shall show a considerable degree of general education. It doesnot matter much, perhaps, whether we adopt a fixed rule today inNorth Dakota. Statutes may hasten or slow up a change that the timesdemand, but that is all; they cannot stop it.-PwsmiT JOHN H. Lmwis.

North Dakota Law Review Volume 4 Number 12 Article 2 1927 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1927) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 4 : No. 12 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol4/iss12/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGE*A list of committee chairmen and vice-chairmen was published inOctober Bar Briefs. The full list of committee members will appear inDecember Bar Briefs, the issue which contains a report of the annualmeeting.Of eighteen committees, only two chairmen remain as before.These are Mr. Herigstad on the Citizenship Committee and Judge Mc-Kenna on the American Law Institute committee. It was felt that noone else could take the place of these .experienced men, who have donesuch remarkable work on their committees. For the balance, it seemedthat the advantage of getting new men to work for the Associationcounterbalanced the disadvantage of dispensing with the active servicesof those who have served us so well in the past. Men who have beencommittee chairmen are going to work for the Association anyway,and we want as large a part of the membership as possible to be active.In appointing these committees, I have striven to do several things-to gain the interest of as large a body of lawyers as possible, to giveat least proportional representation to the younger men, and to includeevery shade of opinion, legal, economic or political. The committee onCriminal Law should not be composed of all prosecutors; the other sidehas a point of view to present. The committee on Law Enforcement,the committee on Public Utilities, may well contain men who have notspecialized in these subjects, and who can give us the general ratherthan a particular viewpoint. These are illustrations of what it wassought to do in appointing the committees.There has, in my opinion, been far too much acrimonious dispute inthis State of late years over economic questions. Lawyers have takentheir part in this internecine conflict. That there should be differencesof opinion is not only inevitable, it is highly desirable. Without suchconflicting views no changes would be brought about, and we shouldstill live in the Dark Ages. But intelligent and broadminded men, suchas we believe ourselves to be, ought not to allow such differences to de-generate into quarrels. They should be an inspiration and an incentiveto progress, not a cause of bitter hatred. We can work together for acommon end all the more effectively because we argue about the means,and, so arguing, learn more than we knew. With this in view I havetried to take particular pains to have different economic viewpointsrepresented on our committees.In spite of the fact that we have too many laws, there is muchlegislation within our particular province that might well be passed forthe good of the State. To particularize would invade the province ofthe committees, and would bring in a mass of suggestions, only half di-gested. Committees which find desirable reforms in their particularline should communicate with the Legislative committee, so that it may,study propositions in ample time before the Legislature meets, anddecide which it ought to urge at this time. And it should, it goes with-out saying, make the test, not the interests of the lawyers, but the in-terests of the people of the State.-JoHN H. LEWIS, President.

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 2 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss2/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEAs the session of the Legislature starts, we all realize anew thatwe have too many laws, and yet know that changing conditions demandnew legislation. The spirit of law making in this country has beenwrong. Men, seeing an evil, assume that a law can remedy it, and rushto ill considered legislation without any study of the nature of the evilor the effective remedy. Law can never be a panacea for all ourtroubles. For such evils as it can alleviate, it can do so much moreeffectively if the situation is studied carefully beforehand, and legislationframed with the aid of lawyers who have had experience in the workingof existing laws.Lawyers ought to be in the forefront of this work. The Bar Asso-ciation, as a body, ought to be in the forefront when proposals havebeen carefully discussed at its meetings and a policy adopted. It is opento grave doubt, though there may be emergencies justifying exceptions,whether the Association as such should take any stand on proposed legis-lation that has not been the subject of consideration at its annual meeting.On subjects that have not been considered by the Association, butcome up in the Legislature, let us hope that the lawyers of the State, asindividuals, will give them their consideration and study, and give theLegislature such aid as they are able in arriving at a wise solution.On one subject particularly there is practical unanimity, and theAssociation has taken a definite stand. That is for a substantial in-crease of salary for judges. The Committee on Legislation is support-ing the bill, under a mandate from the Association. All state salariesare probably too low, but the evil is a comparatively minor one as appliedto officials who hold office for a short term, and a crying disgrace asapplied to judges whose life work is on the Bench. A judge, once elected,loses his law practice, and can with great difficulty regain it. The timeis fast approaching when we cannot get efficient men on the Bench forthe salaries we pay. A few thousand dollars spent in paying good menwill save itself many times over. It is to be hoped that the lawyers ofthe State as a whole will take an active interest in this act of belatedjustice.We should make no apology for lobbying. Honest and aboveboardlobbying is honorable and useful activity. No men are perfect, and thelegislators have far too much to do to be able to give every propositionthe study it deserves. They should, and I believe they will, welcomeaid given them in good faith. The lobbying which is reprehensible, andwhich has brought the word into disrepute, is the endeavor to secureor block legislation in behalf of special interests, while concealing thelobbyer's connection with or employment by such interests. That isplain dishonesty, as much as if a Judge on the Bench were to be secretlyretained by one of the parties to a lawsuit.-PREsmENT JOHN H. LEwis.REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA DECISIONSA. E. ANGUSHulett vs. Snook. Board of Township Supervisors entered anorder laying out a public highway and awarding damages to the ownerof the land taken for highway purposes. The owner appealed to districtcourt, and thereafter the Board entered a second order, the first orderbeing defective, in that it did not describe the land properly. No appealtaken from the second order. Trial on appeal from first order, plaintiffappearing in person and by attorney and stipulating that the appeal

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 10 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 10 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss10/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEThe following excerpts are from the address of President JohnH. Lewis at Valley City, September 4th:"We cannot have a reasonable degree of law enforcement in ademocracy unless we have the spirit of the people behind the laws; wecannot have a reasonable degree of law enforcement unless we have areasonable degree of voluntary law observance. And that we cannothave if we insist on having too many laws. Because in its nature lawmust be fixed and iron-clad, it should deal only with the main situa-tions of life, leaving much to be regulated by public opinion. Whenthis principle is violated, as it is universally in this country, disobe-dience and disrespect for law, and inability to enforce it, are the in-evitable results. I am not speaking of that bone of contention, thatleading subject of discussion and dispute, the eighteenth amendment;whatever be our views on that, and they are almost as many as thereare men to discuss it, it deals with a large problem, probably with anextra-hazardous instrument, and may well justify a solution of its-own. I am speaking of prohibitions in general. When a man cannotlegally smoke in a public dining room or drive an automobile throughtown faster than ten miles an hour the result is a foregone conclusion.The sport of law-breaking will last as long as the sport of law-making."If in some degree I criticise the courts, it is because every onehas the right to criticise them; that is the privilege of a free citizen,and should go hand in hand with respect for the courts. They are,of course, no more perfect than the lawyers or the farmers. Theyare the product of our system, and it is surprising that, all in all,they should be so good. When Chief Justice Marshall made his fam-ous statement that 'this is a government of laws and not of men,' hesaid something that is splendid for its psychological effect and as thestatement of an ideal, but that as a statement of fact is arrant non-sense. No judge worthy of his salt would be consciously influencedby considerations of politics, friendship, or his personal economic orreligious views; no judge whatever can help being unconsciously in-fluenced by them all, just as none of the rest of us can help it. Toprotect him as far as possible from such influence, we owe it to himand to ourselves to give him a long tenure of office, a sufficientsalary, and such method of appointment or election as shall reduceto a minimum the inevitable human influences. And, in the mean-time, as well as when the millenium arrives, we owe him respect,cooperation, indulgence for the human weaknesses which he shareswith the rest of us, and admiration for the way in which he doeshis duty under difficult circumstances."Of the popular criticisms of the Bar, perhaps that which hasthe largest measure of truth is the charge of excessive conservatism.Many prominent lawyers are indeed thoroughly progressive, leadersof reform, but many cling to the idea that 'whatever is, is right'-in economic matters, probably largely through their association withproperty interests; in other matters, sometimes through the dislikeof learning new ways."Our original Constitution was a compromise document, and themore praiseworthy and successful for that very reason; but it wasBAR BRIEFSnot written by the finger of God, and from time to time has called,and will still call for amendment. Such amendments, made in a legalway, are always in order, whether they relate to the liquor traffic orto rules of property. Let us hope that we will not fall into the mis-take that we have so thoroughly made with our state constitutions,and, as some think, we have done with the eighteenth amendment, offilling it with minor and shackling provisions, expressive only of tem-porary opinion. I am in thorough sympathy with the kind of con-servatism that refuses to rush into unconsidered reforms, and insistsoi thinking problems out before making changes; but lawyers, whoshould be leaders of public opinion in this work, cannot escape theresponsibility for studying abuses and suggesting solutions; and arenot justified in merely sitting back and picking flaws in proposed laws,without doing constructive work to find a remedy."In closing, may I thank you all, not only for the honor bestowedand for the year which I have been privileged to spend in trying todo a little for the advancement of the profession, and through it forthe interests of the public, but for the hearty cooperation which hasmade the year so pleasant? It has been an experience never to beforgotten, and has strengthened my admiration for the profession towhich we belong. May it always be a leader in working for the publicgood, and hold high the torch of progress through the generationsto come !"ANNUAL MEETING NOTESL. T. Sproul was the very efficient "go-getter" for the ValleyCity local committee.The addresses presented were of a high order, and recognized assuch by those present.Vice President Bagley couldn't explain what a "tittle" was oris. President Bagley will, doubtless, do so at the next meeting.President Lewis presided with the art of a diplomat, not the axof a dictator, restoring, we believe, some of the lost prestige of Haw-wad hereabouts."Uncle" Jim Johnson, of Minot, the effervescing "inviter," failedto invite on this occasion, but he sparkled with all of his old-time vigorin other respects.Chief Justice Burke and President Lewis seem to be agreed thatthe long-distance toll service of the Bell Telephone Company needsregulation or supervision.The officers elected for 1929 are: Horace Bagley, Towner,President; A. M. Kvello, Lisbon, Vice President; R. E. Wenzel,Bismarck, Secretary-Treasurer.

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 7 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 7 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss7/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEThe work of the Citizenship and Americanization committee,under 0. B. Herigstad of Minot, as chairman for the last two years,has been splendid. Those who attended the last meeting of the BarAssociation will remember the high grade essay on the Constitutionwhich took first prize, read as a part of the program by the youngauthor, Helen Pravda of Velva. This year the committee is conduct-ing a similar contest among the grade schools on the subject, "WhyEvery Citizen Should Vote." The best essays from each county arebeing selected locally, and those from each congressional district arebeing judged by three judges in each district, and prizes awarded;and the best three from the State are then being judged by a final com-mittee. This is a magnificent work for the development of Americancitizenship, carried on in an eminently practical manner. Last year'stheoretical study of the Constitution is this year being reinforced by astudy of the practical duty of taking part in government. The com-mittee felt, wisely I believe, that the grades were the right place to con-duct this educational contest.I know of no better way of developing citizenship than by stress-ing this subject in practical form in the common schools. A far flungrepublic cannot permanently survive unless it is based on intelligentparticipation in government by its citizens. Universal compulsory edu-cation is its bedrock, and such education should include history andgovernment, as well as economics. The many other movements toencourage this in the schools, such as oratorical contests on the Con-stitution, fostered by the newspapers, and essays on the foreign policyof the United States, sponsored by the Daughters of the Revolution,are all to be welcomed. They should be based, as I believe they- are,not on fetish-worship of the Constitution or any other document ortheory of government, which is properly subject to change with chang-ing conditions, but on earnest study of the basis of government and ofpopular welfare. Such a study does more to combat successfullyenemies of our country than any number of speeches which merely"make the eagle scream." It is constructive statesmanship.The program for the annual meeting at Valley City is beingrounded out. There will be four half hour addresses from our ownmembers, followed by discussion. W. H. Stutsman of Mandan willgive a paper on some feature of the law of grain and storage receipts;General Ritchie of Valley City on military law; Philip Bangs of GrandForks on the Minimum Wage; and Mack Traynor of Devils Lake onMortgage Foreclosures.All lawyers who find themselves able to do so will wish to attendthe testimonial to Judge Kneeshaw, to be held at Cavalier at I:oo P.M. on June 26th, under the auspices of the Old Settlers Association.The State Bar Association and many local associations will be repre-sented and will present resolutions. From most parts of the Statethe return trip can be made in a day. It is a pleasure to do honor toa distinguished jurist who has sat on the Bench for over a quarter ofa century and gained the respectand admiration of all who know him.-JOHN H. Lnwis, President.JURY TRIALSThis is the second installment of the article by John H. Wigmorein the April issue of the Journal of the American Judicature Society.Last month we published his comments on these two items: i. De-

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 4 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss4/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEThe automobile is becoming an ever more important problem inour life and in our legal procedure. The article "Flirting With theUndertaker," in the Saturday Evening Post of February 9 th, by themotor vehicle registrar of Pennsylvania, is well worth attention. So faras legislation goes, the ends to be aimed at are two: To bring about thedecrease of accidents, and to secure to those injured a reasonable chanceof compensation. Of the two purposes, it can hardly be doubted thatthe first is the more important. Both, however, can be secured to someextent by carefully framed legislation.Probably the greatest desideratum is the requirement of a driver'slicense, after an examination to test fitness. This is in force in manystates, but in others, especially those less thickly settled, it is regardedas an undue interference with personal liberty. Inevitably public opinionwill in time uphold it, and lawyers may well do their part toward hasten-ing this development of opinion.Most accidents result from individual carelessness, but faultymechanism has some part among the causes. A law requiring periodicalinspection of cars, and a certificate of such inspection, as suggested inthe Post article above mentioned, might well be adopted.Nowadays the roads are full of drivers of no financial responsibility.Substantial men regularly carry liability insurance, but the owner of thebattered wreck is apt to be without it. What is the most feasible methodof securing protection against him?Massachusetts has taken the bull by the horns and enacted a com-pulsory automobile liability law, by which every car owner in the state,before he can secure a license, must take out a liability policy. Theresults for the two years this has been in force have been by no meansentirely. satisfactory, although too much stress must not be laid ondifficulties that develop under a new law, which may be straightenedout as time passes, experience develops, and amendments found necessaryare made. So far, the Massachusetts law has not caused a decrease ofaccidents; in fact, whatever be the cause, they have increased. A largenumber of "strike" suits have been brought. Massachusetts has requiredinsurance against personal injuries only, not against property damage,and it is said that cases of alleged personal injury are often broughtwhere the real purpose is to collect for property damage. The Massa-chusetts law is undoubtedly bad in one respect. Where insurance isonce written, it cannot be cancelled by the insuring company exceptsubject to an appeal by the insured to a "board of appeal." In this wayone of the most valuable incidents of insurance, the selection of risks,is destroyed.Connecticut, Vermont and perhaps some other states follow the so--called Connecticut plan, whereby insurance is only required when thecar owner has already been in an accident or been convicted of the viola-tion of certain traffic laws. Then his license is forfeited, and cannotbe restored without insurance or the deposit of indemnity. This method,it would seem, tends more toward developing careful drivers than a planof universally compulsory insurance. It is objected 'to because it doesnot give full protection, and goes on the principle of "giving the dog onebite." This objection might be met in part by combining with it theso-called Pennsylvania plan-which, however, is not in force in Pennsyl-vania-which provides that when one has a final judgment against himfor damages in an auto accident, he cannot have his license renewed untilhe pays such judgment.BAR BRIEFSThe problem of the automobile is not so acute in North Dakota asin more thickly settled states, but everywhere it is fast becoming one ofvital importance. It has not yet been dealt with by our Bar Association.I feel that its importance is such that we should no longer neglect itsstudy. I have, therefore, appointed a special committee on "AutomobileSafety Regulations and Insurance," to study the problem and report tothe next annual meeting. That committee, announced elsewhere in thisissue, includes many of our leading lawyers selected partly because itwas believed they would entertain many different viewpoints and shadesof opinion, and I believe it will give us a very interesting report. I hopethe membership of the Association will give the subject thought before-hand, and come to the meeting prepared to discuss it.From the above the mind turns naturally to another subject thatis attracting much attention at present-that of "ambulance chasing."The February issue of the Journal of the American Judicature Societycontains an interesting article on a recent investigation in Philadelphia.In this matter, too, our state is fortunate in not being confronted withthe problem to the extent to which it exists in large cities; nevertheless,it is a universal problem, and we ought to face it.Laymen, and some lawyers, often find it difficult to realize whythe solicitation of business, of the division of fees outside of theprofession, should be under the ban of legal ethics. Not because ofthe dignity of the legal profession; in this democratic age such dignityis inevitably, and I think properly, largely a thing of the past. The ruleis not founded on eternal verities, but on practical considerations of thepublic good. There are certain cases that cry aloud for volunteeringof legal services; but, by and large, those services are going to bedemanded, without volunteering, solicitation, or the payment of com-missions, about as extensively as litigation is for the general benefit ofthe community. As with certain other rules that have no innate justicebehind them, such as the statute of limitations, the violation of therule causes, in the long run, more injustice than it prevents.The practice of contingent fees is full of danger. Experience hasshown that the number of cases which, practically, must be brought ona contingent fee basis or not at all are so many that it would not be wiseor feasible to forbid this practice, but it must fairly be regarded as inthe extra-hazardous class and properly subject to special regulation.There is no moral objection to contingent fees in themselves. Thelawyer who, while conducting himself properly, takes cases on a con-tingent fee when his client cannot pay him otherwise, often is renderinga great service to the cause of justice; but he is also subjecting himselfto many temptations, and should not object if a considerable degree ofcourt supervision is required.How far the actual practice of solicitation of cases, either person-ally or by runners, prevails here is a matter of conjecture. Certainlythere is no such well developed system as in congested centers. We hearrumors, but they are not easy to substantiate, and may be quite withoutfoundation. A lawyer's reputation for successful jury pleading spreadsmore easily in our country districts than in large cities, and draws tothe successful specialist an ever larger circle of clients. Business gainedin that way is a well deserved reward of efficiency.In England, where the profession is divided into solicitors andbarristers, the barrister, who tries the case, does not interview thewitnesses beforehand. Some Englishmen say frankly that the purposeof this custom, strange and inefficient as it appears to us, is to preventthe shaping of testimony by the barrister.BAR BRIEFSThe faults in accident litigation have not been all on one side.Attorneys for the defense, and claim agents, are said at times to makesettlements for notoriously insufficient amounts, and by means veryclosely approaching fraud. The feeling that this happens has resultedin some states, as here, in the provision that no settlement made within acertain time after the accident is final. On the whole, such a provisionhas probably worked well, though the time for overthrowing the settle-ment in this state-six months-is perhaps too long. When settlementsare negotiated during that time, the only way to make thembinding is by a "pro forma" suit, fairly conducted, where the facts arehonestly brought out before the court, which considers whether thesettlement is fair, and enters a judgment which in substance approves it.The temptations which assail a leading jury lawyer are many andstrenuous. If he withstands them, all honor to him as a shining lightof the profession. If he yields to them, the fact that he is-as he gen-erally must be to attain his position-a man of striking ability and per-sonal charm, cannot change the fact that such conduct is cause fordiscipline, and if deliberately persisted in, good ground for disbarment.To take the facts as he finds them, and make of them the mostconvincing picture he can, is well within the rights of the lawyer. Tointerview his prospective witnesses, sift out their stories, and make ofsuch stories a connected whole, is proper when it does not involvesuggestion of falsifying testimony. To point out a discrepancy for thepurpose of having a fact changed to a falsehood in order to fit thedesired picture, is nothing but plain subornation of perjury. And theline is not always easy to draw.It has been suggested that the amount of contingent fees whichmight be contracted for should be restricted. The wisdom of thisprovision is doubtful. Different cases demand different arrangements.A much wiser suggestion is that contingent fees should always be subjectto the approval of the court, or that the c~urt should in each case fixthe amount of such contingent fees. This is no more than is done bythe court in cases of minors and receivers, and would seem to be arestriction warranted by the dangers inherent in the practice.In conclusion, it may be suggested that there are certain definiterules which the public good requires a lawyer to follow in every case,but which are of more than ordinary importance in accident and con-tingent fee cases.First, he should never solicit business.Second, he should never pay a commission or reward, directly orindirectly, to any layman bringing business to him.Third, he should never bring a "strike" suit--one where he hopesthe defendant will settle rather than undertake an expensive defense,but where there is no reasonable ground to believe that a cause ofaction exists.Fourth, he should, while sifting the stories of prospective witnesses,carefully avoid suggesting to them, directly or indirectly, the giving offalse testimony.Fifth, he should consider his client's interests and not his own,either in settlement or trial.Sixth, he should confine his demands for fees within such boundsas, all things considered, are reasonable in the particular case.Seventh, he should be entirely willing to submit such fees to theapproval of the court.--PESIDENT JOHN H. LEWIs.

North Dakota Law Review Volume 5 Number 5 Article 2 1928 The President's Page John H. Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation Lewis, John H. (1928) "The President's Page," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 5 : No. 5 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol5/iss5/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSTHE PRESIDENT'S PAGEIt is still too early to find, without the aid of a detective, just whatwas accomplished at the last legislature. Apparently it passed the resolu-tions sponsored by the Bar Association proposing constitutional amend-ments increasing the terms of Supreme Court Judges to ten years andDistrict Judges to six, and providing that only one judge should beelected at a time, and that the legislature should have the power toincrease salaries during the term. This is, so far as I have heard, theonly proposition of the Association that was acted on favorably. Thelegislative committee proposed very little legislation, believing that thiswas not the time to ask many changes. Apparently the legislature passeda bill requiring liability insurance from automobile drivers convicted ofcertain road offenses, but killed a bill to require driver's licenses.Neither of these bills were sponsored by the Association, although bothof them were probably favored by most of its members. The entiresubject of auto liability insurance is now in the hands of a special com-mittee of the Association, and should form a most interesting part of theprogram of the annual meeting.All committees have been asked for preliminary reports of progress,and some have responded. Final reports of all committees are expectedto be in for printing in the August number of Bar Briefs. Arrangementsfor the annual meeting at Valley City are under way, and have progressedas far as is feasible at this time. It has been tentatively set for Sept.4 and 5, though there is a bare possibility that it may have to be post-poned to the following week. Lawyers are urged to keep both thesedates free so far as possible. The plans this year provide for but oneout-of-the-state speaker, and several short papers by our own members.Among these will be one by W. H. Stutsman, on some feature of thelaw of grain.I should like to see local bar associations through the state to agreater extent than now exist. Some such organizatiofis are functioningwith more or less regularity, but in other parts little or nothing hasbeen done. The limitations of such organizations in a sparsely settledstate are obvious, but, within practical limits, they tend to build up themorale of the Bar and increase its usefulness.The committee on Internal Affairs reports that it is having consider-able work, but that the complaints generally resolve themselves intodisputes about fees, and do not reflect on the moral character of thelawyers concerned. The usefulness of such a committee in explainingmatters to laymen is obvious, but it is unfortunate that it is so oftencalled upon to help adjust misunderstandings. Some clients can neverbe made reasonable, but in too many cases it is to be feared that thedissatisfaction is caused by insufficient pains on the lawyer's part toexplain matters to his client, and sometimes by a quite inexcusable care-lessness in reporting. In this age a lawyer must follow businessmethods.I would call your attention to the work being done by the AmericanLaw Institute in the restatement of the law, and suggest the importanceof purchasing installments of the restatements as they are published.In some ways the young lawyer is* nearer the fount of justice than theolder practitioner. Busy lawyers, as well as courts, sometimes tend tobecome entangled in a mass of precedents, until the theory of the law,without which it could hardly be more than a formless mass of guesses,BAR BRIEFSis forgotten. We older men need to be constantly on guard againstthis tendency.Laymen are constantly debating the question whether some substi-tute for jury trial should be found. Those of us who believe that thejury represents something vital in our civilization nevertheless cannot beblind to its weaknesses. In one county it was recently discovered thatthe names in the jury box had not been changed for years. If the juryis to preserve the full usefulness of which it is capable, earnest effortshould constantly be made to bring and keep it up to the standard whichit ought to reach, both by enforcing present laws and making suchchanges as may be desirable. The methods of selection used in federalcourt deserve continued study.-JOHN H. LEwis, President.OBJECT, DIFFICULTIES AND METHODS OF BARCOOPERATIONThe Honorable Charles Evans Hughes recently addressed himselfto the questions relating to this triumvirate and said, in part:"We wish the entire Bar to have a voice, a commanding voice. Wedesire the concentration of influence. The object is plain enough whenthere is corruption, when lawyers betray their clients or are false totheir larger trust, perverting the machinery of the courts to make it avehicle of fraud and a device to ensnare the unfortunate. Then, the out-raged sentiment of the entire' Bar should find expression in investigation,condemnation and redress. It should clean its own house. It shoulddemand of the courts the purging'of their administration. The way toproceed has been shown in the recent inquiries (before the AppellateDivision in New York). By our united action the latent powers ofthe court were called into exercise, the expert service of lawyers wasvolunteered, and the needed measures of reform both in court rules andlegislation have been recommended."We need something more than this sort of dealing with plainabuses. We desire to improve the tone of the Bar, to stiffen its self-respect, to secure a wider appreciation of professional standards. Tocommercialize the Bar, to introduce the methods of solicitation, of massproduction of trading on the opportunities for litigation, is inevitablyto encourage frauds and perjuries and to destroy the sense of personal,fiduciary relation which protects both the client and the court. To pre-serve the sentiment which subordinates gain to the conception of pro-fessional duty, which makes reputation for soundness of advice, forintegrity in counsel and performance, for loyalty to the client, to thecourt and to the law, the most highly prized reward in a career of con-stant toil amid temptations and incitements to laxity-this is the greatobject which is fostered in our Associations and gives zest to our coopera-tive endeavors. With this zeal for the standards of the profession, weare equipped to aid in the never ending task of improving the methodsof administration of justice-in the constant pruning to get rid of whatis archaic, superfluous and injurious. We need daring and skillfulsurgery, as well as medicine, and it is a wise conservatism that knowshow to employ both."The difficulties of cooperation are no less manifest than its needs.The very size of the Bar, with its many thousands of members, isbaffling. We have reason to fear that many are coming to the Bar whoare unfitted to appreciate the requirements of professional duty. Wehave not only the problems of technical legal education, the special

https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4795&amp;context=ndlr

The President\u27s Page

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)