BANQUET

WEDNESDAY EVENING, 9 O'CLOCK,

AT ELK'S CAFE.

A complimentary banquet was tendered to the members of the Association by the Kalamazoo Bar Association, under the direction of the following local committees:

Executive: Hon. W. G. Howard, Dallas Boudeman, N. H. Stewart, A. J. Mills.

Banquet: N. H. Stewart, Chas. H. McGurrin.

Reception: Hon. W. G. Howard, A. M. Stearns, J. W. Osborn, N. H. Stewart, F. E. Knappen, S. F. Master, Chas. H. McGurrin, H. C. Jackson, A. J. Mills, E. M. Irish, Dallas Boudeman, A. S. Frost, J. L. Hollander, J. W. Adams, J. E. White, C. S. Carney.

Unfortunately, the

Col. E. M. Irish presided as toast-master. remarks made at the banquet were not taken down, stenographically, and we are unable to reproduce the witty and graceful remarks of the toast-master. For the same reason we are unable to reproduce the able and striking remarks of Hon. McGeorge Bundy, of Grand Rapids, who responded to the toast "The Lawyer Citizen," and are able to reproduce only a brief abstract of Judge Palmer's address, "The Legalized Citizen."

The other assigned toasts were: "The Judiciary," and "Law and Practice in the Philippines," and were responded to by Hon. A. V. McAlvay, and Hon. E. F. Johnson, respectively, as given on the pages following:

THE JUDICIARY.

HON. A. V. McALVAY.

Associate Justice, Michigan Supreme Court.

Gentlemen:-To be selected without one's knowledge or consent to respond at the annual banquet of this Honorable Body, and without other notice than that supplied by the daily press is an honor I am persuaded that few can claim. To have a sentiment, in the same way provided is certainly a novel and happy solution of how to avoid on the part of the victims, the weariness of flesh and vexation of spirit which follow the customary method of procedure in such cases. I am informed that the fundamental law of your association makes provision for notice by publicaton in certain cases. The application of this provision to the case at bar, although a notable departure from the ordinary practice, may be considered as a refutaton of the claim that in our profession there is always a hesitation to take action without being able to cite authority as a precedent.

Taking some liberties with the subject assigned, in the brief time I will occupy in speaking I shall confine myself to a few practical suggestions relative to a matter, which, if adopted by the profession, would enable them so to present their cases before the Supreme Court that its labors will be made more pleasant and less burdensome, and consequently the quality of the work of the Judges of a more finished and satisfactory character.

are

Your attention is challenged to the fact that in many of the cases brought to our Supreme Court for review the records unnecessarily voluminous. Although the matter of record relied upon may be specifically designated by one side, the opposite party will insist that a careful examination of the entire record will be necessary in order to determine properly the questions raised, expressing the hope that such course will be taken. This hope is often expressed in terms not indicative of an abiding faith.

This criticism applies equally as well to law as to chancery cases, and these voluminous records in law cases are by far the hardest to master. Some of them appear to have been tried with the purpose of objecting and excepting to everything in the trial, and to ascertain later whether reversible error has been committed.

To illustrate further this condition let me add that during