페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

Moses

lett

PRESIDENT, 1900-1901.

OF

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS

OF THE

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION

SPECIAL MEETING

At Denver Colorado, December 27, 1900.

“JOHN MARSHALL DAY” MEETING

At Denver, Colorado, February 4, 1901.

FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING

At Manitou, Colorado, July 9 and 10, 1901.

VOLUME 4.

Denver, Colorado
The W. F. Robinson Printing Co.

LIBRARY OF THE LELASE STANFGRI, JR., UNIVERSITY

LAW DEPARTMENT.

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

SPECIAL MEETING

HELD AT

DENVER, COLORADO.

December 27, 1900.

The meeting was called to order in the Supreme Court room with President Hallett and Secretary Hoyt in their chairs.

The Committee on Admissions reported its approval of the applications of the following: Edward Kent, Denver; Walter Scott, Colorado Springs; Thomas E. Watters, Denver, and Stanley C. Warner, Denver, and upon a ballot being taken, all were declared elected.

President Hallett announced that Edward L. Johnson, on account of continued absence from the city, had resigned as a member of the Grievance Committee, and that he appointed John D. Fleming to the vacancy.

It was announced that John Marshall Day would be celebrated on the evening of February 4, 1901, in Denver.

Mr. W. H. Bryant moved that a committee of seven be appointed to co-operate with other committees in arranging for the meeting of the American Bar Association to be held in Denver in the month of August, 1901. Carried. The following were appointed a committee: L. M. Cuthbert, J. H. Voorhees, R. H. Whiteley, A. T. Gunnell, E. C. Stimson, Joseph H. Maupin and John A. Ewing.

The President:
The Committee on Law Reform will now present its report.
Harvey Riddell:

Mr. Chairman-Judge Gunter is the chairman of the committee to whom was referred the drafting of measures for the reorganization of the Supreme Court and for changing the time of elections of judges. As he could not be present at this meeting he requested me to make the report. The committee understood that a change of the time of electing judges was the favorite measure of the Bar Association, and consequently we devoted considerable time to discussing that matter. While the individual members of the committee present were in favor of such a measure, yet, in view of the present financial condition of the state and the consequent difficulty of passing such an act, we were unanimously of the opinion that it was inexpedient at the present time, to present such a measure.

We therefore concluded to draft the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, to be submitted to the legislature, and urge its adoption by that body for submission to the voters. It will sufficiently appear to this assembly what the committee's idea was of the changes to be desired, from the reading of the proposed bill as we drafted it. I will read it. To any member who desires information which I may be able to give concerning this matter, I will gladly furnish.

(For report see the appendix.)
D. V. Burns:

I would like to ask the committee whether they have considered the question as to whether a court consisting of seven judges (as we now have two courts consisting of six) will relieve the congested condition of the docket. That is a very serious matter now. The present condition of affairs is ruinous to a great many litigants. Their whole fortune may be tied up for from two to three years, and if a reversal occurs, then from two to three years longer, and we ought to have such relief as will give a speedy determination of causes in the appellate courts. Now if six judges can't keep up with the work of the courts how is it to be expected that

« 이전계속 »