days to the preparation and briefing of cases in the supreme and appellate courts. For the time being, however, we can lay aside the burdens of our clients and the duties of our offices and renew our acquaintance and friendship.

I extend to you a hearty welcome to our capital city upon this occasion and sincerely hope that the sessions of the association may prove pleasant and profitable.

This association was organized six years ago to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice, uphold the honor of the profession of the law and encourage social intercourse among the members of the bar of the state of Indiana.

Since the organization General Harrison, Judge Woods, Messrs. Fishback, Korbly, Bell and Stuart, Judge Miller, Major Holstein, Judge Lotz and other able lawyers and valuable members of the association have departed this life. We are forcibly reminded by their death that time is fleeting and that we will soon follow them on that mysterious journey from which no traveler returns. Their lives were largely devoted in one way or another to the accomplishment of the objects set out in our articles of association, and furnish most excellent examples worthy of our steadfast emulation. Our association is in a prosperous condition. There are, as I am informed by the treasurer, 326 active paying members. It is to be regretted that a number of the worthy members of the bar of this state have not become members of the association, and that others who heretofore became members have terminated their membership by failure to pay the annual dues. Financially the association is in the same condition as the majority of the members of the bar in that, while it has no large surplus, there is sufficient money in sight to meet our immediate demands. It is perhaps to the credit of the members of the bar that as a rule they are so occupied in looking after the interests of their clients that they have not the time to give to their private affairs to accumulate any large amount of money or property.

The association has made considerable progress in carrying out all the objects for which it was organized and has especially greatly encouraged social intercourse among the members of the bar of this state. We have been brought closer together and have become better acquainted, and if social intercourse was the only feature of the association we would be more than repaid for the time and attention given to it and for the expenses incurred.

Aside, however, from the social intercourse, the association has been instrumental in some degree at least in advancing the science of jurisprudence, promoting the administration of justice and upholding the honor of the profession. The annual addresses and the papers read and discussed at the former meetings of the association have been interesting and instructive, and, in connection with the work of the committees, have contributed greatly, not only to the social enjoyment of the members, but have also stimulated the bar of the state to promote the other objects enumerated in the articles of incorporation.

One of the objects of the association deserving special consideration of the members at all times is upholding the honor of the profession. The integrity and ability of the profession of the law is of great importance in any system of jurisprudence, but in the United States it is of greater importance than in any other country, because, as was said by Mr. Phelps in his address on the supreme court and popular sovereignty, "judicial history has not furnished another example of a court created by an authority superior to legislation and beyond the reach of executive power clothed with jurisdiction above the law it was appointed to administer, charged not merely with the general course of public justice, but with the limitation of the powers of political government and the adjustment of conflicting claims of sovereign states."

In one of his addresses Mr. Depew said, "The government of the United States is and always has been a lawyer's government. All

but three of our presidents and four-fifths of our cabinet ministers and a large majority of both houses of congress have always been members of the bar."

Mr. Bryce in his work "The American Commonwealth," says, "the lawyers best deserve to be called the leading class."

One of the essentials in upholding the honor of the profession is that no unworthy person shall be admitted to the bar, and another essential is that no member of the bar who for any reason may prove unworthy, shall be permitted to continue to hold his office.

The question of the preparation and qualifications of the profession of the law and the improvement of the system of procedure in courts, is well stated in the report of the committee on legal education and admission to the bar, at the last annual meeting of the American Bar Association, from which I quote:

"No occupation requires a higher standard of character than that of a lawyer. Ability, courage, extensive knowledge, diligence and disinterestedness are so common as to excite no more remark than courage in a soldier. In fact, it is the absence of these qualities which causes surprise and censure.”

The conclusion of the report was as follows:

"But it may be remarked that the most perfect system of procedure which can be devised would be inadequate unless those who administer it are competent to perform the part allotted to them. The training of the lawyer is an essential part of the problem of improved procedure. That the course of training used in the past is inadequate is a fact which no one having any knowledge of the subject will dispute. It is gratifying to observe that the progress which has been made in the last few years has had the cordial support of the bar and the public. There is every reason to believe that greater progress may be expected in the future."

It is not my purpose to consider the problem of improved procedure suggested, although much might be said in relation thereto, in a discussion of the subject under consideration.

Anything that tends to diminish the respect of the public for the bar, tends to the public injury.

Therefore, the lawyers of this state and especially the members of this association, should see that no unworthy person is admitted to the bar and should not only set themselves against unprofessional conduct of members of the bar whenever and wherever the same is manifest, but should also see that the bar is purged of unworthy members.

The general rule is that any conduct on the part of an attorney evidencing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which attend the relation of attorney and client and the practice of law before the courts, or showing him unworthy of public confidence, constitutes ground for disbarment. Our statute provides that any court of record may suspend an attorney from practicing therein for certain specified reasons, and among others, for a willful violation of any of the duties of an attorney prescribed by statute. Whether these statutory provisions limit the power of the court to the causes therein prescribed may be a controverted question, but the weight of authority supports the proposition that the legislature has no power to so limit the power of the court. If, however, the legislature has such power it would be an unreasonable construction of the statute to hold that the license of an attorney can not be revoked when it invites the community to trust him in a particular wherein he can not be safely trusted, although such act may not be within the statutory causes for disbarment. In other words, if the legislature has the power, it should not be held to have intended, by the statute, to abolish an ancient requirement of his continued integrity and require another branch of the government to continue to hold him out to the world as worthy of confidence when the holding out becomes false and fraudulent. One ignorant, dishonest or unscrupulous member of the bar can do more to lower the standing and influence of the profession in the mind of the public than sev

eral honest and upright lawyers can do to elevate it, and whenever the conduct of an attorney is such, whether he is acting professionally or otherwise, as to demonstrate that he is not an honest man, he should be disbarred.

Our state constitution provides that every person of good moral character, being a voter, shall be entitled to practice law in all courts of justice: While it is unfortunate that the constitutional standard of requirement for admission to the bar is not higher, no one has a right to continue in the practice of the law as an officer of the court who violates the duties of an attorney, and the courts, aided by the bar, have ample power to suspend or disbar any and all members who prove unworthy of their official position.

The supreme court has held that the proceedings to remove or suspend an attorney at law are regulated by statute, but whether such declarations of the law relate solely to the method of procedure is a controverted question. Under the well settled rule of construction that statutes are to be construed in relation to the principles of the common law, and that the legislature did not intend to make any alteration of the common law other than what is clearly specified in the legislative act, the statute should be construed as relating to the method of procedure and not as a limitation of the causes for disbarment.

The history of the admission of attorneys in England shows that it is not a legislative function. On the contrary, it is a matter belonging to the courts. How far the power of the courts over the admission of attorneys has been modified by our state constitution it is not my purpose at this time to discuss. Conceding that the constitution has modified this power, there is no constitutional limitation or restriction of the power of the courts to disbar. In the Day case, reported in 50 Lawyers' Reports Annotated, 519, the supreme court of Illinois recently said: "Neither does it follow because the court has at different times mentioned the statute as