'.-^
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 IlSrFLTJENOE OF THE BAR 
 
 IN 
 
 OUR STATE AND FEDERAL 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ANNUAL ADDEESS 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHHtE BAR 
 ASSOCIATION, 
 
 FEB. 23, 1894, 
 
 > 
 
 By J. H. BENTON, tfe. 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 1894.
 
 ^ 
 
 ^a.
 
 INFLUEISrOE OF THE BAR 
 
 IN 
 
 OUR STATE AND FEDERAL 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ANNUAL ADDRESS 
 
 BEFUEE 
 
 THE SOUTHERN NEW HAT^IPSHHiE BAR 
 ASSOCIATION, 
 
 FEB. 23, 18'.ti, 
 
 By J. H. BENTON, Jr. 
 
 BOSTON 
 1894.
 
 ^4-4-C^i 
 1S54-' 
 
 Copyright 1894, 
 J. H. BENTON, Jr.
 
 
 
 " I hold every man a debtor to his profession : from the whicli as men 
 
 of course do seek to receive couuteuance and profit, so ought they of 
 
 duty to endeavour themselves by way of amends to be a help and ornament 
 
 thereunto." 
 
 Bacon — Maxims of the Law- 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Association : 
 
 If I Avere to address the Bar of a State where tifty years of 
 legislative attempts to substitute a purely statutory code of 
 procedure for the forms and methods of the common law 
 had resulted in absolute failure ; where constant experiments 
 to replace the rules of the common law had so complicated 
 its laws that the decisions of its courts are rapidly becoming 
 mainly constructions of constantly changing statutes ; and 
 where the rule of admission to the Bar had become so lax as 
 to invite stiingent les-islative reoulation, I mi"-ht follow the 
 example of the president of the New York Bar Association 
 at its recent annual meeting, and speak upon the importance 
 of "Law lief orm." 
 
 But in this State the discussion of such a subject is, hap- 
 pily, unnecessary ; for here a simple and effective code of 
 procedure has been developed from the forms and methods 
 of the common law with but little aid from legislation, while 
 the statutes, as embodied in your recent admirable compila- 
 tion, have been designed not so much to change as to su})- 
 plement and apply the principles of the common law. And 
 the Bar has enforced a standard of admission to its mem- 
 bership so excellent as to leave no need of legislation for 
 that purpose.
 
 The araphic sketches of the deceased members of your 
 Bar, which have just ])rought to us afresh the grace and the 
 strength of their author, render it presumptuous to attempt a 
 monograph upon any one of the many ilhistrious meml:»ers 
 of our profession who have adorned the annals of your 
 State. 
 
 I have, therefore, souglit to bring some small contril)ution 
 to an old subject, and shall speak upon 
 
 THE IXFLUEXCE OF THE BAR IN OUR STATE AND FEDERAL 
 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 To fully understand this we must keep closely in mind 
 the primary principle upon which this government is based, 
 and from which it has been developed, which is, that, sub- 
 ject only to written constitutions, all political power resides 
 in the majority of the people, without qualification of pro[)- 
 erty or knowledge. So carefully is this power preserved 
 that the constitutions of twenty-three states expressly de- 
 clare that the enumeration of rights therein shall not be con- 
 strued to impair or deny others, which are retained by the 
 people. 
 
 Unrestrained, unqualified " manhood suffrage " is the basis 
 of our government, and every possible constitutional provi- 
 sion has been made to secure and protect it, and to give it 
 ample force and effect. 
 
 The rioht of suffraoe is by the constitutions of all the states 
 given to every male citizen of twenty-one years of age, of 
 sound mind, who has not been convicted of infamous crime, 
 with varying but very slight conditions as to residence, with 
 no substantial property qualification ; and practically with- 
 out educational qualification of any kind. In Connecticut the
 
 voter must be able to read the constitution and statutes of tlie 
 State. In Massachusetts lie must I)e able to read the consti- 
 tution and write his name. In Mississippi he must be aide 
 to read any section of the constitution or to understand the 
 same when read to him or give a reasonable interpretation 
 of it. In Alabama all educational qualitications are ex- 
 pressly forl)idden by the constitution. In nearly all the 
 states a pauper who can neither read nor write has the same 
 right of suffrage as the best educated and most wealthy 
 citizen . 
 
 With this unlimited right to vote there is also the un- 
 limited right of speech and pul»lication. Twenty-eight 
 states have express constitutional provisions giving the right 
 to speak, write, and publish on all subjects. 
 
 Not only legislative but nearly all executive and judicial 
 officers are chosen b}^ popular vote. The governor, and all 
 of the more important executive officers of all the states, 
 and the judges of the higher as well as of the inferior courts 
 in most states are elected by popular vote. In a few they 
 are elected by the Legislature, and in a still smaller numl)er 
 they are appointed by the Executive and confirmed l)y the 
 Senate or a Council. 
 
 The President of the United States is now practically 
 chosen by popular vote of the states, the Electoral College 
 having become only a machine to register the vote of the 
 people of each state, and there seems to he danger that the 
 Senate of the United States may also come to l)e chosen by 
 popular vote of the states. 
 
 In most states the tenure of the judges, even of the highest 
 courts, is limited to a more or less brief term of years. In 
 many of the states the judges may be removed by the gov- 
 ernor upon the request of the Legislature, and in all of the
 
 6 
 
 states thev mav l)e i^racticallv removed from office bv the 
 
 l> (.' i. c «. 
 
 abolition of the particular court of which they are judges. 
 Even the Supreme Court of the United States can be changed 
 by adding to its numbers. 
 
 And that this unrestrained power of the people may have 
 the widest scope, there is practically no qualification of 
 property or knowledge required for either legislative, exec- 
 utive, or, in most cases, judicial office in state or nation. 
 Several of the state constitutions expressly provide that no 
 property qualification shall be required, and the constitution 
 of Alabama provides that no educational qualification shall 
 be required for any office. In most of the states there is 
 no constitutional (j[ualification required for even the highest 
 judicial office. In Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, 
 Alabama, and Louisiana, the judges of the highest court are 
 required to be " learned in the law " : in Maryland they are 
 " to be selected from those who have been admitted to prac- 
 tise law and who are most distino-uished for intesfritv, law, 
 and sound legal knowledge"; in Virginia they must have 
 held a judicial situation under the United States, or have 
 practised law five years ; in Texas and Georgia, they nuist 
 have practised law or held a judicial position in a court of 
 record for seven vears : in Kentuckv and Arkansas for eiaht 
 years ; in Louisiana for ten }'ears ; in Colorado and Florida 
 they must have been admitted to practise in the Supreme 
 Court of the State. 
 
 The ultimate danger to the security of life and property 
 under such a system of government is apparent. It is safe 
 to say that no student of history belie^'ed at the time the 
 Republic was formed that am' government thus subject to 
 the practically uncontrolled power of the people by popular 
 vote could lonof continue.
 
 The wisest of the framers of the federal and State con- 
 stitutions had serious doubts as to this, and evidently felt 
 that as the country grew in wealtli, and social and iiecuniary 
 disparity of condition increased, greater safeguards for the 
 security of life and property would l)e required. 
 
 Their fears would have been greater if they had antici- 
 pated our marvellous material growth and development. 
 The most wonderful thing in all political history is that a 
 nation of nearly seventy million people, with enormous 
 wealth, great cities, increasing inequality of pecuniary and 
 social condition, and a population composed of the most 
 diverse elements, should have l)een safely developed under 
 such an absolutely popular form of government.' 
 
 It is familiar history that Hamilton, ]Morris, and others of 
 the more conservative framers of the Federal Constitution 
 had grave misgivings on this sul)ject, and sought, though 
 with comparatively little success, to introduce into the Con- 
 stitution safeguards against the results which they expected 
 would follow from the uncontrolled power of unlimited pop- 
 ular suffrage. Even Jefferson, the most ardent of Demo- 
 crats, and the most hopeful statesman of his time, freel}' 
 confessed his fear of the ultimate tyranny of the majority 
 throuo-h the legislative l)ranch of the jyovernment. 
 
 That distrust of the power of our government to protect 
 persons and property with increase of territory, of popula- 
 tion, and of wealth, which these statesmen then had, has 
 always existed among thoughtful men, and the wisest stu- 
 
 1 We have received by immigration, since 1820, more than fifteen million 
 inhabitants, and to-day it is safe to say that more than one third of our 
 entire population is of foreign birth or immediate foreign parentage. 
 More than one half of the population of Massachusetts is probably of 
 foreign birth or immediate foreign parentage.
 
 8 
 
 dents of history, reasoning from what has been tlie result of 
 popular government elsewhere, have continued to conlidently 
 predict that our government must ultimately change to a 
 stronger form, or the safeguards of life and property would 
 be gradually destroyed. 
 
 Examples of this are numerous and familiar, notal^ly that 
 of Lord Macaulay, who in his famous letter, on the receipt 
 of a copy of Randall's " Life of Jefferson " from the author, 
 in 1857, wrote that while he was much obliged for the 
 books, he could not " reckon Jefferson among the bene- 
 factors of mankind," because he had ''long been convinced 
 that institutions purely democratic nuist sooner or later 
 destroy liberty or civilization, or both." 
 
 He stated his fears in the following language : — 
 "As long as you (the Americans) have a boundless extent 
 of fertile and unoccupied land, your laboring population will 
 be far more at ease than the laboring population of the Old 
 World ; and, while that is the case, the Jefferson politics may 
 continue to exist without causnig any fatal calamity. But the 
 time will come when New England will be as thickly 
 peopled as old England. Wages will be as low, and will 
 fluctuate as much with you as with us. . . . Then your 
 institutions will be fairly brousrht to the test. ... It is 
 quite plain that your Government will never be able to 
 restrain a distressed and discontented maiorit3^ For with 
 you the majority is the Government, and has the rich, who 
 are always a minority, absolutely at its mercy. ... I seri- 
 ously apprehend that j^ou will, in some such season of 
 adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent 
 prosperity from returning ; that you will act like people who 
 should in a year of scarcity devour all the seed corn, and 
 thus make the next a year, not of scarcity, l)ut of absolute
 
 9 
 
 famine. There will be, 1 fear, 8j)()liati()ii. The spoliation 
 will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh 
 spoliation. There is nothin<r to stop you. Your Constitu- 
 tion is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a 
 society has entered on the downward progress, either ci\ili- 
 zation or lil)erty must perish. l^^ither some Ca'sar or 
 Xapoleon will seize the reins of irovernnient with a strong 
 hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and 
 laid waste by l)arbarians in the twentieth century as the 
 Roman Empire Avas in the tilth : with this difference, that 
 the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Kom^n Empire 
 came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will 
 have been engendered within your own country, by your 
 own institutions." ^ 
 
 In 1863, Professor Freeman, the author of the "Norman 
 Conquest," gave to one of his most learned historical works 
 this title : " History of Federal Government from the 
 Foundation of the Achaian League to the Disruption of the 
 United States." 2 
 
 In this work he said that while it was dangerous to try to 
 prophesy, he coidd not help thinking that the United States 
 and the Confederate States would exchange ambassadors 
 before the year 1869. 
 
 I think all thoughtful men must to a certain extent share 
 the misgivings of Macaulay as to our future, especially in 
 view of the growing disinclination of those who have the 
 
 ' " Macaulay's Life and Letters," Trevelyan, 2cl Ed., Vol. 2, Ap- 
 pendix. 
 
 * Tlie book was advertised in tlie United States by Little & Brown witli 
 tlie following note : '^Scarce. Owing to the indefinite postponement of 
 the -Disruption of the United States,' the author has only published 
 Volume I. of this interesting book."
 
 10 
 
 laiyest property iiit3rests to take an active part in the 
 o^overnment. 
 
 But up to the present time his predictions have not l^een 
 fulfilled to any appreciable degree. 
 
 The Republic has grown from a few feeble scattered colo- 
 nies, fringing the Atlantic coast, to nearly fifty strong and 
 populous states, stretching across the continent ; from a 
 population of less than four millions to nearly seventy 
 millions ; from communities with practically no social or 
 commercial intercourse, with little commerce upon the sea 
 and smaller* commerce upon the land, with no railways and 
 no telegraph, with substantially no wealth, no money, and 
 no credit, to a great and opulent nation bound together by a 
 hundred and seventy-five thousand miles of railway, and 
 nearly a million miles of telegraph and telephone lines ; 
 with exports and imports equal to those of France and 
 Germany combined; with internal navigation and foreign 
 commerce on the sea, the tonnage of which exceeds that of 
 Great Britain ; with an internal commerce greater than the 
 entire foreign commerce of Great Britain, France, Ger- 
 many, Russia, Austria, Hungary, and Belgium combined; 
 Avith annual manufactured products of the value of eight 
 billion seven hundred and fifty millions of dollars, or 
 nearly twice those of Great Britain, and more than half 
 as nmch as those of the whole of Europe ; and with 
 accumulated wealth of nearly seventy billions of dollars. 
 A high protective tariff has largely contrilnited to raise 
 wao-es to a hidi standard and thus incited immigration to 
 such an extent that within the last sixty years the country 
 has received into its population more than fifteen million 
 immigrants, or a million more persons than composed its 
 entire population in 1840.
 
 11 
 
 Its population, though probu])ly still more evenly (listril>- 
 uted than in older countries, has rapidly tended toward larcre 
 commercial and manufacturing centres, until, from only six 
 cities with a po|)ulation of over eight thousand each and one 
 of seventy-tive thousand, it has come to have four hundred 
 and forty-eight cities with a population of over eight thou- 
 sand each, fourteen with a popuhition of one hundred and 
 tAventy-tive lliousand to two hundred and iifty tliousand each, 
 three which have each more than a million, and two which 
 have each more than a million and a half, of inhabitants. 
 
 Enormous wealth has been rapidly accumulated in a few 
 hands and though on the whole wealth is still more equally 
 distributed than in other countries, disparity of pecuniary 
 and social condition has constantly increased. And yet 
 life and property have remained as secure as in any country 
 on which the sun shines. 
 
 How has this marvellous result been accomplished ? What 
 
 has been the conservative power which has thus reconciled 
 
 diverse and conflicting interests and held the safeguards of 
 
 life and property secure amid this surging sea of poi-)ular 
 
 suffrage ? I think the answer to this question is to be found 
 
 in the words of the most accurate and philosophic foreign 
 
 observer of our institutions, who, after a careful study of 
 
 them in every aspect, wrote : — 
 
 "I cannot believe that a republic could subsist at 
 the present time if the influence of lawyers in jmblic 
 business did not increase in proportion to the power 
 of the people." ^ 
 
 And in the statement of INIr. Justice Harlan, who, at the 
 celebration of the centennial of the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution, said : — 
 
 1 De Tocqucville in 1835.
 
 12 
 
 "If there be security for life, liberty, and property, 
 it is because the lawyers of America have not been 
 unmindful of their obligation as ministers of justice." 
 
 I believe that few persons realize to what extent the Bar 
 has participated in the government, and shaped the direction 
 of pul)lic affairs in the United States. No complete statis- 
 tics have been prepared showing the number of lawyers in 
 proportion to the population, and their proportion as mem- 
 bers of the legislative, executive, and judicial department of 
 the federal and State governments. 
 
 I have therefore, within the limits of time and material at 
 my command, sought to gather some information upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Prior to the census of 1850, lawyers were classed with 
 other learned professions in the classification of occupations, 
 and it is now impossible to ascertain their number. 
 
 Since 1850 their number and proportion to the male 
 po[)ulation can be ascertained and I have taken the male 
 population, as the most convenient and accurate basis of 
 comparison, as the number of qualified voters in each State 
 is not easily ascertained Avitli accuracy. 
 
 In 1850, the male population of tlie United States, was 
 11,837,6(30, of whom 23,l)3i», or one in 494 were lawyers; 
 in 18G0, it was IG, 085, 204 of whom 33,193, or one in 484 
 were lawyers; in 1870 it was 19,493,565, of whom 40,736, 
 or one in 479 were lawyers ; and in 1880, it was 25,518,820, 
 of whom 64,137, or one in 398 were law^^ers. 
 
 In 1890, the male population was 32,067,880, but the cen- 
 sus computations as to occupations have not been completed, 
 and it is therefore impossible to give the number of lawyers 
 as ascertained by the census of 1890. If it be assumed that 
 the increase in the number from 1880 to 1890 was equal to
 
 18 
 
 the increase in the number from 1870 to 18.S0, there were 
 87,538 lawyers in tlie United States, in 1890, or one in 3GG 
 of the male population. But as the increase in the numhor 
 from 1S70 to 1880 was proportionately ffreater tlian the in- 
 crease of the population during that period, this estimate 
 may be too large. If, however, the number increased from 
 1880 to 1890 only in proportion to the increase in the popu- 
 lation, there were in the United States in 1890, 80,572 
 lawyers, or one in 398 of the male population. 
 
 It appears, however, that the proportion of lawyers to the 
 male population has constantly increased each decade from 
 1850 to 1880, from one in 494 in 1850 to one in 398 in 1880, 
 and I know of no reason why the i)roportion did not con- 
 tinue to increase from 1.S80 to 1S90. It is doubtless within 
 l)ounds to say that at the present time at least one in every 
 400 of the male population of the United States is a member 
 of the legal profession ; and while a portion of them are 
 doubtless engaged more or less in other pursuits, still they 
 have all been trained to that accuracy of thought and con- 
 servatism of action which are the essential characteristics of 
 the profession. 
 
 It is the iniiuence of this large and eonstantl}^ increasing- 
 body of cautious and conservative men upon state and fed- 
 eral o-overnment which we have to consider. 
 
 This influence is of course most apparent and direct in the 
 judicial department of the government, and if it were felt 
 there alone would be, perhaps, more important than any 
 other in its effect upon the welfare of the State. 
 
 All the judges of the numerous federal courts,' and of the 
 
 1 The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, of the Court of 
 Claims, Court of Private Land Claims, and of the United States Circuit 
 and District Courts number 261, and the number of United States Com- 
 missioners in the difl'erent circuits is 11)55.
 
 u 
 
 hiohest courts, and of most of the inferior courts in all the 
 States are lawyers, and the influence of the Bar in their 
 selection is so absolute that it is practically impossible for a 
 lawyer to become and to remain a judge of any important 
 court, state or federal, unless he commands the confidence 
 and respect of the profession. Of this the recent signal 
 failure of the most powerful political organization in the 
 United States to elect its candidate for judge of the highest 
 court of New York against the protest of the Bar of that 
 State, is a striking illustration. 
 
 In nearly all the states the judges are elected by popular 
 vote for more or less lorief terms, but the influence of the 
 Bar is so strong that it practically requires their re-election 
 when competent, so that their tenure of ofiice is now prac- 
 tically as secure where they are elected for a term of years 
 as where they are appointed for life. 
 
 And not only does the Bar thus practically make the 
 judiciary, l)ut its opinions largely influence judicial deci- 
 sions. As has been well said liy a foreign observer, — 
 
 " The keen interest which the profession takes in 
 the law secures an unusually large number of accu- 
 rate and competent critics of the interpretation put 
 upon the law by the judges. Such men form a tri- 
 l)unal, to whose approval the judges are sensitive, 
 and all the more because, like the judges of England, 
 but unlike those of Continental Europe, they have 
 been themselves practising counsel."' 
 
 The constant discussions of legal questions in our numer- 
 ous law schools and legal publications, in which we are far 
 in advance of England, have also much influence upon the 
 courts in their treatment of questions before them. 
 
 ' Bryce's American Commonwealth, Vol. 1, page 259.
 
 15 
 
 We have fifty-six law schools, with a membership of more 
 than six thousand students, and these schools are to a irreat 
 extent conducted by lawyers, who cither have been or arc 
 in active practice. ^ 
 
 While this iniiuence is not so a])parent as that exercised 
 by counsel in the examination and aruument of cases in 
 which they are directly employed, it is in its ultimate effect 
 probably fully as important. No decision which the pro- 
 fession as a whole does not accept as sound can hold a 
 permanent place in our law. 
 
 The effect upon the federal and state governments of 
 this influence of the Bar in the selection and guidance of the 
 judiciary is rendered of the highest importance l)y reason 
 of the controlling part which the judiciary have in the gov- 
 ernment under our system of written constitutions. In no 
 other country can courts bv construction of constitutions con- 
 trol legislative and executive action. Elsewhere, judicial 
 decisions as to constitutional questions may l)e nullified by leg- 
 islation. Here it is not only the right, but the dut\' of the 
 courts, under the Constitution, to hold the legislative and ex- 
 ecutive departments within the limitations of the fundamental 
 law. And while this high power has always been exercised 
 with great caution, it lias often been interposed for the protec- 
 tion of the fundamental principles upon which the govern- 
 ment rests, and upon the preservation of which its existence 
 as a free government absolutely depends. 
 
 The people of every state have approved the exercise of 
 this power by their judiciary, and the nation has approved 
 its exercise by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
 many instances, in respect to state as well as federal legisla- 
 
 ' See Appendix I. for a list of the law schools of the United States 
 with dates of opening and present membership.
 
 16 
 
 tion. That court has never failed to hold acts of State Lesis- 
 latiires or of Cf)UgTess void, which in its opinion were beyond 
 their constitutional power to enact. It has thus held twenty 
 acts of Congress and one hundred and eighty-two acts of 
 State and Territorial Leaislatures to be unconstitutional. ^ 
 
 Only four federal statutes were held unconstitutional dur- 
 ino- the seventy years from ' 790 to 1860, while sixteen were 
 held contrary to the Constitution durins: the thirty-three 
 years from 18(30 to 1893. 
 
 From 1790 to 1<S(30, thirty-two state and territorial stat- 
 utes were held unconstitutional, while from 1860 to 1894, 
 one hundred and fifty were thus held to be void. 
 
 This increase in the numl)er of statutes held unconstitu- 
 tional mioht at tirst be thouaht to indicate either a tendency 
 of the legislative department to exceed the limits of its con- 
 stitutional power, or of the judicial department to more 
 closely restrain legislative action. A closer examination of 
 the statutes will, I think, show that it is due to other causes, 
 one of which is undoubtedly the o-reat increase in the num- 
 ber of statutes enacted. 
 
 Prior to 1860, laws were made for less than thirty million 
 people, and to-day they are made for nearly seventy millions. 
 
 Another cause is doubtless to be found in the fact that 
 with the growth of interstate commerce, and the decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States that the power 
 of Congress over that commerce is exclusive of the power of 
 the states, many state statutes wdiich were thought to be 
 within the power of the states to enact have been found to 
 be in conflict with the power of Congress to deal with inter- 
 state commerce, and therefore void. 
 
 ^ See Appendix II. for a list of ttiese decisions.
 
 17 
 
 And beyond this, that great triljunal has, l)y its construc- 
 tion of the federal Constitution, largely created the present 
 fundamental law of the government under whicli we live. 
 That Constitution, as it exists to-day, w ith the construction 
 that has been put upon it ])y the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court, is practically as mucji the work of the Court which 
 has construed it, as of the Convention which framed it. 
 
 A great constitutional lawyer has said that " the framers of 
 our national Constitution were idealists." And it is true that 
 this instrument, as well as the bills of rights and state con- 
 stitutions, were practically only glittering generalities until 
 thev were made luminous verities l)y the steady support of 
 the Bar and the decisions of the Bench. 
 
 The federal Constitution was valueless as the fundamental 
 law of a nation, until, by the arguments of Webster and the 
 decisions of Marshall, it was made in fact, as well as in 
 name, the supreme law of the land. 
 
 To this supreme law, as construed and declared by our 
 great national judicial tribunal, and sujiported by the con- 
 stant conservative influence of the Bar, the people must look 
 for the ultimate security of person and property. 
 
 The judiciary alone can hold the constant conflict of sel- 
 fish interests, which is an essential element of the growth of 
 societv. within the just limitations of the fundamental law, 
 
 " Till jarring interests of themselves create 
 The according music of a well tuned state." 
 
 But great as the influence of the Bar has been in the judi- 
 cial department of the government, it has been equally 
 effective, though less direct, in the legislative dei)artment. 
 
 Thouo-h the numl)er of lawyers in the state legislatures has 
 not, as a rule, been large, it has always been much greater 
 than their proportion of the population would warrant.
 
 ]8 
 
 I have not been able within the h'mits of time and ma- 
 terial at my command, and it is probably not possible by 
 any practicable research, to ascertain the number of lawyers 
 who have been members of all the state leo-islatures and their 
 proportion to the whole membership in each. I ha^e been 
 able, however, to ascertain this for all the New England 
 States for periods varying from twenty-four to ninety-four 
 years, and for all the states except one at the present time, 
 with, I think, substantial accuracy. 
 
 In Maine, since 1870, the average membership of the Bar 
 in both branches of the legislature has been one in ten of the 
 total membership, while their proportion to the male popu- 
 lation has l)een only one in four hundred and sixty-eight. 
 
 In Vermont the average membership since 1850 has been 
 one in twelve, and the proportion to the population, one in 
 three hundred and iiftv-ei2:ht. 
 
 In Rhode Island the average has been one in twelve of 
 the legislature since 1840, and one in six hundred and 
 seventy-seven of the population. 
 
 In Connecticut the average membership since 1850 has 
 been one in sixteen, and the proportion to the population, 
 one in five hundred and fifty. 
 
 In Massachusetts since 1840, the proportion has been one 
 in nine of the legislature, and one in four hundred and 
 seventy-five of the population. 
 
 In New Hampshire the average membership from 1800 to 
 1840 was one in thirteen, and from 1840 to 1893, one in 
 nineteen, while the proportion to the population from 1840 
 to 1890 was one in four hundred and forty-nine. 
 
 For ninety-three years at least one in sixteen of the entire' 
 membership of both branches of the Xew Hampshire Legis- 
 lature have been lawyers.
 
 19 
 
 If during these periods the Bar had been represented in 
 the legislatures of these states only according to their pro- 
 portion of the population there would have 1)een in the 
 legislature of Maine a lawyer once in three years, in the 
 legislatures of Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and 
 Massachusetts once in two years, and in that of Rhode 
 Island once in six years. 
 
 The present membership of the Bar in the state legisla- 
 tures and their proportion to the male population, so far as I 
 have been able to ascertain it, is as follows : — 
 
 In Alabama, 1 in 12 of the meml)ership of tlic legislature, 
 and 1 in 780 of the population. 
 
 In Arizona, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 41(5 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Arkansas, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 582 of 
 the population. , 
 
 In California, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 273 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Colorado, 1 in G of the legislature, and 1 in l(jO of 
 the population. 
 
 In Connecticut, 1 in 11 of the legislature, and 1 in 384 
 of the population. 
 
 In Delaware, 1 in 30 of the legislature, and 1 in 584 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Florida, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 44*) of the 
 population. 
 
 In Georoia, 1 in 3 of the legislature, and 1 in 533 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Idaho, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 332 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Illinois, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 394 of the 
 population.
 
 20 
 
 In Indiana, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 348 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Iowa, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 325 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Kansas, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 360 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Kentucky, 1 in 3 of the legislature, and 1 in 420 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Louisiana, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 566 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Maine, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 447 of the 
 population. 
 
 In ^Maryland, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 425 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Massachusetts, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 460 
 of the population. 
 
 In Michigan, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 411 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Minnesota, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 463 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Mississippi, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 692 
 of the population. 
 
 In ^Missouri, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 388 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Montana, 1 in 12 of the legislature, and 1 in 366 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Nebraska, 1 in 17 of the legislature, and 1 in 297 of 
 the po}iulation. 
 
 In Nevada, 1 in 22 of the legislature, and 1 in 353 of 
 the population. 
 
 In New Hampshire, 1 in 18 of the legislature, and 1 in 
 446 of the population. 
 
 1 
 f
 
 21 
 
 In New Jersey, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 3 GO 
 of the population. 
 
 In New York, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 265 of 
 the population. 
 
 In North Carolina, 1 in of the legislature, and 1 in 
 891 of the population. 
 
 In North Dakota, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 
 274 of the population. 
 
 In Ohio, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 360 of the 
 population . 
 
 In Oregon, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 8;)2 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Pennsylvania, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 
 428 of the population. 
 
 In Rhode Island, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 561 
 of the population. 
 
 In South Carolina, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 791) 
 of the population. 
 
 In South Dakota, 1 in 11 of the legislature, and 1 in 274 
 of the population. 
 
 In Tennessee, 1 in 4 of the legislature, and 1 in 511 
 of the population. 
 
 In Texas, 1 in 2 of the legislature, and 1 in 397 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Vermont, 1 in 14 of the legislature, and 1 in 394 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Virginia, 1 in 2 of the legislature, and 1 in 550 of the 
 population. 
 
 In Washington, 1 in 7 of the legislature, and 1 in 407 of 
 the population. 
 
 In West Virginia, 1 in 5 of the legislature, and 1 in 500 
 of the population.
 
 22 
 
 In Wisconsin, 1 in 6 of the legislature, and 1 in 568 of 
 the population. 
 
 In Wyoming, 1 in 12 of the legislature, and 1 in 416 of 
 the population. 
 
 It thus appears that in the legislatures of all the states 
 but one the profession has a membership excessively large in 
 proportion to its number in the population of the state. 
 There is no reason to doubt that this is the case in that 
 state, or that it has always been the case in all the states. 
 
 The influence of the Bar was controlling in the formation 
 of the Federal Government. 
 
 Twenty-flve of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and 30 of the 55 members of the Convention 
 which framed the Federal Constitution were lawyers. 
 
 In the tirst Cono-ress of the United States, 10 of the 29 
 senators, and 17 of the 65 representatives were lawyers, and 
 the proportion of lawyers to the total number of senators 
 and representatives has increased in each Congress, almost 
 without exception, until in the present Congress, 67 of the 
 84 senators, and 222 of the 362 representatives are lawyers. 
 
 The entire number of senators since 1787 has been 3,122, 
 of whom 2,068 have been lawyers. 
 
 The entire number of representatives has been 11,889, of 
 whom 5,832 have been lawyers. 
 
 The combined meml)ership of Ijoth branches of the Na- 
 tional Congress from the beginning has been 15,011, of 
 whom 7,900 have been members of the Bar. 
 
 The lowest percentage of membership of lawyers in both 
 branches of Cono-ress was in the tenth Congress, when it 
 was 16 per cent, and the highest was in the fiftieth Con- 
 gress, when it was 71 percent. 
 
 In the House the lowest percentage was in the tenth
 
 23 
 
 Couore.ss, when it was 12 per cent, and the hijrhest was in 
 the thirty-sixth C'ongress, when it was 69 per cent. 
 
 In the Senate the loAvest percentage was in the thirteenth 
 Congress, when it was 25 per cent, and the highest in the 
 twenty-eighth Congress, Avhen it was 91 per cent. 
 
 The averaofe membershii) of lawyers in both ])ranches of 
 Congress from the beginning has been 53 per cent. In the 
 House the average has been 49 per cent, and in the Senate 
 66. 
 
 The membership of lawyers in the Senate has been greater 
 during the past twenty-five years than for any other equal 
 period, and has averaged from 75 to 80 per cent ot the 
 entire membership.^ I have ascertained the membership of 
 lawyers in Congress from trustworthy sources of informa- 
 tion and I am confident it is not over stated. 
 
 Of the 122 different persons who have represented New 
 Hampshire in the United States House of Representa- 
 tives since 1789, 69 have been lawyers; while of the 46 
 senators during the same period, 30 have been members of 
 the Bar. 
 
 The various State Constitutional Conventions have l^een 
 larsfelv composed of lawyers. In the convention soon to 
 convene in New York 133 out of the 175 members are 
 of the legal profession. 
 
 But the influence of laAvyers in the State Legislatures, 
 and Constitutional Conventions and in Congress has always 
 been much greater than their numbers alone would warrant. 
 They have, as a rule, held the most important and influen- 
 tial positions, and have ])een to a large extent the presiding 
 
 1 See Appendix III. for tables showing percentage of lawyers lu the 
 membership of Senate and of House in each Congress, and their percent- 
 age of the male population since 1840.
 
 24 
 
 officers who have appointed the committees and guided the 
 deliberations of these bodies. 
 
 Twentv-eioht of the 78 Presidents pro tern, of the United 
 States Senate, and 36 of the 63 Speakers of the House of 
 Representatives have ])een lawyers. 
 
 In New Hampshire, this has l)een the case to a very 
 marked degree. 
 
 Of the 62 Speakers of the House in this state since 1791, 
 50 have been lawyers, and the Speaker's chair has l^een 
 occupied by a lawyer for 85 of the 103 years. 
 
 Of the 35 clerks of the House since 1800, 20 have ))een 
 lawyers, and during 51 of the 94 years the clerkship has 
 been filled by a lawyer. 
 
 Of the 75 Presidents of the Senate since 1791, 34 have 
 been lawyers, and the presidency has been filled by lawyers 
 during 47 of the past 105 years. 
 
 Of the 45 clerks of the Senate since 1800, 36 have l)een 
 lawyers, and the clerkship of the Senate has been filled l)y a 
 law^yer during 79 of the past 108 years. 
 
 It is also worthy of remark that the Bar of New Hamp- 
 shire, like that of other States, contril)uted large!}' from its 
 members and students to the Union army. The Colonel, 
 Lieut. -Colonel, and Major of the First Regiment were leading 
 lawyers,^ while every subsequent regiment numbered among 
 its officers, or its ranks, law^-ers and law students, who left 
 their clients and their studies to follow the flag, and more 
 than one-third of the commanding officers of its regiments 
 who fell in battle were members of the Bar.- 
 
 The names of the members of the Bar of the State who 
 
 ' Mason W. Tappau, Thomas J. Whipple, Aaron F. Stevens. 
 2 Col, Louis Bell, Col. Albert Henderson, Col. Oliver Woodbury, 
 Maj. George Everett, Col. Moses N. Collins, Col. Alex. Gardiner,
 
 25 
 
 have thus held so uuiiiy of its legislative and executive 
 offices are classified in an appendix to these remarks, as I 
 have thought they might l)e of permanent interest to your 
 Association.^ 
 
 Lawyers have been chairmen of the most important com- 
 mittees in the State Leoislatures and in Congress, members 
 almost exclusively of the judiciary connnittees, and of com- 
 mittees and commissions for the revision of the statutes, 
 doubtless, besides, })articipating in the debates more than 
 any others. 
 
 Legislative action is also intiuenced by arguments before 
 committees by lawyers who appear as counsel for opposing 
 interests, and who are usually of such learning and char- 
 acter that the information and suggestions given by them 
 are of oreat value. 
 
 In addition to this, the current comment and oi)inion of 
 the Bar have an influence upon legislative action in regard to 
 all matters of general and permanent legislation similar to, 
 though probably not as great as, that which they have upon 
 the action of the judiciary. In questions of constitutional 
 law this influence is usually controllini>-, which is doubtless 
 the o-reat reason why, amono- the multitude of leo-islative 
 acts, there are so few which are contrary to the fundamental 
 law. 
 
 In short, it is safe to say that there is but little, if an}^, 
 permanent general state or federal legislation which is not 
 practically shaped by lawyers, and no statute which the 
 profession as a whole do not approve can hold a permanent 
 place in the law. 
 
 The influence of the Bar in the executive department of 
 the government has always lieen most important. 
 
 ' See Appendix IV.
 
 26 
 
 The President and the state Governors necessarily have 
 such large and important powers, not only in respect to the 
 execution of the law, but in regard to legislation and in the 
 appointment of other officers that it is of the highest import- 
 ance these positions should be held by able and conservative 
 men. They not only have the power to execute the law and 
 to pardon offences against it,i but the right to call the 
 Legislature together for action at any time they may deem 
 expedient. 
 
 It is also, by the express provision of the federal Constitu- 
 tion and of most of the state constitutions, and by custom 
 in all the states but one, I think, the duty of the executive 
 to give information to the legislative department as to the 
 condition of pul)lic affairs, and to recommend such legisla- 
 tion as he may deem the public interest to require. 
 
 This gives the Executive a most important influence in 
 legislation, for such recommendations, ])eing generally based 
 upon more full information than it is practicable for the 
 leoislature to ol)tain, and lieino- oiven in most cases from 
 purely patriotic motives, justly receive careful consideration 
 from the legislature and from the people. 
 
 The Executive has also, beyond this, the uncontrolled 
 power, I\v the exercise of a qualified negative upon legisla- 
 tive action, popularly called " the Veto Power," to com- 
 })el the legislative department to revise its action, and thus 
 in the federal government and in substantiallv all the states, 
 to require the legislature to act by a two-thirds vote of all 
 the members of each branch. The frequency with which 
 this high power is now exercised is well known, and the 
 
 ^ The Governor of New York during the last year granted 18 pardons 
 and 110 commutations of sentences, nineteen of which were to convicted 
 murderers.
 
 27 
 
 manner in wliicli the Executive niav use it, merely because 
 his judgment as to the practical details of an act of legis- 
 lation differs from that of the legislative dei)artment, has 
 been recently illustrated in a striking manner hy a i)resi- 
 dential veto of a bill for the construction of a I)ridge in one 
 of the most important lines of interstate commerce in the 
 Union. ^ 
 
 The President and the state Governors have also most 
 important powers of appointment to office, and though iu the 
 federal government and in some of the states this power is 
 cautiously guarded l)y requiring the approval of the most 
 important appointments by the Senate, or a Council, it is as 
 a rule practically exercised with comparatively little check. 
 
 It is thus to the executive department of our federal and 
 state governments that the constitutions necessarily contide 
 the largest liberty of individual official action, and it is in 
 this department that the Bar has always held a very imi)or- 
 tant part. 
 
 Of the 24 Presidents of the United States, 19 have been 
 lawyers. The presidential chair has been occupied by law- 
 yers for 84 years of the 10(5 years since the adoption of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Of the 26 vice-presidents, 17 have been lawyers. 
 
 Of the 232 cabinet officers, 175 have been lawyers, with- 
 out counting the 43 attorneys general who have, of course, 
 all been lawyers. 
 
 If thev are included, 218 of the 232 cabinet officers have 
 been members of the Bar. 
 
 Of the 238 governors of the New England States, 11 ;> of 
 
 1 President Cleveland's veto of the New York and New Jersey Bridge 
 Bill.
 
 28 
 
 the 231 whose occupations I have been able to ascertain, 
 have Ijeen lawyers. 
 
 Of the 1,157 governors of all the states, 578 of the 978 
 whose occupations I have been aljle to ascertain, have been 
 lawyers. 
 
 The followinof are illustrations of the extent to which the 
 state Governors have been lawyers : — 
 
 In Alabama, 21 out of the 28 governors have been law- 
 yers : in Georgia, 2{) of the 36 ; in Illinois, 15 of the 21 ; 
 in Iowa, 10 of the 17 ; in Kentucky, 19 of the 31 ; in North 
 Carolina, 24 of the 40; in Pennsylvania, 13 of the 21; in 
 Ohio, 27 of the 40 ; in New York, 25 of the 33 ; in Ver- 
 mont, 28 of the 40 ; in Maine, 20 of the 35 ; in Connecticut, 
 
 23 of the 38 ; in Massachusetts, 21 of the 34; in Virginia, 
 
 24 of the 39. 
 
 But it is not in the leo-islature or from the executive 
 chair or the bench that the bar exerts the most important in- 
 fluence upon the government. It is its influence upon the 
 people, at the source of political power, which most shapes 
 and directs public action, and has the most far-reaching 
 effect upon the fortunes of the State. 
 
 The great conservative power in the State is the constant 
 influence of the members of the profession upon the commu- 
 nities in which they live. They teach the countless clients 
 whom they advise, and whose business affairs they more and 
 more direct, the juries whom they address, the citizens with 
 whom they mingle in all the relations of social and civil life, 
 the orderly habits of thought, and the conservatism of action 
 which are the safety of the Republic. Take this constant 
 conservative influence out of our social, business, and politi- 
 cal life, and an here would the safeguards of constitutional 
 liberty be found?
 
 29 
 
 Men of business pursuits usually look only to that which 
 they believe will best serve their ])urely personal purposes, 
 and reoard evervthino- which stands in the wav ol what thev 
 desire only as ol)stacles to be surmountedor destroA'ed. 
 
 The scholar, uneducated by contact with actual life, strives 
 for an ideal state, and seeks to guide political action within 
 the limited lines of his individual thought and belief. The 
 uneducated and ignorant see only the present evil, and strike 
 blindly at that which seems to be most in the way of their 
 momentary desires. They would all, with honest intention, 
 but with limited vision and narrow purpose, often destroy 
 the legal safeguards upon which the security of their persons 
 and property absolutely depend. But the lawyer, educated 
 and trained to a respect for the established rules of law, 
 which is often almost su})erstitious, and with an undue desire 
 to preserve that which is rather than to attain that which 
 should be, tempers and moderates the action of all. 
 
 It is as true now as when De Tocqueville wrote, that the 
 legal profession in the United States is "qualified hy its 
 
 powers, and even by its defects, to neutralize the vices which 
 are inherent in popular government." He wrote : — 
 
 "The lawyers of the United States form a party 
 which is but little feared and scarcely perceived, 
 which has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts 
 itself with oreat flexil)ilitv to the exigencies of the 
 time, and accommodates itself to all the movements of 
 the social body. But this party extends over the 
 whole communit}^ and it i^enetrates into all classes of 
 society. It acts upon the country impercci)tibly, but 
 it finally fashions it to suit its purposes." ' 
 
 Lawyers, of all men, most appreciate that the primary 
 purpose of a free government is to protect the individual 
 
 1 De Tocqueville's " Democracy in America," Vol. 1, page 284.
 
 30 
 
 against the many, and that the steady maintenance of the 
 fundamental principles of the common law, even though they 
 at times serve to restrain liberty, is the only sure protection 
 against a tyranny by the majority, which, unchecked, will 
 ultimately destroy liberty itself. 
 
 The cautious conservatism of the Bar has been the sub- 
 ject of much flippant observation and shallow criticism, but 
 it is by far the most valuable quality which the profession 
 brings to the service of the State. It springs from devotion 
 to individual rights under the law, and the great glory of 
 the Bar has always been its constant courage in defence of 
 these rights. 
 
 Maynard, with the weight of ninety years upon his snow- 
 crowned head, leading the defence against the arbitrary pre- 
 rogative of the Crown ; John Adams, standing amid a storm 
 of popular indignation in defence of hated foreign soldiers 
 against illegal prosecution ; Seward, speaking for the weak 
 and friendless Freeman ; and Dana, daring social ostracism 
 and personal violence in defence of the fugitive slave, are 
 only illustrations of how the Bar, unawed by power, 
 unmoved by popular clamor, has always stood for personal 
 liberty regulated by law. 
 
 It is often said that lawyers leave no monuments worthy 
 of their intellectual power and laljor ; that while great 
 soldiers link their names with l)attles by which states are 
 created and states are saved ; great statesmen found civil 
 policies by which nations are guided and made great, and 
 gTeat architects and artists live in the masterpieces of archi- 
 tecture, sculpture, and painting, great lawyers create nothing 
 which louo- outlasts their lives. 
 
 In a narrow sense this is true. The highest effort of the
 
 31 
 
 lawyer does soon fade into tradition ; and even the jrreatest 
 do seem to leave nothing whicli li\es after them. 
 
 But in a broader sense this is not true. AVe labor upon 
 that which outlasts the results of ail other human effort. 
 We build and preserve the Temple of Justice, and, to borrow 
 the words of New Hanipsliire's most illustrious son : — 
 
 "AVhoever lal)ors on this edifice Avitli usefulness 
 and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, 
 strengthens its ])illars, adorns its entablatures, or 
 contributes to raise its auijust dome still higher in 
 the skies, connects himself in name and fame and 
 character with that which is and must ])e as dural^lo 
 as the frame of human society." 
 
 And this shall make the lawyer's labor immortal.
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 LAW SCHOOLS OF THP: UNITED STATES. 
 
 Albany Law School, 
 
 Allen University Law Dept., 
 
 Alabama University Law School, 
 
 Baltimore University Law School, 
 
 Boston University Law Dept., 
 Buffalo Law School, 
 Central Tennessee College, 
 Cincinnati College Law Dept., 
 Columbia College Law Dept., 
 Cornell University Law Dept. , 
 Chaddock College Law Dept., 
 Columbian University Law Dept., 
 Cumberland Univ'sity Law Dept., 
 Colorado University Law School, 
 City of New York University, 
 De Pauw University Law Dept., 
 Dickinson School of Law, 
 Emory College Law Dept., 
 Georgia University Law School, 
 Georgetown Univ'sity Law Dept., 
 Harvard University Law Dept., 
 Hastings College of Law, 
 Howard University Law Dept., 
 Indiana University Law Dept., 
 Iowa College of Law, 
 Iowa State University Law Dept., 
 Illinois "Wesleyan University Law 
 
 College, 
 Kansas University Law School, 
 Louisville University Law School, 
 Little Rock Univ'sity Law Dept., 
 McKendree College Law Dept., 
 Maryland University Law School, 
 Mercer University Law School, 
 Michigan University Law School, 
 Minnesota University Law School, 
 Missouri State University, Law 
 
 Dept., 
 Missouri University Law School, 
 
 Albany, New York, 
 Columbia, S. C, 
 University P. O., 
 Baltimore, Md., { Reopened, 
 
 Boston, Mass., 
 BulTalo, N. Y., 
 Nashville, Tenn., 
 Cincinnati, 
 New York, 
 Ithaca, N. Y., 
 Quincy, 111., 
 Washington, D. C, 
 Lebanon, Tenn., 
 Boulder, Col., 
 New York, 
 Greencastle, Ind., 
 Carlisle, Pa., 
 Oxford, Ga., 
 Athens, Ga., 
 Washington, D. C, 
 Cambridge, Mass., 
 San Francisco, Cal., 
 Washington, D. C, 
 Bloomington, Ind., 
 Des Moines, Iowa, 
 Iowa City, la., 
 
 Lawrence, 
 Louisville, Ky., 
 Little Rock, Ark., 
 Lebanon, 111., 
 Baltimore, Md., 
 Macon, Ga., 
 Ann Arbor, Mich., 
 jNIinneapolis, 
 
 Columbia, 
 University P. O. 
 
 Opened. 
 
 Metn- 
 bership 
 
 1851 
 
 41 
 
 1883 
 
 11 
 
 
 19 
 
 1870 / 
 ISWI i 
 
 80 
 
 1872 
 
 210 
 
 1887 
 
 60 
 
 1875 
 
 8 
 
 1833 
 
 16(j 
 
 1858 
 
 625 
 
 1887 
 
 228 
 
 18S2 
 
 12 
 
 18(!5 
 
 .383 
 
 1842 
 
 71 
 
 1802 
 
 
 1858 
 
 342 
 
 1884 
 
 48 
 
 1890 
 
 50 
 
 1887 
 
 
 185!) 
 
 .38 
 
 1870 
 
 268 
 
 1817 
 
 363 
 
 1878 
 
 140 
 
 18G5 
 
 74 
 
 1842 
 
 61 
 
 1867 
 
 37 
 
 18C6 
 
 200 
 
 1874 
 
 44 
 
 1878 
 
 79 
 
 184() 
 
 40 
 
 1890 
 
 30 
 
 1889 
 
 26 
 
 1825-35 
 
 160 
 
 1892 
 
 
 1859 
 
 *648 
 
 1888 
 
 242 
 
 1872 
 
 75 
 
 1881 
 
 21
 
 North Carolina University Law 
 Dept., 
 
 Northwestern University Law 
 Scliool, 
 
 Notre Dame University Law 
 Dept., 
 
 National University Law Dept., 
 Ohio State University Law School 
 Oregon University Law School, 
 Pennsylvania University Law 
 
 School, 
 St. Louis Law School, 
 South Carolina University Law 
 
 Dept., 
 Tennessee University Law Dept., 
 Texas University Law Dept., 
 Tulane University of Louisiana, 
 
 Law Dept., 
 Vanderbilt University, Law Dept 
 Virginia University Law Dept., 
 W.Virginia University Law Dept 
 Wisconsin University Law School 
 "Washington and Lee University, 
 
 Law School, 
 Willamette University College 
 
 of Law, 
 Yale University, Law Dept., 
 
 34 
 
 Chapel Hill, 
 Chicago, 111., 
 
 Opened. 
 
 1846-68 
 
 Reopened, 1.S75 
 
 Mem- 
 bership. 
 
 ' 55 
 
 ;, La., ( 
 
 New Orleans 
 
 Washington, D. C, 
 , Columbus, Ohio, 
 Portland, Ore., 
 
 Philadelphia, 
 St. Louis, Mo., 
 
 Columbia, 
 Knoxville, 
 Austin, Tex., 
 
 Reorgan- 
 ized, 
 
 1859 
 1869 
 
 1883 
 1893 
 1891 
 1884 
 
 1852 
 1867 
 
 1884 
 1890 
 1883 
 
 New Orleans, La., 
 ,, Nashville, Tenn., September, 1874 
 
 University P. O., Va., 1826 
 
 , Morgantown, W. Va., 1878 
 
 , Madison, Wis. 1868 
 
 Lexington, Va., 
 
 Salem, Ore., 
 
 New Haven, Conn., 
 
 1849 
 
 1843 
 
 204 
 
 40-50 
 
 105 
 67 
 55 
 
 176 
 81 
 
 20 
 10 
 
 105 
 
 49 
 28 
 
 138 
 26 
 
 170 
 
 63 
 
 5 
 
 188
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Cases in which Statutes have been held to be Unconstitu- 
 tional by the Supreme Court of the Cnited 
 States stated in order of time. 
 
 STATUTES or THE UNITED STATES, 20. 
 
 1792. 
 Hayburn's Case, 2 Dallas, 409. 
 
 n\n. 
 
 United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How- 
 ard, 52 u. 
 
 1803. 
 
 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. 
 
 1851. 
 United States v. Ferreira, 13 Howard, 
 
 40. 
 
 1864. 
 
 Gordon v. United States, 2 "Wallace, 
 
 561. 
 
 1866. 
 
 Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, .333. 
 
 1869. 
 Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wallace, 603. 
 
 1869. 
 United States v. DeWitt, 9 Wallace, 41. 
 
 1869. 
 The Justices u. Murray, 9 Wallace, 274. 
 
 1870. 
 Collector v. Day, 11 Wallace, 113. 
 
 1871. 
 United States v. Klein , 13 Wallace, 128. 
 
 1872. 
 United States v. Railroad Company, 
 17 Wallace, 322. 
 
 1875. 
 
 United States v. Reese, 92 United 
 
 States, 214. 
 
 1877. 
 
 United States v. Fox, 95 United States, 
 
 670. 
 
 1879. 
 
 Trade Mark Cases, 100 United States, 
 
 82. 
 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 United 
 States, 168. 
 
 1882. 
 United States v. Harris, 106 United 
 States, 629. 
 
 1883. 
 Civil Rights Cases, 109 United States, 3. 
 
 1885. 
 Boyd V. United States, 116 United 
 States, 616. 
 
 1887. 
 Callan v. Wilson, 127 United States, 
 540. 
 
 STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TEREITOEIES. 
 
 Alabama, 7. 
 
 1859. 
 
 Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 Howard, 227. 
 Affirmed in Foster v. Davenport, 22 
 Howard, 244. 
 
 1860. 
 Howards. Bugbee, 24 Howard, 461. 
 
 1868. 
 The Belfast, 7 Wallace, 624.
 
 m 
 
 1870. 
 State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wal- 
 lace, 204. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wallace, 471. 
 
 1873. 
 Horn V. Lockhart, 17 Wallace, 570. 
 
 1887. 
 Leloup i;. Port of Mobile, 127 United 
 States, 640. 
 
 Arkansas, 4. 
 
 1850. 
 Woodruff V. Tapnall, 10 Howard, 190. 
 
 1853. 
 Cnrran t'. Arkansas, 15 Howard, 304. 
 
 1866. 
 McGee v. Mathis, 4 Wallace, 143. 
 
 1871. 
 Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wallace, 654. 
 
 California, 7. 
 
 1854. 
 Hays V. Pacific Mail Steamship Com- 
 pany, 17 Howard, 596. 
 
 1860. 
 Almy V. California, 24 Howard, 169. 
 
 1871. 
 Low V. Austin, 13 Wallace, 29. 
 
 1875. 
 Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 United 
 States, 275. 
 
 1885. 
 Yick Wo €. Hopkins,, 118 United 
 States, 356. 
 
 1887. 
 California v. Central Pacific Railroad 
 Company, 127 United States, 1. 
 
 1889. 
 McCall V. California, 136 United States, 
 104. 
 
 Delaware, 1. 
 
 1880. 
 Neal i\ Delaware, 103 United States, 
 .370. 
 
 District of Columbia, 1. 
 
 1888. 
 Stoutenhurgh v. Hennick, 129 United 
 States, 141. 
 
 Florida, 1. 
 
 1877. 
 Pensacola Telegraph Company v. 
 Western Union Telegraph Company, 
 96 United States, 1. 
 
 Georgia, 8. 
 
 1810. 
 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87. 
 
 1832. 
 Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Peters, 515. 
 
 1871. 
 White v. Hart, 13 Wallace, 646. 
 
 1872. 
 Gunn V. Barry, 15 Wallace, 610. 
 
 1872. 
 Walker r. Whitehead, 16 Wallace, 314. 
 
 1875. 
 Central Railroad Banking Company v. 
 Georgia, 92 United States, 665. 
 
 Affirmed by Southwestern Railroad 
 
 Company v. Geoigia, 92 United 
 
 States, 676. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Savannah v. Jesup, 106 United States, 
 
 563. 
 
 1885. 
 
 Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 United 
 States, 90. 
 
 Illinois, 6. 
 
 1843. 
 Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 Howard, 311. 
 
 1844. 
 McCracken v. Hayward, 2 Howard, 
 
 608. 
 
 1866. 
 
 Bradley v. People, 4 Wallace, 459. 
 
 1866. 
 
 Von Hoffman c. Quincy, 4 Wallace, 
 
 535. 
 
 1878. 
 
 University v. People, 99 United States, 
 
 309. 
 
 1886. 
 
 Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Rail- 
 way Company i'. Illinois, 118 United 
 States, .")57.
 
 ^i7 
 
 Tndiana, 3. 
 
 1845. 
 Gantley's Lessee v. Ewing, 3 How- 
 ard, 707. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 United 
 
 States, 322. I 
 
 1886. I 
 
 Western Union Telegraph Company 
 /•. Pendleton, 122 United States, 347. 
 
 Iowa, 4. 
 
 1850. 
 Webster v. Reid, 11 Howard, 437. 
 
 1886. . 
 Barron v. Burnside, 121 United States, 
 
 1867. 
 White I'. Cannon, 6 Wallace, 443. 
 
 1874. 
 Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wallace, 
 
 577. 
 
 1875. 
 
 186. 
 
 1887. 
 
 Bowman v. Chicago and Northwestern 
 
 Railway Company, 125 United 
 
 States, 465. 
 
 188!). 
 
 Leisy u. Hardin, 135 United States, 100. 
 
 Kansas, 3. 
 
 i86t;. 
 
 The Kansas Indians, 5 Wallace, 737. 
 
 1872. 
 Railway Company v. Pre^cott, 16 Wal- 
 lace, 603. 
 
 1874. 
 
 Loan Association r. Topeka, 20 Wal- 
 lace, 655. 
 
 Kentucky, 4. 
 
 1823. 
 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Bush V. Kentucky, 107 United States, 
 
 110. 
 
 1885. 
 
 Louisville Gas Company v. Citizen's 
 
 Gas Company, 115 United States, 
 
 683. 
 
 1800. 
 
 Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 United 
 
 States, 47. 
 
 Louisiana, 19. 
 
 181Vt. 
 McMillan v. McNeill, 4 Wheaton, 209. 
 
 1867. 
 Steamship Company v. Portwardens, 
 6 Wallace, 31. 
 
 Commissioners v. North German 
 Lloyd, tt2 United States, 259. 
 
 1875. 
 Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 
 United States, 531. 
 
 1876. 
 
 Fester v. Master and Wardens of the 
 
 Port of New Orleans, 94 United 
 
 States, 246. 
 
 1877. 
 
 Hall V. DeCuir, 95 United States, 485. 
 
 1880. 
 
 Wolff V. New Orleans, 103 United 
 
 States, 358. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 L^nited 
 States, 278. 
 
 1881. 
 Asylum v. New Orleans, 105 United 
 States, 362. 
 
 1882. 
 Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 United States, 
 
 711. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Nelson v. St. Martin's Parish, 111 
 United States, 716. 
 
 1884. 
 
 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 United 
 
 States, 69. 
 
 1885. 
 
 New Orleans Gas Light Company v. 
 
 Louisiana Light Company, 115 
 
 United States. 650. 
 
 1885. 
 New Orleans Water Works Company 
 V. Rivers, 115 United States, 674. 
 
 1885. 
 Fisk V. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 
 United States, 131. 
 
 1886. 
 New Orleans v. Hou.ston, 119 United 
 States, 265.
 
 38 
 
 1886. 
 St. Tammany Water Works v. New 
 
 Orleans Water Works, 120 United 
 
 States, 64. 
 Affirming New Orleans Water Works 
 
 V. Rivers, 115 United States, 674. 
 
 Maine, 1. 
 
 18G4. 
 Hawthorne v. Calef. 2 Wallace, 10. 
 
 Maryland, 9. 
 
 1819. 
 
 McGulloch V. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 
 
 .316. 
 
 1827. 
 
 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419. 
 
 1832. 
 Boyle V. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 348. 
 
 1845. 
 Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How- 
 ard, 133. 
 
 1847. 
 
 Cook V. Moffat, 5 Howard, 295. 
 
 1851. 
 Achison v. Huddleson, 12 Howard, 293. 
 
 1870. 
 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wallace, 418. 
 
 1879. 
 
 Guy V. Baltimore. 100 United States, 
 
 434. 
 
 1886. 
 
 Corson v. Maryland, 120 United States, 
 
 502. 
 
 Massachusetts, 2. 
 
 1849. 
 Norris v. Boston, 7 Howard, 283. 
 
 1887. 
 Western Union Telegraph Company 
 V. Massachusetts, 125 United States, 
 530. 
 
 Michigan, 2. 
 
 1885. 
 Walling V. Michigan, 116 United 
 States, 446. 
 
 1886. 
 
 Fargo w. Michigan, 121 United States, 
 230. 
 
 Minnesota, 3. 
 
 1857. 
 Irvine v. Marshall, 20 Howard, 558. 
 
 1889. 
 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail- 
 way Company v. Minnesota, 134 
 United States, 418. 
 1889. 
 Minnesota v, Barher, 136 United 
 States, 314. 
 
 Mississippi, 1. 
 
 1848. 
 Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 Howard, 
 301. 
 
 Missouri, 11. 
 
 1830. 
 
 Craig V. Missouri, 4 Peters, 410. 
 
 Affirmed in Byrne v. Missouri, ;8 
 
 Peters, 40. 
 
 1839. 
 
 Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Peters, 436. 
 
 1866. 
 
 Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace, 277. 
 
 18(^.9. 
 Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 
 Wallace, 430. 
 
 1870. 
 St. Louis V. Ferry Company, 11 Wal- 
 lace, 423. 
 
 1873. 
 Pacific Railroad Company v. Maguire, 
 20 Wallace, 36. 
 
 1875. 
 Wei ton V. Missouri, 91 United States, 
 275. 
 
 1877. 
 Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 United 
 
 States, 465. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Kriug V. Missouri, 107 United States, 
 
 221. 
 
 1884. 
 
 Cole V. LaGrange, 113 United States, 1. 
 
 1886. 
 Seibert U.Lewis, 122 United States, 284. 
 
 Montana, 1. 
 
 1870. 
 Dunphy v. Kleinsmith, 11 Wallace, 
 I 610. 
 
 Nevada, 1. 
 
 1867. 
 Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 35,
 
 39 
 
 New Ilaiiipshire, 1. 
 
 1819. 
 Trustees of Dartinoutli College v. 
 Woodward, 4 Wlieaton, 518. 
 
 New Jersey, 2. 
 
 1812. 
 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 1()4. 
 
 1877. 
 New Jersey v. Yard,!).") United States, 
 104. 
 
 New York, 16. 
 
 1819. 
 Sturges V. Crowniiisliield, 4 Wlieaton, 
 
 12-2. 
 
 1824. 
 
 Gibbons v. Ogden, It Wheaton, 1. 
 
 1827. 
 Ogden V. Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 2i:?. 
 
 1849. 
 Smith V. Turner (Tlie Passenger 
 Cases), 7 Howard, 283. 
 
 1862. 
 Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 
 2 Bhick, 620. 
 
 1864. 
 Bank Tax Case, 2 Wallace, 200. 
 
 186.5. 
 The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wallace, 
 
 31. 
 
 1865. 
 
 Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wal- 
 lace, 573. 
 
 1866. 
 
 New York Indians, 5 Wallace, 761. 
 
 1868. 
 
 The Banks «;.The Mayor, 7 Wallace, 16. 
 
 Atfirmed in Banks v. Supervisors, 7 
 
 Wallace, 26. 
 
 1875. 
 
 Henderson v. New York, 92 United 
 
 States, 259. 
 
 1876. 
 
 Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker, 
 94 United States, 238. 
 1879. 
 People V. Weaver, 100 United States, 
 539. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 United 
 States, 303. 
 
 ■1881. 
 
 Hills V. Exchange Bank, 105 United 
 
 States, 319. 
 
 1882. 
 
 People V. Compagnie Gcm-rale Trans- 
 
 atlantique, 107 United States, 59. 
 
 North Carolina, 2. 
 
 1871. 
 Wilmington Railroad v. Reid, 13 Wal- 
 lace, 264. 
 
 1877. 
 
 Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 United States, 
 .503. 
 
 Ohio, U. 
 
 1824. 
 Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 
 9 Wheaton, 738. 
 
 1845. 
 Neil V. Ohio, 3 Howard, 720. 
 
 1853. 
 State Bank of Ohio v. Kuoop, 16 How- 
 ard, 369. 
 
 1855. 
 
 Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 Howard, 331. 
 
 1861. 
 Franklin Branch Bank v. State of 
 Ohio, 1 Black, 474. 
 
 1862. 
 Wright V. Sill, 2 Black, 544. 
 
 1879. 
 Pelton V. National Bank, 101 United 
 
 States, 143. 
 
 1887. 
 Whitbeck v. Mercantile Bank, 127 
 United States, 193. 
 1887. 
 Ratterman v. Western Union Tele- 
 graph Company, 127 United States, 
 411. 
 
 Oregon, 2. 
 
 1890. 
 Penuoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 United 
 States, 1. 
 
 1890. 
 
 Scotland County Court i'. United States 
 ex rel. Hill, 140 United States, 41. 
 
 Pennsylvania, l:i. 
 
 1809. 
 United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115.
 
 40 
 
 1821. 
 Farmers and Mechanics Bank v. 
 Smith, G Wheaton, 131. 
 
 1842. 
 Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Peters, 435. 
 
 1842. 
 Prigg V. Pennsylvania, K! Peters, 539. 
 
 1845U 
 Searight v. Stokes, 3 Howard, 151. 
 
 1808. 
 Kailroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wal- 
 Jace, 262. 
 
 1872. 
 State Freight Tax, 15 Wallace, 232. 
 
 1872. 
 State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 
 Wallace, 300. 
 
 1878. 
 Cook V. Pennsylvania, 97 United 
 States, 5(36. 
 
 1884. 
 Boyer v. Boyer, 113 United States, 689. 
 
 1884. 
 Gloucester Ferry Company v. Pennsyl- 
 vania, 114 United States, 196. 
 
 1886. 
 Philadelphia and Southern Steamship 
 Company v. Pennsylvania, 122 
 United States, 326. 
 
 1889. 
 Norfolk and Western Railroad Com- 
 pany V. Pennsylvania, 136 United 
 States, 114. 
 
 South Caroliua, 4. 
 
 1829. 
 Weston V. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449. 
 
 1872. 
 Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wallace, 244. 
 
 1873. 
 Barings v. Dabney, 19 Wallace, 1. 
 
 1877. 
 Murray v. Charleston, 96 United 
 States, 432. 
 
 Tennessee, 8. 
 
 1868. 
 Furman r. Nichol, 8 Wallace, 44. 
 
 1877. 
 Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 United 
 States, 679. 
 
 1877. 
 Memphis v. United States, 97 United 
 
 States, 293. 
 
 1878. 
 
 Keith V. Clark, 97 United States, 454. 
 
 188.3. 
 Stevins v. Griffith, 111 United States, 
 48. 
 
 1885. 
 Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car 
 
 Company, 117 United States, 34. 
 Affirmed in Tennessee v. Pullman 
 Southern Car Company, 117 United 
 States, 51. 
 
 1885. 
 
 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 United 
 States, 151. 
 
 1886. 
 
 Bobbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dis- 
 trict, 120 United States, 489. 
 
 Texas, 5. 
 
 1868. 
 Texas v. White, 7 Wallace, 700. 
 
 1873. 
 Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wallace, 581. 
 
 1880. 
 Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 United States, 
 123. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Telegraph Company v. Texas, 105 
 
 United States, 460. 
 
 1888. 
 
 Asher v. Texas, 128 United States, 129. 
 
 Utah, 1. 
 
 1874. 
 Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wallace, 375. 
 
 Vermont, 1. 
 
 1823. 
 
 Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel V. New Haven, 8 Wheatou, 
 464. 
 
 Virginia, 13. 
 
 1815, 
 Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43.
 
 41 
 
 1851. 
 Pennsylvania r. Wheeling Bridge 
 Company, 13 Howard, 518. 
 
 1870. 
 Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wal- 
 lace, 349. 
 
 1877. 
 Williams v. Bruffy, 1)6 United States, 
 17f). 
 
 18711. 
 Hauenstein ?;. Lynham, 100 United 
 States, 483. 
 
 1880. 
 Hartmau r. Greenhovv, 102 United 
 Slates, f)72. 
 
 1880. 
 Webber v. Virginia, 103 United States, 
 .344. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Antoni v. Greenhow. 107 United 
 States, 7f;9. 
 
 1884 
 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 United 
 States, 260. 
 
 1885. 
 
 Effinger v, Kenney, 115 United States, 
 
 566. 
 
 1885. 
 Royall ?■. Virginia, 116 United States, 
 
 572. 
 
 18!t0. 
 Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 United 
 States, 78. 
 
 18! K). 
 Voight r. Wright, 141 United States, 
 62. 
 
 West Virginia, 3. 
 
 1872. 
 Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wallace, 234. 
 
 1879. 
 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 United 
 
 States, 303. 
 
 1882. 
 
 Parker.sburg v. Brown, 106 United 
 States, 487. 
 
 Wisconsin, 3. 
 
 1874. 
 
 Insurance Company v. Morse, 20 Wal- 
 lace, 445. 
 
 1876. 
 Affirmed by Doyle v. Continental In- 
 surance Company, 04 United States, 
 535. 
 
 1881. 
 Koshkouong v. Burton, 104 United 
 States, 668. 
 
 FOEEGOING DECISIONS BY DECADES. 
 
 1790-1800 
 1800-1810 
 1810-1820 
 1820-1830 
 1830-1840 
 
 Statutes of the United States. 
 
 1840-1850 
 1850-18(iO 
 1860-1870 
 1870-1880 
 1880-1893 
 
 
 1 
 5 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 Statutes of the States and Territories. 
 
 k_7 1,111 lllV 
 
 1790-1800 
 
 
 
 1850-1860 
 
 10 
 
 1800-1810 
 
 1 
 
 18()0-1870 
 
 24 
 
 1810-1820 
 
 7 
 
 1870-1880 
 
 51 
 
 1820-1830 
 
 7 
 
 1880-185K) 
 
 60 
 
 1830-1840 
 
 5 
 
 1890-1894 
 
 5 
 
 1840-1850 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 182
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 The following- table shows the membership of United States 
 Senate and of House of Representatives in each Congress 
 from 178i» to 1.S94, with the number of lawyers in each 
 Senate and the nuinber in each House, and their percentage 
 of the whole numl)cr of each and of the whole number of 
 both Senate and House, and also the percentage of law^^ers 
 in the male population of the United States during the time 
 of each Congress since J 850. 
 
 First Congress, 1189-1191. 
 
 Senate. House. Senate and House. 
 
 Senators .... 29 Representatives . (Jo Members .... 94 
 
 Lawyers .... 10 Lawyers .... 17 Lawyers .... 27 
 
 Lawyers 34 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 26 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 29 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Second Congress, 1191-1193. 
 
 Senate. House. Senate and House. 
 
 Senators .... 31 Representatives . 72 Members .... 103 
 
 Lawyers .... 11 Lawyers .... 21 Lawyers .... 32 
 
 Lawyers 35 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 29 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 32 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Third Congress, 1193-119.5. 
 
 Senate. House. Senate and House. 
 
 Senators .... 32 Representatives . 10! i Members .... 141 
 
 Lawyers .... 13 Lawyers .... 13 Lawyers .... 40 
 
 Lawyers 41 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 25 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 28 per cent, of Senate and House.
 
 44 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Fourth Congress, 1795-1797. 
 
 House. 
 . 43 Representatives . 114 
 
 . 23 Lawyers .... 26 
 
 Lawyers 53 iier cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 23 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 31 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 157 
 Lawyers .... 49 
 
 Fifth Congress, 1797-1799. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 45 Representatives . 116 
 
 Lawyers .... 18 Lawyers .... 27 
 
 Lawyers 40 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 23 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 28 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 161 
 Lawyers .... 45 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Sixth Congress, 1799-1801. 
 
 House. 
 . 38 Representatives . 112 
 
 . 24 Lawyers .... 36 
 
 Lawyers 63 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 32 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 40 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 150 
 Lawyers .... 60 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Seventh Congress, 1801-1803. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 38 Representatives . 112 
 
 . 19 Lawyers .... 23 
 
 Lawyers 50 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 21 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 28 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 150 
 Lawyers .... 42 
 
 Eighth Congress, 1803-1805. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 43 Representatives . 148 
 
 Lawyers .... 17 Lawyers .... 23 
 
 Lawyers 40 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 16 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 21 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 191 
 Lawyers .... 40
 
 45 
 
 Ninth Congress, 1805-1 S07. 
 
 House. 
 Repieseutatives 
 
 Senate. 
 Senators .... 37 Repieseutatives . 147 
 
 Lawyers .... 13 Lawyers .... 1!) 
 
 Lawyers 35 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 13 per cent, of House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 184 
 Lawyers .... .32 
 
 Lawyers 17 percent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Tentli Congress, ISOI-ISOO. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 38 ' Kepresentatives . 146 
 Lawyers .... 13 Lawyers .... 17 
 
 Lawyers 34 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 12 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 16 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 184 
 Lawyers .... 30 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Eleventh Congress, 1809-1811. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 45 Representatives . 156 
 
 . 15 Lawyers .... 28 
 
 Lawyers 33 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 18 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 21 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 201 
 Lawyers .... 43 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Twelfth Congress, 1811-1813. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 37 Representatives . 14(i 
 
 . 12 Lawyers .... .32 
 
 Lawyers 32 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 22 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 24 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 183 
 Lawyers .... 44 
 
 Thirteenth Congress, 1813-1815. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 46 Representatives . li)7 
 
 Lawyers .... 12 Lawyers .... 53 
 
 Lawyers 25 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 27 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 27 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 243 
 Lawyers .... 53
 
 46 
 
 Fourteeiith Congress, 1815-1817. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 43 Representatives . 20(5 
 
 Lawyers .... 18 Lawyers .... 57 
 
 Lawyers 42 jjer cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 28 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 30 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 249 
 Lawyers .... 75 
 
 Fifteenth Congress, 1817-1819. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 46 Representatives . 198 
 
 Lawyers .... 57 Lawyers .... 65 
 
 Lawyers 54 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 33 per cent, of House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 244 
 Lawyers .... 90 
 
 Lawyers 37 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Sixteenth Congress, 1819-1821. 
 
 House. 
 Representatives 
 
 Senate. 
 Senators .... 51 Representatives . 199 
 
 Lawyers .... 22 Lawyers .... 58 
 
 Lawyers 43 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 29 per cent, of House. 
 
 Senate aiid House. 
 Members .... 250 
 Lawyers .... 80 
 
 Lawyers 32 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Seventeenth Congress, 1821-1823. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 52 Representatives . 205 
 
 . 22 Lawyers .... 52 
 
 Lawyers 42 j)er cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 25 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 29 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 257 
 Lawyers .... 74 
 
 Eighteenth Congress, 1823-1825. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 53 Representatives . 224 
 
 Lawyers .... 28 Lawyers .... 66 
 
 Lawyers 53 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 29 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 34 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members . . . .277 
 Lawyers .... 94
 
 Nlnetcdith Congress, 1S25-1S2I. 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 House. 
 
 . G2 Representatives . 228 
 
 . 36 Lawyers .... 77 
 
 Lawyers ')8 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 34 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 39 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 290 
 Lawj'ers .... 113 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Twentieth Congress, 1827-1821). 
 
 House. 
 53 Representatives . 220 
 
 . 39 Lawyers .... 83 
 
 Lawyers 74 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 38 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 45 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 273 
 Lawyers . . . .122 
 
 SenatL 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Twenty-First Congress, 1829-1831. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 55 Representatives . 224 
 
 . 45 Lawyers .... 87 
 
 Lawyers 83 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 39 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 47 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 279 
 Lawyers .... 132 
 
 Twenty-Second Congress, 1831-1833. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 53 Representatives . 220 
 
 Lawyers .... 40 Lawyers .... 97 
 
 Lawyers 75 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 44 per cent, of House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 273 
 Lawyers .... 137 
 
 Lawyers 50 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Twenty-Tliird Congress, 1833-1835. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 53 Representatives . 2.59 
 
 Lawyei-s .... 39 Lawyers . . . .105 
 
 Lawyers 74 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 41 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 4(5 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 312 
 Lawyers .... 144
 
 48 
 
 Twenty-Fourth Congress, 1835-1837. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 62 Representatives . 257 
 
 Lawyers .... 42 Lawyers .... 105 
 
 Lawyers G8 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 41 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 46 per cent, of Senate and House 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 319 
 Lawyers .... 147 
 
 Twenty-Fifth Congress, 1837-1839. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 58 Representatives . 260 
 
 Lawyers .... 38 Lawyers .... 109 
 
 Lawyers 06 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 42 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 46 per cent, of Senate and House 
 
 Senate and House. 
 Members .... 318 
 Lawyers .... 147 
 
 Senate. 
 
 Senators 
 Lawyers 
 
 Twenty-Sixth Congress, 1839-1841. 
 
 House. 
 
 . 60 Representatives . 255 
 
 . 45 Lawyers .... 122 
 
 Lawyers 75 per cent, of Senate. 
 Lawyers 48 per cent, of House. 
 Lawyers 53 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members .... 315 
 Lawyers .... 167 
 
 
 Twenty-Seventh Congress, 1841-1843. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 59 Representatives . 238 
 
 Lawyers .... 50 Lawyers .... 124 
 
 Lawyers 85 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 48 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers 55 per cent, of Senate and House 
 
 Senate and Ho-use. 
 
 Members .... 317 
 Lawyers .... 174 
 
 Twenty-Eighth Congress, 1843-1845. 
 
 Senate. House. 
 
 Senators .... 58 Representatives . 237 
 
 Lawyers .... 53 Lawyers .... 103 
 
 Lawyers 91 per cent, of Senate. 
 
 Lawyers 43 per cent, of House. 
 
 Lawyers .54 per cent, of Senate and House. 
 
 Senate and House. 
 
 Members . . . .295 
 Lawyers .... 158 
 
 LAW LIDt^ARY 
 E«SITY OF CALIP€)RMA 
 
 
 ■w j^^rt 
 
 A 'k.Ty^mMT
 
 1 
 
 AA 000 604