and the verdict is rendered. Then, within the statutory time, if the attorneys so desire, motions for new trials are made and ruled upon, and every element of the actual trial is present save the pecuniary interests of the parties to the suit, but that is overcome by the eagerness and earnestness with which these trials are prosecuted, for the attorneys dislike above all things to suffer the bitterness of defeat in a practice court. The practice court does not supplant any course in the substantive law. It does not take the place of the thorough study of the theory of pleading. It does not even exhaust the attention given to practice itself, as contained in the text books, but it does attempt to give and create a flavor to the work of the law student, to present legal problems to be solved as a lawyer is expected to solve them; to enable the student to judge the value of cases by actually using them and to appreciate the functions and the meaning of the principles of the substantive law by putting them into practice. This court has not by any means reached its finished stage. Every year sees alterations and improvements, but it is encouraging to see the active spirit and eagerness manifested in the trial of the practice court cases. Procedure is the skeleton of our jurisprudence. When we dispense with the study of procedure, we shall also dispense with the knowledge of the law. The study of procedure as covering all the processes of trial and appeal after the pleadings are closed up to the satisfaction of judgment, deserves separate treatment as a regular course in every system of law school instruction. The principal difference of the law school instruction between schools of the east and those of the middle west is that ours is a practical legal education; the finished product of our law school does not expect to enter the office of an old practitioner as an apprentice, as does his eastern brother, but he wants to be able to embark upon the practice of his chosen profession for himself, immediately upon the completion of his course in the law school. And I venture the assertion, in a great many instances, at the next or subsequent general election, the recent graduate of our law school is a candidate for the prosecuting attorneyship of his county. Therefore I concur in the opinion of one of the greatest law school educators, "that it is the function of the law school, not simply to teach law or to make lawyers, but to teach law in a grand manner, and to make great lawyers". The lawyer who goes forth to his life work, trained in the technical details of his profession, need not lose the scholarship which has made our calling illustrious, but he should add to the usefulness and the value of our profession and earlier win the high reward of weaving the principles of right into the daily life of the world. THE PRESIDENT: This concludes the program for the afternoon. There are a few committees yet to report. Is the committee to which was referred the recommendation of the Librarian, of which Justice Deemer is chairman, ready to report? JUSTICE H. E. DEEMER: We have had an informal meeting, but we have thought it impractical to report until we knew something about the expense to be incurred. THE PRESIDENT: Is the Auditing Committee ready to report? J. B. WEAVER, JR.: Your committee makes the following report: REPORT OF AUDITING COMMITTEE We have examined the report of the Treasurer and the vouchers therewith, and find same correct and the same is approved. June 29, 1911. J. B. WEAVER, JR., H. M. REMLEY, J. J. CLARK, Committee. Upon motion duly made the report of the committee was received. THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be well for us to select our Nominating and Executive Committees at this time? JAMES O. CROSBY: I move you that these committees be selected now. The motion was duly seconded and carried. THE PRESIDENT: The practice has been for each Congressional District membership to select one member of each committee and announce the same upon roll call. Will the members of the respective districts get together and select a member of the Nominating Committee and a member of the Executive Committee. The roll of the districts was called and the following members were announced: NOMINATING COMMITTEE 1st District, Harold J. Wilson 4th District, Judge A. N. Hobson 9th District, W. C. Ratcliff 10th District, E. G. Albert 11th District, Scott M. Ladd EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE E. D. Morrison J. H. McConlogue O. W. Witham J. W. Morse W. P. Briggs At this time an adjournment was taken until 9 o'clock A. M., Friday, June 30, 1911. BANQUET PROCEEDINGS (Lacey Hotel, Thursday Evening at Eight o'clock) RESPONSES TO TOASTS HON. J. L. CARNEY, Toastmaster: At the threshold of this talk-fest, I desire to express, entirely aside from the formal thanks of the Association that will be extended tomorrow, my appreciation of the warm-hearted and spontaneous hospitality that has been extended toward us by the members of the Oskaloosa Bar. They have, indeed, by their efforts on this occasion made a deep impression, I am sure, upon the minds of all of us, and it will be an occasion long to be remembered. I congratulate you gentlemen on gathering in such goodly numbers at this the seventeenth Annual Session of the State Bar Association, and as usual we have met on this banquet occasion to engage in social intercourse, which is such a charming feature of our meetings generally, and to eat, drink, and be merry; the eating and drinking portion of the program has been quite successfully accomplished, judging from the very abundant repast we have enjoyed, and I have no doubt that the gentlemen whose names appear upon the program are ready to make the occasion an enjoyable if not a merry one. A noted and popular toastmaster of the city of Chicago formulated a few rules for an occasion like this. The first one was that it was the duty of the toastmaster to make his speakers feel at home, and he added parenthetically that even an experienced speaker wishes sometimes that he was. Another was that the toastmaster should not monopolize all the time set apart to the speaking, but he should leave some of it to the respondents. And again, that it was the duty of the toastmaster to please everybody and offend no one. This last is an almost impossible task, but on reflection I think the nearest approach to it is to turn at once to the program. There has been a suspicion growing for years in the neighborhood of the court house at Marshalltown, that the law is not on all occasions and at all times a sure thing. I well remember a remark my former partner, a genial man and good lawyer, Judge Henderson, made in social converse with his legal friends, after talking upon some mooted point of law, in his eloquent way he would turn around and look at us with a quizzical smile and say: "Well, boys, it is either that way or the other." I notice that a feeling of distrust has penetrated into proud old Mahaska. The first toast upon the program is "The Uncertainties of the Law", by Hon. J. A. Devitt, of the local bar. UNCERTAINTIES OF THE LAW Mr. Toastmaster and Members of the State Bar Association: Before taking up the subject that has been assigned to me, I desire to extend to you the kind appreciation of the local Bar Association for the many expressions of appreciation for our humble attempts to make your visit with us a pleasant one. Many years ago Macklin put into the mouth of one of his characters the statement: "The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science that smiles in yeer face while it picks yeer pockets; and the glorius uncertainty of it is of mair use to the professors than the justice of it."' This criticism, which might be excused on the ground of poetic license, has been so often repeated that it has come to be the common practice to refer now-a-days to a legal controversy between man and man as being, not an attempt to ascertain the very truth or right of the controversy, but that it is a test of wits between the attorneys, and he who is the more clever, or unscrupulous, the unkind would say, is the winner. We know that this statement is a libel on the practice of the law in this State. Before calling attention to some of the uncertainties of the law, I believe we can readily see why the general public at times is led to believe that uncertainty is the rule and not the exception in litigation. There are many uncertainties in the trial of lawsuits that, after all, receive the approval of us all. I am reminded in this connection that the lawyers are always blamed for the mistakes juries make. That the verdict of a jury is uncertain has been fully borne out by the experience of each and all of us. However, there are times when the difference between |