cisions of all three Canadian Courts without blinking an eyelash, consisted of Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw and Lord Mersey. We quite understand that Colonials, and things Colonial, are differently understood and appreciated by different Englishmen. We do not expect the same appreciation or recognition in London as the inhabitants of the southern half of this continent who are not Colonials receive there. We may squirm a bit when we read of one English gentleman extolling another on having "completely altered the tendency of the decisions of the Supreme Court," as Mr. Haldane eulogised Lord Watson (Judicial Review, 1899, p. 279), and we may wonder why an English peer should be so all powerful in our judicial affairs. It may not be pleasant to hear from Mr. Chamberlain, as we did at the Colonial Conference of 1897, that if we want a Supreme Court on a par with that of the United States, we must look to England for it. To Mr. Chamberlain this seemed quite natural. The United States are a nation. We are colonists. It is very doubtful if Americans claim for their Bench and Bar any superiority over Canadians though they may wonder why we go to London to ascertain whether an action should be retried or what the statutes we enact mean or which witness at a trial ought to be believed. But on the whole, we have been taught our catechism, perhaps as thoroughly as the English peasantry, and are content with that station in life unto which it has pleased God to call us. Mr. Chamberlain was too candid to go further than to say that the Privy Council was the 'nearest approach, the closest analogy to the Supreme Court of the United States," to which we Canadian colonists could aspire. He was, no doubt, oppressed with the fact that the inhabitants south of the boundary line, not only make their own laws, but appoint the tribunals which are to interpret them.

Nothing but the incubus of this perpetual supervision from Downing Street has prevented the Supreme Court from being held in the same esteem by the Canadian people as is the Supreme Court of the United States by the citizens of that country. How could it by any possibility rise to an equal greatness when the public hears from London that it erred in thinking an action ought to be retried as in Blue. et al. v. Red Mountain, supra; that it failed to correctly apprehend the meaning of statutes enacted here, as in

Cumberland & Co. v. Saint John Pilot Co., supra; that it formed a wrong opinion as to the credence to be given to witnesses at a trial, as in Gordon v. Horne, supra?

I hope at a future date to be able to furnish some statistics as to what it costs the Canadian suitor to cross the water and have this fourth hearing in London. It seems to me that four hearings of such causes as have lately been entertained by the Judicial Committee are a menace to the peace, welfare and good government of this "Colony." It is in the interest of the moneyed classes and inimical to the masses. Necessity does not demand it, nor does "loyalty require it. Outside of corporations and rich people how many Canadians are able to afford a contest as to what our statutes may mean; as to how facts should be decided; or as to whether a new trial should be directed, if they are to be exposed to four hearings, the last of them on the other side of the Atlantic? And I might add, why in the name of common sense should they be exposed to this risk? Will the Empire otherwise crumble?

Vancouver, B.C.

W. S. DEACON.

ANNUAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT OF THE
ONTARIO BAR ASSOCIATION.

Allow me to thank you for the high and unexpected honour you conferred on me in electing me to the presidency of the Ontario Bar Association at a time when I was absent from the province. I trust our present meeting will be a useful and interesting one to the members who have been able to attend.

I should explain why the Ontario Bar Association has found it necessary to call two general meetings in the same year, one in April last and the present one. An annual meeting should have been held last year, but owing to several causes, the annual general meeting could not be held until the month of April this year. There was then held in the city of Toronto a general meeting, at which several important and thoughtful papers were read, and short discussions held on the themes presented This was followed by a successful banquet at the King Edward Hotel, presided over by the president. F. E. Hodgins, K.C., at which eloquent and learned speeches were made by different United States and Canadian lawyers. On consideration it was thought best by the council of the association to hold another annual general meeting at the end of this calendar year during the Christmas vacation, they believing it would be a time when the majority of the members thereof would have the most leisure to attend.

An invitation was sent to this association to attend the anal meeting last August of the American Bar Associaton at Chattanooga in Tennessee. For various reasons, the president or any of the vice-presidents could not attend, bat F. M Field, K.C, of Cobourg, was good enough to represent this association at their banquet. I understand he had a very kind reception, and his speech was highly complimented by those present, and did us great credit. I think by some of the lawyers of Ontario, the objects of our association have perhaps been somewhat misunderstood. I will therefore here repeat them, as laid down in our constitution; its objects are," to facilitate the administration of justice, to promote reform in the law and procedure, to assist in up

VOL. XXXI. C.L T. 9

holding the honour and dignity of the profession of the law, to bring about united action, to conserve its interests, to encourage interchange of ideas, and closer intercourse among members of the profession in Ontario, and to maintain friendly relations with the profession in other jurisdictions," a somewhat extensive programme.

It is with considerable diffidence. I venture to address. you on some of the many subjects in connection with the practice of the law. So much has been written and so many addresses have been given from time to time concerning the various legal subjects we have to deal with, that I feel the ground has been so well covered that it would take an abler man than myself to bring before you many new ideas, which would be either instructive or amusing. I will, however, at the risk of repeating some of the matters which you have already heard, endeavour to give you a few practical thoughts on some of these subjects, which I have tried to put in a somewhat condensed form. During my considerably more than four decades of practice in the profession. I have seen many changes made in the pleadings and general practice of the law, and in fact, almost the whole system of legal procedure altered more than once. When I was admitted to the Bar and for several years after, the Common Law Procedure Act, 1856, introduced from England, was in force, which gave us an entirely new system of pleading and practice in the province of Ontario. This was followed some years after by the Judicature Act, under which we are now practising. However, I shall not attempt to give you the history of these various alterations. as you probably know them as well as I do, and they would not. therefore, interest you. It is well known that the Judicature Act has abolished many anomalies and simplified the practice and pleading.

We all know that our profession is a most exacting one and calls for a life of devoted service to it to become proficient in all or any of its numerous departments. The price of success is unremitting industry joined to ability. Many a lawyer could have made far more money with the same amount of brains and industry in some department of mercantile or manufacturing business than he can hope to do in practising law. When we see men on every side of us in other walks of life with less education and less industry, and in many cases with less ability, making large

fortunes, we are led to think that our profession is not properly remunerated, or we also should be able to make fortunes out of our practices. Contrary to the opinion of the general public, I am sure that the majority of the lawyers throughout Ontario, can barely make a decent living, considering their education, their tastes and their environ`ment. Of course, there are a few, but only a few, in the large cities, who have been able to make fortunes out of law, but more often by taking up other fields of work. This naturally brings us to the question of the remuneration of the lawyer, commonly called his costs. In this respect the lawyers in this province have a real grievance, as it is many years ago (over fifty years) since the present tariff of costs. in suits was issued. During that time the cost of living has been very materially increased, but there has been no corresponding increase to the lawyer in his bill of costs. No doubt, by the grace of the taxing officer, larger counsel fees. are allowed in these days than formerly to the counsel engaged in heavy suits, but this only affects the few and does not help the ordinary practitioner. A new and increased tariff of costs should be given to the profession, but the tendency of most of the law reforms has been to take from the lawyer some of his fees, which naturally happens by the laws heing made more simple and by the jurisdiction of the inferior Courts being enlarged. When the jurisdiction of the County Court was increased by the recent Law Reform Act, the tariff as to these cases was lowered to the County Court basis, thus compelling any saving there may be to come out of the former earnings of the lawyers. I think the former tariff should be restored in these cases. The tariff in Surrogate matters was issued nearly twenty years ago and has not since been increased. In this the highest fee allowed is $30 for drawing all papers for probates of will or administrations of estates in non-contentious cases, and this fee is only on estates of $20,000 and upwards This means that if an estate should be worth a million dollars, and the schedules and papers to be drawn up should be very voluminous and involve a great deal of time and attention as well as legal skill yet the solicitor is only to receive $30, the same fee as if the estate were only $20,000. This seems to be a manifest injustice and there should be an increase made to solicitors in their Surrogate fees for estates over $20,000. In July, 1892, after this Surrogate tariff was