people to a high degree, and I believe that I but reflect the sentiment of the bar when I declare that we can hope for very little improvement along the lines of integrity and fairness in our bench, as it has approximated to almost perfection along those lines. In some other States, happily very few in number, it must be conceded that the bench has not observed to the same extent the integrity that has characterized our own courts, but in such States the laxness of public morals has found its echo in every branch of the public service. When you raise the standards of citizenship in those States to that of Iowa, the courts will respond to the condition.

The Supreme Court of the land is regarded as the greatest court in the world. Its history is the equal of any institution known to man. It has had before it questions of greatest moment, questions that have provoked the bitterest discussion, and yet its decrees in recent years have been accepted by the masses of the people with respect and approval. True it is that amendments to the Constitution have sometimes followed its judgments, but that does not militate in the least against the court, for it sits to construe, and not to make constitutions. It is its duty to enforce not to create. The people made the Constitution, and they, in the exercise of their sovereign will, may alter or enlarge, but no court should ever add to it by writing therein one word or thought.

Many of the judges of this court in the first seventy-five years of the Nation's history were bitterly assailed, but no patriotic American would care to blot from the roll of those seventy-five years one name thereon written. The judges of that stormy period labored so well and builded so great that in the last fifty years the citizenship of the Nation has accepted its decree with little complaint or murmur. We as lawyers echo to-day the words of the crier who opens the court, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

The friends of the recall urge that very few judges will fall under its provisions and that therefore it can do little harm. How specious the statement, but how false in fact. The nominee for the bench is now elected at a general election where the burdens incident to a campaign are distributed among a number of candidates, but the judge who faces the recall must single

handed and alone and from his private purse assume the whole burden of defending himself in a campaign where he will be bitterly assailed. Moreover he must continue the discharge of his official duties while those who would destroy him are busy by night and day to encompass his defeat—a defeat which spells disgrace to himself and family to the second generation. What honorable man with a successful career at the bar would care to sit upon the bench with this sword of Damocles hanging suspended above him at all times. But say the friends of the recall, "Let him respect the will of the people." Respect for the will of the people, would have sent Wendell Phillips to jail for disturbing the peace of Boston, because he had plead the cause of the bondman and had been pelted in the streets, for so doing. Respect for the will of the people caused Pilate, the judge, to crucify Jesus Christ and turn loose Barabbas the robber. Respect for the will of the people, caused a judge to hang John Brown for treason; but who now has any respect for either Pilate or that Virginia judge? Behold John Marshall sitting at the trial of Aaron Burr, whom he despised and whose act he loathed. The public had not forgotten that morning scene where Hamilton lay weltering in his blood, and it clamored for the conviction of Burr when he was charged with treason, but Marshall, the fearless, the upright, the independent judge, at the conclusion of the government's evidence directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and laid down a principle of law that all lawyers approve. The will of the people is the verdict of the years, not of the hour, and the independent judge is the one who writes the decree that protects the poor and the helpless. In this Nation all must bow ultimately to the will of the people, but that will shall be fully, fairly, and calmly expressed, after full debate in a fair forum where reason is enthroned and when the passions of the hour are laid away. The people of these United States created the Constitution. It is theirs to amend, alter, or destroy. They are the final reservoir of all power and their mandate, lawfully expressed, is the law to which all must bow; but there can be no permanent peace where justice is not done to the lowest of God's creatures. We are taught in Holy Writ that He is no respecter of persons; wealth, fame, position, and power are but trifles before His throne, and so they must be in

the American court when placed before an American judge. That judge can only do justice who is free from all extraneous power and influence arising from any source whatsoever. An independent judiciary alone can administer justice to all. They have neither purse nor sword and their mandates are to be enforced by the coördinate branches of government. It is the duty of the bar of America to drive from the temple of justice every improper influence and to protect its sacred precincts from the spoiler whether he be great or small. There is no greater service we can render our beloved country. As in the past, so in the future, the American people will entrust us to write their laws and preside over their courts. Worse than Benedict Arnold is any one of our number who shall betray this sacred trust. We have banished from the court the king and his influence; justice is no longer sold in the market, but there still remains to us the solemn duty of guarding the sacred precincts of the temple from the advances of insidious foes. Human selfishness will strive to enter the temple, but if we will but measure up to the standard of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the fathers who created an independent judiciary, the people will listen and preserve to our children's children the Constitution and the courts under which we and our forebears have lived and made secure the Ark of Liberty.

MR. CROSBY: The next order of business is not upon our program. A resolution was introduced several years ago for the repeal of the inheritance tax. Late at the last session it was voted to make it a special order of business immediately after the President's address this year.

THE PRESIDENT: I had overlooked that order of business until our distinguished friend and member called my attention to it. I will now recognize Mr. Crosby.

MR. CROSBY: I regard the matter of the inheritance tax law as one of great importance to the people of the State of Iowa. I have endeavored for some years to get the subject before this assemblage for discussion and have signally failed until the present time. I do not propose to make any long speech in presenting this matter, but it is a matter worthy of discussion by the members of this Association.

Our method of raising revenues before this tax law was passed was by the assessment of the property of the communities by the assessors and equalization by the equalization officers, and then to levy an assessment upon the property which should be sufficient to meet the expenses of the government economically administered. Then, there came in, by what influence I have wondered, this inheritance tax law. Sometimes there comes through a community a disease that becomes epidemic through the country, and this matter of the inheritance tax law seemed to run in the same way. Its origin came when Augustus Caesar sought to be emperor of Rome, and when he could get Lepidus out of the way and consign Mark Antony to the sympathies of Cleopatra, he left him in control of Rome. He consented to this for the purpose of giving him an imperial honor. It rested in abeyance at that time until England had trouble with her colonies, and to bring them into submission England adopted an inheritance tax law. So now we have it here.

This subject has never been discussed in this Association, though repeated efforts have been made to bring it up. Now, we have it a special order. I will read the last enthusiastic report made by the committee on this subject:

With reference to the resolution recommending the repeal of the collateral inheritance tax law, your committee is unanimously opposed to the resolution, although some of its members favor an amendment, all being of the opinion, however, that it is a proper matter for discussion, if the Association has time to consider it.

This report is presented by a member who draws six thousand dollars from the revenues of the State of Iowa. Is it any wonder it took three years to reach this sage conclusion? The next question is, before whom am I presenting this resolution? This is called the Iowa State Bar Association. I wish I had the means of knowing what percentage of this Association are drawing their support from the revenues of the State. Of course, by a feeling of interest in the subject, they would like to see the revenues well provided for, so that they may have ample funds for their support, with a prospective increase in their salaries. So far as that part of this assemblage is concerned, I do not expect to get much help and support for this resolution for the repeal of this inheritance tax law.

We have in the State of Iowa a great army of office holders drawing their salaries from the revenues of the State. They were there before the law was passed. Since that time there has been one grand, general movement for increase of salaries. Now, for instance, years ago, when I came to Iowa, we had a Supreme Court consisting of three judges and they had a salary of two thousand dollars a year, and since that time we have increased them to six judges, and each one received six thousand dollars a year. Now, I like all the judges. But I am opposed to the inheritance tax law, because it is unnecessary. At the time our State Capitol building was erected, it was done through a State tax. We had two mills for one year; the next year two and onehalf, and the next year two mills again. The State levy was not increased for the building of our magnificent capitol. Secondly, I am opposed to it, because it is a separate system of taxation for State revenues, apart from and distinct from the system to which we have long been accustomed. The only fault found with the old system was in the selection of improper assessors, men who did not discharge their duties; but with competent assessors, we have all the means necessary to carry forward our administration.

I am opposed to it, again, because it puts additional burdens upon our courts and law officers. In our former system we settled with the County Treasurer. I never yet have heard of a man dealing with the State Treasurer, receiving from him even decent politeness in connection with this business. Again I am opposed to it because it prevents the citizen's right to dispose of all his property by will. The State confiscates five per cent. It is our natural right to dispose of our property by legacy and bequest. Because, again, it is unequal, this taxation by this inheritance law may be three times placed upon the same property in a year. Again, because, notwithstanding all the increase of salary, there is piled up in our State treasury more than a million dollars of idle money, as a bait to the next Legislature, with the expectation that they might get back there on double fees. It is wrong in principle. It is un-American.

Now, aside from those who are drawing from the State revenues and ask for raises, who can favor such a law? What reason