and practice of civil courts, with some exceptions. For example, counsel outside of the army are not admitted as matter of right, but are in practice rarely excluded. A prisoner having no counsel is entitled to have one assigned to him from the officers on duty at the place of session. General rules of evidence are applicable. It is curious to the Georgia lawyer to know that the court-martial has adopted that rule, which does not prevail with us, but does prevail in some courts, that a witness called by the other side may be cross-examined only as to the subjects on which he was examined in chief.

A civil court cannot review the finding of a court-martial. If the court has jurisdiction of the person and the offense, and has prescribed a penalty which is permitted by law, no civil court can interfere. Practically only such questions in connection with its action may be considered by a civil court as properly come up on writ of habeas corpus with reference to confinement under civil process, and yet a general court-martial may, and in a recent celebrated instance did, try an officer for offenses which are really not military in their nature, such as embezzlement, false accounts and larceny. Indeed, murder, arson, assault and all other civil crimes committed within the military jurisdiction may be prosecuted before a court-martial or a military commission.

There are many characteristics of military law and military courts which would interest you, and to which I would like to direct your attention did the time permit. I might tell you of the permanent military courts established by the Confederate Congress for each army corps in disregard of all precedent. I might point out the distinction between "charges and specifications" before a military court and indictment before a civil tribunal. I might touch upon the peculiar functions of the judge advocate, who is the prosecuting officer of the court-martial. I might depict to you the trials of the soldier charged with the suppression or prevention of civil disorder, who, being compelled to obey only the lawful orders of his superior, is sub

jected to severe penalties for any error he may commit in determining their lawfulness; and who, failing to come up to the full measure of his duty, is subject to court-martial and disgrace, and going one step beyond it, is subject to prosecution and suit in the civil court. I might tell you much more. But all this I cannot do without levying upon your patience a greater tax than is permissible under either civil or military laws. I must remember that, as there is a limit to the hours in which a courtmartial may sit, there is also a limit to the half-hours during which lawyers may sit.

APPENDIX J.

PATRIOTIC ADDRESS.

COL. R. L. BERNER, OF FORSYTH, GA.

Colonel Berner failed to furnish the Secretary with the manuscript of his excellent address, and all efforts on the part of the Secretary to secure it were of no avail. It is with great regret that the address is omitted.

APPENDIX K.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE LAW.

Mr. President:

The Committee on Interstate Law beg leave to submit the following report:

While it is very desirable that there should be uniformity in the laws of the several States relating to marriage and divorce, the descent and distribution of estates, the execution and probate of wills, deeds and other conveyances, the extradition of fugitives from justice, and in the laws relating to negoitable instruments and, perhaps, those relating to the grant, regulation and control of public and private franchises, there is no visible prospect of effecting the unification in the near future.

The committee suggest that the Bar Associations of the country continue to agitate this question. It is possible that finally the legal profession and the lawmakers of the several States mav awake to such a realization of the advantages of uniformity in the laws above referred to as to put forth strenuous efforts to bring it to pass. It seems that legislation framed under the auspices of the American Bar Association and proposed to the legislatures of the different States through their local bar associations, ought to be sufficiently potential to achieve some schemes of uniformity applicable to some of these topics if not to all of them.

Respectfully submitted.

THOS. G. LAWSON, Chairman.

APPENDIX L.

AMERICAN LAWYERS AND THEIR MAKING.

ADDRESS BY CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, OF MADISON, WISCONSIN, BEFORE THE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL SESSION OF THE GEORGIA BAR ASSOCIATION, WARM SPRINGS, GA., JULY 5TH, 1900.

"The pleader's part is doubtless much harder than that of the preacher; and yet in my opinion, we see more passable lawyers than preachers, at least in France." So said that great human writer, Michael De Montaigne, uttering in medieval France a voice as modern as Plutarch's.

Oddly enough these two professions seem to be equally demanded in the society of our time and country, where neither is supported by the State, since the last census of the United States shows that lawyers and clergymen are there almost the same in numbers.

The old idea was that the lawyer was the parent of discord and contention. Bonus jurista, malus Christa, ran the Latin proverb, "A good lawyer, a bad Christian." This was the common sentiment of kings, philosophers, and peasants. So Ferdinand when sending colonies to the Indies "ordained that they should not carry with them many law-students lest suits should get footing in that new world." Plato in his "Republic" declared "That lawyers and physicians are the pests of the country," and Sir Thomas More would have no lawyers in his Utopia as "a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters as well as wrest laws," and the rustic prayer "My body from the doctors, my pocket from the lawyers, my soul from the devil" chimes in with the chorus of princes and pundits.

And yet this evil and decried profession has strangely thriven