tersely if that is the proper thing to do, and I should be much indebted to the members of the Bar if they have any suggestions to offer on this subject if they would make them known. I also make it a rule to report every point decided in the opinion. My own experience as a practicing lawyer has long ago shown me that there are points in the earlier volumes of the Reports of this and other States made and determined by the opinions, which were not noticed in the head-notes. I do not think the Reporter should assume that any point is unimportant, and if it is decided in the opinion I make it my rule to make a note of it. That necessarily makes the head-notes more numerous, but if lawyers will consider the catch-words which are prefixed to the head-notes they will have no difficulty in passing over without reading any point which does not bear on the subject under investigation.

The reporting of the points made in the lawyers' briefs is the most burdensome and difficult thing that the Reporter has to contend with. The statute and the rules of the court require counsel to state their points in short succinct language and to collate their authorities under them. Some very excellent trial lawyers habitually violate this rule and this statute. Their briefs do not contain any points at all. They simply contain arguments. The Reporter is not required to go through the arguments found in the briefs and sift out the points. He could not do so for lack of time even if he were required to do so. Unless the rule of the court is observed the Reporter is at liberty to omit counsel's brief entirely, and he should do so. And because counsel do not observe that rule, the report of their points as found in the published reports is often neither enlightening nor complimentary to the lawyer. No lawyer should expect any good report of his side of the case unless he is willing to take the time and the care and the patience to comply with the rule of the court and state in succinct language the points, without argument, and collate his authorities immediately thereafter. In other words, the rule

of the court means and the statute means, that the lawyer is to prepare his points as he wishes them to appear in the published Reports and unless he does so the Reporter is under no obligation to give him any space whatever.

The statute requiring the Reporter to print the lawyers' points and authorities, logically means that the Reporter is to print all points found in the brief, but that would be often to burden the volume with unenlightening matter. I call to mind one brief which had 213 pages in "points,” in a case in which there was really only two propositions involved. As a matter of course the Reporter could not give space to 213 pages. The Reporter must necessarily omit points found in the briefs of counsel which do not add any value to the opinion. It is often proper to insert a point which the opinion does not discuss, for then attorneys in examining the case can see that the judge who wrote the opinion had the point in mind and decided the case as he did although that point was called to his attention.

In this connection I question the wisdom of the statute which requires the Reporter to report points and authorities of counsel. The Missouri Reports are multiplying with exceeding rapidity. Between six and eight volumes are issued each year. In addition to these the two Courts of Appeals issue from five to seven volumes each year. There appear, therefore, each year about thirteen large volumes of the printed opinions of the appellate courts of this State alone. The entire number is now in excess of three hundred volumes. I think most lawyers are of the opinion that they are multiplying too fast, and that something should be done to lessen the number of volumes. The most practical way of doing this that I can think of is to change the statute that requires the Reporter to report the points and authorities of counsel, and to leave to him the discretion of reporting them when in his judgment the value of the opinion will be enhanced thereby. A sensible Reporter will not insert points and authori

ties which do not in any wise strengthen or weaken the opinion. But there are cases which are of first impression or are of great importance either to the profession or to the people, the report of which should include not only the points but parts of the argument. If the Reporter were given such discretion he could cut down the number of volumes at least onefourth, and possibly one-third. He would omit all points which would not add to the value of the opinion, and he would insert all points and such parts of the argument in cases of first impression as members of the Bar and the Judiciary might want to see. The reporters can be trusted with that discretion. They are usually experienced lawyers and they read the current law of the State as studiously as any men in it. I think, therefore, that they can be trusted with that discretion, and I have heard of no other practical method by which the number of volumes of reports may be lessened than this, namely, to entrust the Reporter with authority to insert or omit the points and authorities of counsel as to him may seem best for the profession. He would, of course, consult the Judges of the court when he had any doubt about the matter and the Bar can safely leave such matters to them.

I know the remedy often suggested for lessening the number of reports is the omission of unimportant opinions or opinions which seem to be simply a repetition and reiteration of principles long since settled, and our Constitution says that the Supreme Court shall designate what opinions may be printed at the expense of the State. But in this State really no opinions are printed at the expense of the State, and, besides, nearly every State has such a provision either in its Constitution or in its statutes, yet the universal rule is for judges to designate that all written opinions are to be published. That is most natural. Judge Dillon says that "a judge who has laboriously examined a cause and written a careful opinion upon it, will very naturally conclude that it is worth reporting," and if one judge so concludes so will another. But

in addition to this, who can say that any opinion will not be of great value either to the trial judge, or members of the Bar, or the counselor in his office, or the justice of the peace, or the mayor of a town, or the police judge, or the sheriff, or a private citizen? The judges of the court rendering it may not think so, but other men might be of a contrary opinion. And again, nothing, aside from the high-minded integrity of the judge, will insure that painstaking care and conscientious consideration which every lawyer and litigant feels his case is entitled to, as will the fact that the opinion is to be printed and preserved in book form. I think we can lay it down as a rule that the time will never come, at least will not for many years, when all the written opinions of the appellate courts will not be published in the official reports; and if that time ever comes, we may be sure that private publishing houses will print those not officially reported, and the result will be that instead of saving money to the practicing lawyer, there will simply be an addition to his expense and to the number of books he must buy. Obviously the Reporter should not be given the authority to say what opinions are to be published. There seems no other practical method, therefore, by which the number of volumes of the official reports may be lessened, than the one I have suggested, and that is plain and easy of acquirement, and is, to change the statute which requires the points and authorities of counsel to be reported, and leave it to the discretion of the Reporter to report such points and such parts of the arguments in cases of first impression and in other cases of important public or professional concern as will enhance the value of the opinion as an authority.

MEMORIALS.

JOHN ADAMS LEOPARD.

BY H. C. MCDOUGAL.

The young Missouri lawyer of to-day, in nis elegantly appointed office, with his splendid library, his clerks, stenographers, printed records, briefs, etc. has heard or read that away back in the early history of the State there was a time when all these aids to the successful practice of the profession were absolutely unknown; and can neither understand nor appreciate how the early-day lawyer with a few text-books in his saddlebags, "riding the circuit" from county to county with the judge, writing out in longhand all his own pleadings, instructions and bills of exceptions, to say nothing of contracts, bonds, deeds and mortgages, could try and argue causes with either intelligence, skill, ability or success.

His law office was generally a single room on the ground floor, located not far from the courthouse; his law student or junior partner carried in the wood and water and swept out; neither carpet or rug ever desecrated the floor; the office was heated from an open fireplace or a box stove and there was always in evidence, as well as use, the spitbox filled with sawdust; while the remaining contents of his office were not unlike the library and furniture of a great Illinois lawyer of that period, who in giving in his assessment list is said (quoting from memory) to have written with his own hand the following description of his office property:

(188)

1