Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-11-23
ANNUAL Address OF PRESIDENT
f. C. CaIIxins Talks on sumcIency of
Common law.


Common Law.
President f. Q. Calklns of Kearney, on
THE suffciency. of the Common Law"
said in part:
The law of Individual development de-
mands freedom for the exercise of indi-
vidual faculties The slave, the convict,
the adult under perpetual tutelage never
develop strength OF character. There must
be an opportunity to do i'll in order that
the strength to do well may be acquired.
II 1t be true that the character of society
depends upon the character of the units
Of which 1t Is composed, then the law of
social deyelopment equally demands in
has stood, the most democratic Of all sys-
TENS OF Jurisprudence, representing the
fundamental idea Of giving to the citizen
posed to the theory of his being chaperoned
by some governmental agency. True II is
that some are strong and some are weak
and that power ever leads to aggression.
Because of this, well-meRning but unthink-
ing people are ready to sacrifice the prin-
| ciples OF the common law and break down
| constitutional guaranty, undeterTed by the
| fact that in those countries where the most
laws are made for the guidance and pro-
/ lection of the weak their condition Is the
most abject. They ask for special laws
\ for special classes that limit the scope of
individual liberty; for the individuals good,
| OF course, bat always In derogation of
| those principles which human experience
has found to be the only safeguard of the
weak against the aggressions OF the strong
| The reason why these efforts have al
| ways failed, and must always fail, is that
all government agencies are controlled by
| the powerful The inherent fallacy OF pro-
tectlng the weak of special laws and gov
! Ornamental agencies Is that laws are made
and executed by the strong, and that in
| making such laws as we are considering
the protection of the weak is conhded 70
the Identical power by which he Is mem
Just now we are threatened with an
/ epidemic of industrial legislation. Why,
after a decade OF unprecedented material
prosperity, there should arise such opposf-
ton TO the system under which Il has
iourished, and such an unsuitable desire
TO overhaul the agencies which have aug
mented the earnings of both labor and
capital to a degree never before expert
enced In a like period, would be an interest
ing study. This l cannot pursue further
prototype, Is most likely TO overturn the
trough when he has had his I'LL. Whatever
the reason Is, L Is here; and the energies
meeting this demand. II is to be hoped
that whatever Is done, and no matter how
much the individual may be protected. thai
his right to protect himself by an appeal L
the courts will not be destroyed or i'm
paired; but on the contrary that II will b'
strengthened and assured, and the obstruc
lions TO it's exercise which have ariser
under novel industrial conditions may, 81
far as possible, be removed.
The fact that these corporations have in
varis bly, removed every case they could 4
the distant, expensive and inaccessible
fedeIa al court furnishes, at the same time
a condemnation of the law Which adds thl
to their many other advantages. and
vindication Of the character Of our stat
courts. Not that the federal courts ar
more, nor LEES. susceptible TO the influence
Of power than those of the state; but the,
are costly and to the bulk OF the litigant
, of the state. remote. inconveniept an
, strange. They fatl to NIL the requirement
that courts should he OF the people an
for the people, and they are by them con
sideFed as corporation courts and will b
so considered so long as corporations ar
permitted TO select them for the trial o
their cases.
That CORPORATIONS doing business in thi
state. enjoying the privileges OF citizens
J and exercising, ia some cases at least, IN