cedure in the interest of justice, economy and efficiency.

By the adoption of this amendment offices are decreased and efficiency, capacity and qualification in the change will be promoted. From the standpoint of efficiency, economy, and satisfaction the approval of the people of this amendment should be had.

The only courts contemplated by this amendment outside of the police courts of the cities is the justice of the peace court, the district court and the Supreme court. The Legislature is permitted to increase or decrease the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The district court has jurisdiction of all cases whatever, civil and criminal, but if it hereafter appears desirable and it appears that the justice of the peace should have exclusive jurisdiction over petty cases, the Legislature may exclude that jurisdiction from the district court.

By this amendment the district courts are kept open all the time as probate courts and in counties of sufficient area and business will be kept open at all times for the trial of civil and criminal cases. Under any event the district courts, under this amendment, will be more available at all times to try civil and criminal cases, and there will not be any unreasonable delay in trying those charged with the violation of the criminal laws, and civil cases can be hastened to final trial and termination.

Argument in Support of the Constitutional Amendment Submitted Under Senate Joint Resolution 18, Providing for a Re-organization of the Supreme Court and the Criminal Court of Appeals

This proposed amendment accomplishes the following desirable changes in the present law:

1. It consolidates the Supreme court and the criminal court of appeals. At present these courts are entirely separate and independent. This occasionally causes some confusion and conflict in decisions without any provision for adjusting such conflicts. Under the proposed amendment, the courts being consolidated, the possibility of such confusion and conflict is obviated.

2.

The proposed amendment provides for the election of judges either from districts or the state at large or partly from districts and partly from the state at large as may be provided by the Legislature. Under the present law all justices of the Supreme court must be nominated by districts and elected from the state at large. If the people so desire, under the amendment, the Legislature in carrying out the will of the people may create districts so as to cause the minority party to have representation on the court.

3. The amendment provides for the court sitting in divisions composed of three justices. This is desirable because it gives greater efficiency to the court as divisions

composed of three justices can work more rapidly with more accurate results. This is shown by the experience of other states. A great many of the cases taken to the Supreme court involve very simple questions, and it is unnecessary to take the time of all the members of the court to consider them. In important cases the court may sit en banc thereby giving the benefit of the consideration of each member of the court to such questions. All constitutional and Federal questions must be considered by the court en bane and ample provision is made in the amendment for procuring the decision of the entire court on all questions which are regarded as of sufficient importance to take the time of each of the justices.

4. A very important feature of the proposed amendment is the one permitting the Legislature to limit appeals and prescribe the terms and conditions of same. Under the present law all cases, no matter of how small the amount involved and the principle of law for adjudication, may be appealed to the Supreme court. This is one of the reasons why the docket of the Supreme court is so much crowded. Under the amendment permitting the Legislature to limit and prescribe the terms and conditions of appeals, the district court may be given final jurisdiction of many cases from which frivolous appeals are now taken. There are cases on record in the Supreme court where the amount involved is less than $5.00, and many cases where the amount involved is less than $100.00. It costs the state practically $70.00 to have a case determined in the Supreme court and in the absence of some important question, appeals involving these insignificant amounts, should not be allowed to burden the Supreme court.

It early became apparent that the five justices provided for by the constitution could not take care of the immense volume of business, and instead of decreasing after the first few years constituting the state's constructive period, as some expected, the volume of court business increases. Then a criminal court of appeals with three judges was created in 1908. In the effort to catch up with the work, in 1913 the Legislature provided for Supreme court commissioners to assist the court. While these commissioners have done splendid work toward relieving the crowded condition of the docket, the system has not proven entirely satisfactory, litigants with important cases not being satisfied with any. thing less than a decision by the Supreme court proper.

The court thus consolidated consisting of only one additional member, it is important that the court may sit in divisions for the hearing and determination of causes, in order that more work may be facilitated. This may not be done without such a constitutional amendment as here proposed, because of the following clause in section 3, article 7 of the constitution, which reads: "A majority

of the members of the Supreme court shall constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of the majority of said court shall be necessary to decide any question." At present the

court is required to sit in a body on all questions, however small be the controversy, and the time of each member is taken in the deliberation.

The plan of the Supreme court to work in divisions, or sections, or departments-as they are variously termed-is in operation in many of the states of the Union, and it meets with increasing favor. Colorado, in 1904, adopted a constitutional amendment in essential features similar to the one here proposed for Oklahoma, and the out-put of opinions in that court was greatly increased and expedited. In 1913 Oregon provided for its Supreme court, sitting in divisions, and the results as to the expedition of the work of the court has been satisfactory. Among the other states where now the Supreme courts are authorized to work in divisions, or departments, are Alabama, Missouri, California, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, and Washington.

As to consolidating the criminal court of appeals with the Supreme court, it may be said the chief argument for the separation of the two courts-which has been done in only one other state, to-wit: Texas-is that it enables the judges to specialize respectively on the criminal and civil law. The size of Texas is such that it is not a precedent for Oklahoma. In the proposed amendment to the constitution this advantage is preserved, in that the criminal court of appeals is constituted a distinct division of the Supreme court with exclusive cognizance of criminal causes, subject to review by the entire court in exceptional cases, and in the future changes in the personnel of the court naturally judges particularly learned in the criminal law will be secured for this division. In Missouri where the Supreme court sits in divisions, one division is especially constituted for appeals in criminal cases, and is a precedent for the With action proposed by this amendment. such consolidation the possibility of serious conflict between the two courts in their interpretation of law is obviated. The advantage of transferring a justice from one division to another when need arises, as where a justice is disqualified in a cause, or when the criminal division has little work to do as, will result when the state becomes older and crime decreases and precedents become settled, is apparent.

This amendment has the indorsement of those who have earnestly made a study of the question with a view of getting the best results from our appellate courts. It should be adopted.

Under this amendment juries in the district court except in capital cases, which will require twelve members, would consist of eight men. In civil cases and criminal cases less than felonies three-fourths of the jurors would have the power to render a verdict. The advantages of this amendment are as follows:

1. It reduces the cost of jury trials. 2. It applies the three-fourths verdict to criminal cases less than felonies.

3. It authorizes the legislature to confer power on the Supreme court to render a final judgment on appeal without remanding the cause for re-trial to a jury as to the facts. This is important, because in many cases a re-trial is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of the state.

4. A jury of eight men is large enough to procure the benefit of discussion and is small enough to procure the benefit of individual responsibility, and it is thought that as responsible verdicts will be procured as with a jury of twelve. This is the approved practice and experience for twenty-five years in another state.

Reports from the various counties of the state indicate that an average of $2,500 is being spent each year per county for jury fees in district court, where juries of twelve men are now required. By the constitutional amendment proposed, cutting the juries down to eight men, practically one-third, or $800, of this amount would be saved annually per county. This saving throughout the state, put at 6 per cent compound interest for 25 years, would amount to the stupendous sum of $272,000.

Though the jury of twelve is sometimes alluded to as one of the old landmarks of the law, there is no magic in the number twelve, and it is believed eight men will carry out the responsibilities of a jury, except in capital cases, with entire satisfaction.

By this amendment the juries in the county court and courts not of record are still to be composed of six men as now provided by law.

office and the clerk. It is not an office that relates to the exercise of any political judgment, but only clerical matters, and the supervision of the court. He is an agency of the court and subject to the control of the court. His duties are to keep the records of the court accurately, and manifestly nobody is so much interested in this as the members of the court. They are elected by the people and should select the clerk. Manifestly the body of the electors who elect the judges would prefer to vest this responsibility in the members of the court whom they have elected to have an efficient and accurate clerk.

Only about six of the forty-seven states permit the clerks to be elected but have the judges select the clerk of the Supreme court. It is generally regarded as best to have such an intimate clerical officer directly responsible to the court, his tenure of office being at the pleasure of the court appointing him; that is, so long as his services are efficient and satisfactory-as is sought by the proposed constitutional amendment.

It is to be noted that by changing the constitution as sought, the salary of the office is reduced from $3,000, as now provided by statute, to $2,500, which is regarded as an ample salary inasmuch as the clerk would no longer be at the expense of making a state-wide campaign for election.

JUDGE HENRY M. FURMAN

After a mighty struggle in which an iron constitution battled with a disease that would not respond to treatment, Judge Henry M. Furman, member of the criminal court of appeals died at his home in this city Monday, April 10, 1916, surrounded by his family. The death of Judge Furman was not unexpected, though all was done for him that medical research could suggest and family and friends could do.

Almost six years ago Judge Furman was stricken with Bright's disease from which there is seldom escape. He worked until his physical condition could no longer respond to the magnificent mind and will of the man, and he was forced to retire to his home, where friends persistently visited him and inquired of his condition.

Funeral services of Judge Furman were held under the auspices of the Masonic order of which he was a leading and much loved member. The body lay in state in the court room of the State Supreme Court from Tuesday until Wednesday morning and hundreds of friends and professional associates paid a last tribute of respect to his memory.

Henry Marshall Furman was born June 20, 1850, in the village of Society Hill, South Carolina. His father, Dr. Richard Furman, was pastor of the Baptist church of that place. He secured what education he could in the schools where he was raised, and in

1871 started for the West. He stopped in New Orleans and read law in the office of Judge J. L. Whittaker. In 1873 he went to Texas, and settled in Brenham, where he was later admitted to the bar. He afterwards went to Bell county, Texas, and served one term as county attorney. Later he resided in Fort Worth, Texas, and in 1895 he removed to Ardmore, then Indian Territory, and went from there to Ada in 1904 where he resided until his appointment to the criminal court of appeals with the advent of statehood.

Judge Furman is survived by his widow, one son, Henry M. Furman, Jr., and a daughter, Miss Florence Furman, and countless friends.

IN MEMORIAM

The following beautiful tribute to the life and character of Judge Henry M. Furman, who had been a member of the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, since the creation and organization of that court, was the utterance of Judge Thos. H. Doyle, presiding judge of that court as he stood beside the bier of his lamented friend and colleague:

"Judge Henry M. Furman, full of years and full of honors has passed from Life's labors to his eternal rest. He was an extraordinary man and a lawyer and jurist of rare endowments. His professional learning and ability were not the fruit of any advantages in legal education, but were founded on his large experience and inexhaustive diligence. In intellectual power he was a giant and a logician of the highest order, and he a consummate master of the rhetorical

was art.

No judge ever more clearly realized the wide scope, exalted dignity and consequent responsibility of the judicial office, and no judge could be more scrupulous in inflexible fairness and impartiality. The force of his noble character and powerful mind is demonstrated by the results of his judicial labors. The value of his services and the high character of his contributions to the development of our criminal jurisprudence will grow in appreciation as the years go by. Many of his opinions are now published as leading cases and they have given the progressive criminal jurisprudence of Oklahoma an international reputation. I do not think it would be an extravagant statement to say that among the names of the great judges who adorn the annals of American Jurisprudence will be found the name of Henry M. Furman.

Personally. Judge Furman was a kind, genial, warm-hearted man, whose devotion to high ideals, capacity for friendship, high minded patriotism and loyalty to duty and honor could be fully appreciated only by those who knew him intimately. The benevolence of his heart was in full accord with his master mind. I can safely say without disparagement to others that no man in public life in Oklahoma was held in higher esteem by the people of the state than Judge Henry M. Furman."

JUDGE B. F. BURWELL

So sudden came the announcement that friends scarcely believed when they read in the morning paper of April 3 of the death of Judge Benjamin Franklin Burwell, which occurred at his home at 8:25 o'clock Sunday, April 2. Judge Burwell had been suffering several days from a slight attack of heart trouble, the first illness he had felt for many years. Physicians attending announced that a heart stroke of a few days before had resulted in nephritis and acute dilation of the heart and that he had not rallied to medical aid.

Funeral services of Judge Burwell were held Tuesday, April 4. On that day, it being the regular day for the sitting of the state supreme court, that body transacted no business out of respect for the deceased jurist. Governor Williams issued an executive order also closing all state offices.

Benjamin Franklin Burwell was born in Armstrong county, Pa., April 15, 1866, therefore was almost 50 years of age, just in the prime of his life. Receiving his education in the public schools of his home place, he went to West Virginia and began studying law, but removed later to Kansas where he completed his law course. On December 25 he married Miss Agnes Jane Carnahan of Hope Kans. In 1890 he was admitted to the bar at Salina, Kans. He later removed to Gypsum City, Kans., where he practiced law and was also acting city clerk during 1890 and 1891.

It was in the latter year that he came to Oklahoma City where he has made his home since. He formed a law partnership with A. C. Scott. Judge Burwell became interested in the Indian cases and his attention to the condition and treatment of the different tribes led to his appointment as associate justice of the territorial supreme court in 1898. Не established an enviable record both on the supreme and district court. No case decided by the territorial supreme court with Judge Burwell sitting was ever reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of his death Judge Burwell was a member of the firm of Burwell, Crockett & Johnson. He enjoyed the utmost confidence and esteem of those with whom he came in contact.

Funeral services were held under the auspices of the Masonic Lodge of which he was a member, Tuesday afternoon, April 4. Interment was made in Fairlawn cemetery. He is survived by his wife and one son.

HOME OWNERSHIP LAW

The attorney general has directed the following letter to the secretary of the school land commission, who had requested an opinion concerning a matter which is fully explained by the attorney general's letter:

Mr. C. A. Smith, Secretary, City,

Dear Sir: I have your letter of this date in which you state that the commissioners desire an opinion from me.

"First. As to whether or not they can make

a rule authorizing the borrowers of home ownership money to pay the loan before maturity at any time after three or five years.

"Second. Whether a borrower is eligible to borrow home ownership money when he owns more than 160 acres of land.

"To the first question I beg to advise that section 10 of the home ownership law gives the commissioners of the land office power to provide all necessary rules for the investment of the fund not inconsistent with the act.

"I am of the opinion, however, that a rule such as you mention would be inconsistent with the intention of the legislature. This matter was thoroughly discussed at the time the original rules were adopted and the forms of note and mortgage prepared and approved.

"To the second inquiry, I beg to advise that I find no provision in the law which prohibits loaning to individuals who own more than 160 acres of land. The loan, however, can only be made upon land upon which the borrower resides and holds as his homestead. Under the constitution the homestead is limited to 160 acres."

"To the second inquiry I beg to advise that I find no provision in the law which prohibits loaning to individuals who own more than 160 acres of land. The loan, however, can only be made upon land upon which the borrower resides and holds as his homestead. Under the constitution the homestead is limited to 160 acres."'

CASE OF UNUSUAL INTEREST

Ross

Where there is no ordinance limiting the maximum speed at which a fire truck may travel in responding to a fire alarm, and under circumstances where the driver of the truck is endeavoring to get to the fire as quickly as possible, no defense can be maintained on a point of negligence on the part of the driver. This rule was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Oklahoma Railway company v. Ross Thomas, appealed from the Oklahoma county district court. The judgment of the lower court is sustained in an opinion written by Justice Hardy. Thomas, member of the fire company, was injured when a truck collided with a car of the street railway company. He brought suit for damages against the railway company and secured judgment. The railway company appealed on the ground that the fire truck was being driven at a high rate of speed; that Thomas knew when he boarded the truck that it would be driven rapidly and took the risk; that the driver of the truck was partially accountable for the injuring of the man, and the railway company pleaded contributory negligence.

The high court in reviewing the case held that the driver of the truck had a right to drive as rapidly as he reasonably could, that the purpose of the fire company was to reach a fire as quickly as possible, and this is generally understood, that the sounding of the gong was notice to all others to clear the way; that the street car company has orders to stop away from any crossing when hearing a fire wagon gong.