From an address before the same Association at its annual meeting in Ellensburg in 1902 I cull these extracts. "Mr. Chairman: "When I came to this city I was sent for by the President of this Association and informed that Mr. Caton, on account of sickness in his family, could not be present on this occasion; and he asked the privilege of substituting my name for that of Mr. Caton. At first I objected. But you who are acquainted with the persuasive eloquence of the President of this Association can readily come to the conclusion that I finally consented. In the words of one of Lord Byron's heroes, 'Much I strove and much repented, And saying, I will ne'er consent--consented.' "The particular point to which I desire to direct your attention is the pioneer lawyer. I think I know something about his characteristics. In the first place he was a good fighter. His surroundings gave him inspiration in that direction. His environments were of the militant order. He was not only a good fighter, but he was a loyal fighter, and I must say from experience that he was a persistent fighter, for, after the judicial umpire had counted him out, and called the next bout, he wanted to fight on still. In the next place, he was a good reasoner, and I want to emphasize this point. He was so of necessity. He had no Reports. He had to rely on his remembrance of general principles; and he learned to reason from those general principles to his conclusions; and his success at the Bar depended upon the clearness of his statements and the cogency and force of his logic. The question with him was, what is the law? And he ascertained what the law was by reasoning from the general principles which he remembered, to the conclusion which he desired. If an attorney now-a-days is asked what is the law, I am afraid that it is too often the case, to use the eloquent language of the Supreme Court of this State, he seeks to find a case 'On all-fours.' He doesn't make any inquiry. He doesn't exercise his reasoning powers at all; he goes into the library and hunts after a case 'on all-fours' with the facts of the case he has presented to him. The learned and honored Judge C. H. Hanford, who has just so excellently addressed you, has stated that the law is not an exact science. I do not know but what I differ from the speaker in this regard. Every profession has connected with it two things: a science, and an art. The science consists of the principles upon which that art rests. Now I, as a lawyer, am prepared to maintain that the science of the law is just as accurate, just as complete, and just as reliable as any other science. As has been said, law in its practical operations is the application of principles to a certain condition of facts. There comes in