THE SHORTHAND REPORTER.

BY W. L. BOURLAND, LITTLE ROCK.

[NOTE-Owing to sickness of his wife, Mr. Bourland could not be present, and this paper was not read.]

In a discussion of this subject, it may be appropriate and perhaps interesting to first give a short history of the development of the art of shorthand reporting.

We find in history a record of a system of shorthand as far back as 70 B. C., in the time of Cicero, either Cicero or his secretary, Tullius Tiro, being its inventor. The philosopher, Seneca, used, and did much to add to its efficiency, by making improvements on this system. Pliny, it is said, kept a stenographer at his side to record his observations, although the "stenographer" must have been unable to do faster work than a business college graduate, because of the length and complicated nature of the system.

This system of Tiro seems to have been the only system known during the Greek and Roman ascendency and for fifteen centuries afterwards. Since the invention of printing, probably a thousand systems have been invented, of which the most successful has been that brought forth by Isaac Pitman in 1837. His services were recognized by having a knighthood conferred on him in 1893, three or four years before his death. There have been but few changes or improvements made in his ideas as first published in 1837.

French and German inventors, while behind the English, brought forth several systems, but the Isaac Pitman shorthand has been adapted and published for use in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Wales, Japan, China, and about twelve other countries, and we do not find that the French and German products ever came into general use.

The invention of shorthand and typewriting has revolutionized the business world, enabling the great masters of finance to handle more work than was ever dreamed of before, at far less cost and trouble. The lawyers and the courts have been benefited even more. We now find daily verbatim transcripts of the evidence being furnished by the reporters to the lawyers, the reporter dictating to two or three typewriter operators or a phonograph,

and completing the transcript in a short time after the case is closed for the day. Conventions are reported, and the transcripts furnished within a few minutes after the last business is transacted, and today there are many shorthand writers who can report the utterances of any speaker, no matter how rapidly he talks.

The shorthand reporter is the most important adjunct of our courts, and it seems impossible that forty or fifty years ago the courts could get along without his services. Upon his ability and honesty constantly depends the correct balancing of the scales of justice. He must be able to correctly report and transcribe the testimony of the witnesses, the charge of the court, and, if necessary, the argument of counsel, and today he has become an indispensable part of our judicial system.

As an official of the court, the number of men in the State of Arkansas, capable of filling a vacancy, does not exceed twentyfive; and there are not more than forty men and women in this State who, by their own claims, are able to do court work. In the entire United States, while there are something like 500,000 stenographers, only about 2,500 men and women who even claim to be able to do court reporting.

There are many who hold that all who write shorthand are stenographers; who class the sixteen-year-old girl, painfully and slowly putting down in awkward symbols the carefully and deliberately dictated letter of the business man, at a speed little exceeding that of a skilful penman, with him who, through years of study and unremitting toil, has gained the wonderful art of verbatim reporting. As well compare your six-year-old child, thumping on her toy piano, with the marvelous masters of music, who hold the world entranced with their skill and genius.

About 75 per cent of the reporters of this State, and of the United States as well, have been admitted to practice at the bar; a competent reporter must know at least enough of the law to enable him to report court proceedings intelligently and accurately, and, today, some of the best lawyers in this and other States have formerly been court reporters.

He must know enough about the nomenclature of medicine to be able to report successfully the expert medical witness, and he must be versed in the technical expressions of chemistry and all the other sciences, not only that his transcript may be accurate

but that the transcription may be speedily accomplished. He must study the sciences, not so much for the mastery of them but to obtain a knowledge of the spelling and meaning of their terms. It must be remembered that these unfamiliar terms pour forth in an unbroken stream from the lips of the witnesses, at a speed varying from 150 to 250 words per minute, and he is not given the opportunity of leisurely inquiring into their spelling and meaning, but must take them down without hesitation and be able to read them back when the time comes.

When you compare these facts with the ability of the average amanuensis, who writes from 50 to 100 words per minute, on familiar matter, the difference is more readily appreciated. The difference between the verbatim reporter and the less competent shorthand writer lies in the amount actually taken down; one gets a verbatim report, while the other (who is sometimes brought into court) gets what he can. When we reflect that many lawsuits are decided upon a few words of a judge's charge, or a few answers of a witness, the necessity of having a competent man becomes more apparent.

I think we need some additional legislation in this State relating to the courts and shorthand reporters.

Civil service examinations of candidates for reportorial honors have been adopted in the State of New York, and the other States are rapidly working around to this point; every shorthand reporter should be required to pass a civil service examination before taking an official position, and every public or general reporter should be examined and chartered by the State, in order that the litigants and lawyers may be assured of the competency of the man whom they employ.

Every court where litigation of any importance is tried should be equipped with official reporters, and arrangements should be made in some way for the recording of the testimony in important cases before grand juries, coroners and magistrates, in examining trials, as has been done in many of the other States of the Union.

In this State we find that there are four circuits unequipped with reporters, and the testimony before grand juries, coroners and magistrates can only be reproduced by means of extrinsic evidence, and appropriate laws should be passed to remedy the deficiencies.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE COR

PORATIONS.

To the President and Members of the Association of Arkansas:

An adequate treatment of the subject assigned to us would require a paper of far greater length than this Association of busy lawyers has time or inclination to hear, and would involve more labor and research than your committee has either the will or the leisure to expend. Hence, if we sacrifice profundity to brevity, and thereby exact less of your patience for "the short haul" than for "the long haul," we will consider your pleasure as well as our own. In our train of thought upon interstate commerce, the requirements of the national law as to safety appliances will be faithfully observed, the airbrakes will be provided and promptly applied; and throughout this discussion, in the effort to carry your attention, due regard will be paid to that fundamental rule of ratemaking that "no more be exacted than the traffic will bear."

WHAT ARE PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS?

It frequently becomes interesting as well as important to know the characteristics which differentiate the private from the public calling. In accordance with the maxim that every man shall so use his property as not to injure another, the general police power of a State may regulate the use of all property, both public and private, so as to protect the health, life, liberty and morals of its inhabitants, and hence may, in the case even of private buildings, for example, regulate the thickness of walls, and prohibit the use therein of inflammable materials, require the daily removal of decaying vegetables and meats, and so on. Yet, if the State, whether by constitutional or legislative enactment, should assume to fix the price at which one who is engaged in a purely private and competitive business must sell his wares, the attempt would be abortive and illegal, and the Courts would instantly stamp it with their disfavor. In mediaeval England, the common surgeon, the farrier, the baker, the miller and the tailor, were held to be in public callings, while the carpenter, the grocer, the wine vendor and the haberdasher, were merely private dealers.

It seems difficult to us now to see the distinction then made between the blacksmith and the carpenter, and between the baker and the grocer, yet there was a distinction which was economic rather than legal, growing naturally and logically, out of the constitution of society and the condition of the times. Hence, as an illustration of the practical results of these distinctions, had Don Quixote been traveling through Merry England and solicited a farrier to replace a cast shoe on the foot of Rosinante and the farrier had refused, the knight would have had his action on the case; yet, if he had gone to a carpenter and made an agreement with him to build a stable for the said Rosinante, and the carpenter had failed to perform, whereby Rosinante contracted distemper

and died, Don Quixote might as profitably have tilted at a windmill as to take his troubles into Court. In those days, inns and blacksmith shops were few and far between, and they were virtual monopolies; roads were mere trails, and infested with robbers, and travel was chiefly by horseback; hence, to refuse a guest entertainment, or to decline to shoe a limping palfrey, meant robbery, or exposure to the elements. In more recent times, conditions have changed, yet, the reason of things remains the same. The grocer who sells heat and light in the form of phosphorous matches has many competitors, and follows a mere private calling; yet, ordinarily, he who sells gas and electricity enjoys a monopoly, and is subject in his prices to public regulation.

In some cases monopolies are a blessing and mean economy and better service, as, for example, in the case of the telephone. In this business, competition, if possible, is not desirable. Reduplication of expensive plants, of wires, poles, instruments and employees, means waste and extravagance, which, ultimately, the consumer must pay, and the inevitable result is, that one company will absorb the rest.

The rule first clearly laid down by Lord Chief Justice Hale, more than two hundred years ago, was reaffirmed in the great case of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, by Chief Justice Waite, where the right of the State to declare grain elevators to be public, and to fix the prices for the storage was upheld, and the following language was used:

"Property becomes clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affects the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use he must submit to the control."

A similar doctrine to that of Munn v. Illinois, has recently been announced by our own Court in the case of Danaher v. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 94 Ark. 533, where further telephone service was refused because of an alleged failure to pay a past account. There the Court said:

"The telephone company, in devoting its property to a use in which the public has an interest, becomes a public servant, and is bound to serve the public impartially. It is like common carriers in that it is bound to serve those applying to it impartially and upon equal terms, and, being a public servant, can not refuse to serve any one of the public in that capacity, in which it has undertaken to serve the public when such one offers to pay its rates and comply with its reasonable rules and regulations. It can not refuse to serve him until he pays a debt contracted for services rendered in the past. For the present services, it has a right to demand no more than the rate of charge fixed for such services. transcended its duty to the public when it demanded more."

It