official reporters omit useless cases they may still be published by unofficial reporters. The Committee believe that the best practical remedy for the increasing bulk of the reports lies with the judges in the writing of their opinions, and that it is important that the judges should bear in mind the necessity of keeping down the bulk of the reports and should make their opinions as short as is consistent with a clear statement of the facts and of the reasons and authorities on which their conclusions are reached. Long quotations from authorities that are accessible should be avoided, and the discussion of the evidence should be confined to the points in issue, and no opinion should be written where a mere reference to a previous decision is sufficient to dispose of the case. With regard to the decisions of the courts of final appeal, the Committee are agreed that substantially all the opinions filed must be published. The lessening of the bulk of these depends for the most part on the judges. In the case of courts of the first instance and intermediate courts the rule should be to publish only such opinions as are of permanent value, and it is with these reports that the most can be accomplished in avoiding undue increase in volume. The reporters can and should exercise their discretion and should make references and abstracts of cases decided, but report only such as are of some value in the illustration and development of legal principles. In these cases also the co-operation of the judges is necessary in avoiding long opinions, and in these cases the judges may properly indicate, though not decide, that certain opinions are for the information of parties and not useful for publication. Your Committee appreciates fully the danger of the too rapid increase of the reports, and they reaffirm the resolution of last year's committee, except that they do not agree that the judges should decide what opinions should not be published, and they think that the discretion of reporters in omitting opinions should be exercised only with regard to the decisions of courts that are not courts of last resort. The resolution they suggest is that it is important that the rapid increase of the number and volumes of reported cases should be checked and that the remedy is for the judges to take pains to make their opinions as concise as is consistent with a clear statement of the facts and the reasons for their conclusions, and for the reporters to cut down the number and volume of the reports of courts that are not courts of the last resort. EDWARD Q. KEASBEY, R. W. BRECKENRIDGE. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN LEGISLATION. To the American Bar Association : Your Committee on Indian Legislation would respectfully report that they believe that in the majority of the Indian reservations the prompt carrying out of the provisions of the Severalty Act," approved February 8, 1887, is apparently the best practical solution of the Indian problem. Our policy toward the Indian is neither wise nor humane. We require of him no labor. We feed him and allow him to spend his time in listless idleness. This naturally leads to vice, degeneracy and extinction. Yet he can work. In Mexico and Central and South America most of the labor is performed by Indians. And we believe that the only salvation for our fast disappearing aborigines, if there be any salvation for them, lies in work. But the Indian will not work as long as his tribal organization is maintained; nor does labor offer any sufficient reward while property is held in common. We think that wherever it is practicable the Severalty Act should be put in operation. The arable lands of the Indians should be divided, and enough to make a small farm given to each. Alienation should be forbidden for a certain time, and assistance supplied for a few years. Then the Indian should be merged in the body of the people, compelled to labor for what he gets and held answerable to the same laws. Some of them would no doubt prove incorrigible and pass out, but others would make useful citizens. At present they are for the most part useless, and extinction is staring them in the face. In most reservations there would be vast tracts of arable land in excess of the Indians' demands. These should be sold to white settlers whose industry and thrift would be an example and an encouragement to the natives. We think that in the greater portion of the country the time and circumstances are ripe for the application of the Severalty Act; and the Executive, to whose discretion its enforcement is left, should be urged to put it into general operation. In the arid lands of the Southwest a different problem confronts us. There the lands of the Indians are unfit for agriculture without irrigation works that involve an expenditure and an intelligence far beyond native attainment. They are often too barren even for successful grazing. Under these conditions the natives must remain for the present the wards of the nation. The territorial courts find the administration of justice, either for their protection or their punishment, an unprofitable expense, and their affairs get scant judicial attention. We think that throughout this arid region the federal courts should be given jurisdiction of all litigation, civil and criminal, to which an Indian is a party. Respectfully, G. B. ROSE, E. E. ELLINWOOD, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS. During the last year the states of Kentucky and Louisiana have adopted the negotiable instruments law, so that now twenty-three states, one territory and the District of Columbia have adopted this law. Only a few legislatures have met during the last year, most of them holding their biennial sessions the coming winter. We have reason to expect that several will pass the act during the forthcoming year. We may therefore look forward confidently to the time as not far distant when this law will become part of the law of the land generally, and thus the English-speaking nations and their dependencies the world over will be brought into harmony on this important branch of commercial law. The conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation was held in St. Louis, September 22, 23 and 24, 1904. The uniform sales of goods act, drafted for these commissioners by Prof. Samuel Williston, of the Harvard Law School, and submitted in the last annual report of your Committee, was taken up for consideration with the draftsman and was minutely examined, section by section. Printed copies in its present form will be distributed throughout the United States among members of the various benches, bars, law schools, writers on sales and others. Suggestions are earnestly requested as to desirable amendments or changes, in order that the act may be in the most perfect form possible for adoption at the annual conference in 1905. The American Warehousemen's Association has promised to contribute toward the expense of drafting a uniform act relating to warehousemen and warehousemen's receipts. We hail with satisfaction this acknowledgment from such a powerful com |