Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Under those circumstances, therefore, the committee direct me to ask that it be continued under the same direction to continue its efforts to obtain the passage of the changes and amendments which have received the sanction of this Association. These are all embodied in the general revision proposed. In addition to that, a bill, as we are informed, may be introduced at the next session of Congress, increasing the salaries of the Federal judiciary. The report on Federal courts recommended that, but it was withdrawn because it was not deemed expedient to join that amendment with the general bill proposing the other changes. It was withdrawn with the statement-which also met with the approval of the Association that it should be recommended, if any opportunity arose, as a separate measure. That opportunity has now seemed to come, and therefore on behalf of the committee I will ask for the adoption of this motion:

Resolved, That the committee be continued with power to obtain as far as possible the passage of the proposed changes in the laws relating to Federal courts and procedure which obtained the approval of the Association, and also that the committee be authorized to promote the passage of an act for an increase in the salaries of the Federal judiciary. Frederick P. Fish, of Massachusetts:

I second the motion.

The President:

The Chair will state that it is informed by the Secretary that the practice has been to continue these special committees. until by vote of the Association they are discharged from the performance of their duty. In all instances, therefore, special committees will be continued unless the Association by vote concludes to dispense with their further services.

The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from New York, that the committee be continued with power as stated.

The resolution was adopted.

The President:

The next special committee is the Committee on Appeals from Orders Appointing Receivers.

A. J. McCrary, of Iowa:

Mr. President: In presenting this report, a word of explanation is necessary. The members of the Association will remember that the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals were created by an act passed in 1891. In the original bill there was no provision whereby an appeal could be taken from an interlocutory order, but only the general appeal at the end of the case. Subsequently, an amendment was passed granting the right of appeal from orders allowing injunctions, and again, in 1895, an amendment was passed allowing appeals from the refusal to grant injunctions. Neither in the original bill nor in either of these amendments, was there any right of appeal from orders appointing receivers or refusing their appointment. The appointment of this special committee was for the purpose of procuring legislation permitting appeals from interlocutory orders for the appointment of receivers or the refusal. At the Congress previous to the last, as a member of our committee, I went before that body and, on presentation of the subject to the Judiciary Committee of the House, I was granted the privilege of preparing a bill, which I did with great care, amending the sixth and seventh sections, providing for appeals from orders allowing injunction, orders refusing injunction, orders appointing receivers and refusing to appoint receivers. That bill was opposed--or, at least, was treated with some little doubt in the Senate Committee. It passed the House committee and was reported by the House committee. It was not heartily favored in the Senate committee, and for some reason-probably the outbreak of the war was the main cause-was not acted upon at all. This special committee went, therefore, before the last Congress. We all appeared there; Hon. Walter B. Hill, of Georgia, being the Chairman, and Robert D. Benedict, of New York, and myself being the other members of the committee.

When we appeared at Washington we were informed that a
bill had been introduced by Mr. Bradley, of Georgia, a mem-
ber of Congress and also a member of this Association, and
that it had been referred to the Judiciary Committee and by
them referred to a special committee, and that the special
committee had approved it and it would be passed by the
House. We then went before the Senate committee and had
an informal hearing, and a special committee was appointed
there for the consideration of the matter and it received favor-
able consideration. In all this time the bill itself was never
in the hands of the committee and so far as I personally am con-
cerned, I supposed it was a reenactment of the bill that had
once passed the House, which I had prepared myself. Upon
coming here, I received from the Secretary the report of our
Chairman, Mr. Hill, with a request from Mr. Hill to present
it, with a copy of the bill which had passed in the very late
hours of the Congress just adjourned, and which has received
the signature of the President. That bill is something of a
disappointment. It amends only the seventh section of the
law and it also has a provision that practically repeals that
which had been accomplished by our former amendment. I
will read Mr. Hill's report, and withdraw the latter clause of
it, as I am the only member of the committee present. In
conversation with the Committee on Federal Courts they have
asked us to continue in our work in connection with them in
securing complete relief from the granting and refusing inter-
locutory orders, and the right of appeal from such orders.
The report and bill were then read.

William A. Ketcham, of Indiana :

I move that the report be received and that the matter be recommitted to the committee with instructions to endeavor to procure legislation authorizing an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals on matters of injunction and of the appointment of receivers, not only in cases where upon final decree the appeal will be to the Circuit Court of Appeals,

[ocr errors]

but also in all cases where upon the final decree the appeal will be to the Supreme Court of the United States.

J. Franklin Fort, of New Jersey:

I second that motion.

William A. Ketcham :

Permit me to say that as the law now is, a district judge or a circuit judge sitting alone in a matter involving the constitutionality of a law, may grant an injunction, appoint a receiver or make drastic orders from which there is no relief whatever, except at the end of an appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States, which may last from a year and a half to four years. Now if a district judge may be presumed to know enough constitutional law to grant an injunction or to refuse one, to appoint a receiver or to refuse to appoint one, it ought to be presumed that the Circuit Court of Appeals knows enough constitutional law to revise the action of the one district judge in granting or refusing a receiver or an injunction, and if it is right and fair, in a proceeding that may not be of so much importance, because a constitutional question is not involved and the appeal must be taken directly to the Circuit Court of Appeals, that a right of appeal shall be given, a fortiori is it right that an appeal should be allowed in more important cases where a constitutional question is pending and there can be no appeal from an interlocutory order to the Supreme Court of the United States?

I think, therefore, that great injustice may be done by discriminating against the more important cases in giving the right of appeal and allowing the right of appeal to the less important cases that can go to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The President:

The Chair suggests that it is so evident that this report has been made under a misapprehension of the Act of Congress, that it certainly would be injurious that it should appear in the printed volume of our transactions, because it would look as though the Association had accomplished that which it

sought to bring about. The Chair asks whether it would not be more advisable to withdraw this report and simply continue the committee to carry out the ideas of the Association.

William A. Ketcham :

I desire that in some manner this committee should not confine itself to providing for a supervisory jurisdiction in cases of lesser importance, but also include the cases of the greater importance, because we all know that it is desirable to repeal the one-man power in judges.

A. J. McCrary, of Iowa:

The bill provided at the former session of Congress covers all these points, and I had not dreamed, until I saw this bill, that the former was not the bill that was being acted upon by Congress.

The President:

The Chair would ask Mr. McCrary whether he does not think the suggestion made by the Chair is the best to be pursued under the circumstances?

A. J. McCrary:

I do think so. I am the only member of the committee present, however.

William Wirt Howe, of Louisiana :

I move that the report be recommitted to this special committee with instructions to the committee to endeavor to carry out the views which have been so frequently expressed by the action of this Association, in bringing about the legislation suggested by the gentleman from Indiana.

Hiram F. Stevens, of Minnesota :

I would amend that motion by saying that the committee be asked to co-operate with the Committee on Federal Courts in the matter, so that there may be uniform action.

William Wirt Howe:

I accept that amendment.

Hiram F. Stevens:

Then I second the motion.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »