Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The President:

I call the attention of the Association to the fact that the report of the committee recommends that this matter be referred to the Special Committee of Fifteen with instructions that it urge the adoption of the proposed bill. Does the gentleman from New York wish to amend the report of the committee? If so, that might be done by striking out of the report the words "with directions to urge upon Congress the passage of a bill in substance as follows."

Henry D. Estabrook:

Yes, sir; because it would amount to that in any event.

Theodore Sutro, of New York:

I would suggest that the word "consider " be inserted in place of the words "urge upon Congress."

Henry D. Estabrook:

I see no objection to striking out the entire clause, as the President has suggested, and simply referring to the Special Committee of Fifteen the subject for general consideration.

The President:

Then, do you make that motion?

Henry D. Estabrook:

Yes, sir.

The President:

Unless there is objection, the words "with directions to urge upon Congress the passage of a bill in substance as follows" are stricken out; and, of course, the bill which follows the signatures of the committee would also be considered as eliminated from the report.

Chapin Brown, of the District of Columbia:

The only objection I have is that the report itself is in substance a recommendation that the appeal be taken away. I do not see why my motion is not the one that should be adopted,

that the subject be referred back to the Special Committee of Fifteen, but without instructions.

The President:

The only effect of the adoption of the report is to refer the subject matter to the special committee.

It does not commit

the Association to the views of the regular committee.

Chapin Brown:

Very well. In view of the statement of the President, I withdraw my motion.

The President:

Then the question before the meeting is upon the motion made by the Chairman of the Committee, that the report as amended by the elimination of the matter specified be referred to the Committee of Fifteen.

The motion was adopted.

The President:

Next in order is the Report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

The report of the committee does not call for any action by the Association. I therefore ask permission to present the report without reading it.

The President:

Is the report in print?

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

No, sir.

The President:

Unless objection is made, the report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar will be considered as read and placed on file.

The next committee to report is the Committee on Commercial Law.

George Whitelock, of Maryland:

There were three subjects before the committee which are treated in the report. The first is Bankruptcy, with which we were instructed to deal by the Association. The report shows that no action has been taken by Congress since the last meeting of the Association, although a number of bills on the subject have been introduced. The next topic is Uniform State Legislation. The committee has gone thus far with that subject. Two bills, one on Bills of Lading, and the other on Stock Transfers have after a number of years of consideration and criticism by all interests just been adopted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and the committee recommends that this Association add its endorsement of them to the approval of the Commissioners. The third subject concerns the admiralty courts of the United States. The report contains three bills affecting them. All three of them have been considered for years by the Maritime Law Association of the United States, and they have received the criticism of all interests. The Maritime Law Association has asked this Association to add its approval, and the committee, after careful consideration of the subject, ask this Association to comply with this request. The first bill relates to damages for death upon the high seas. Lord Campbell's Act does not apply in the federal courts, and, although by statute there may now be recovery for death in every state in the union, such is not the law of the federal tribunals. The only way that damages can there be recovered for death is by the application either of a state law or a foreign law. The second bill relates to liens, and is intended to make the law uniform upon that subject, there having been considerable diversity of ruling in the different federal districts. The third bill is to give the court the same right in actions of tort to allow damages against the United States-that is, up to $10,000which it has in actions of contract since the adoption of the Tucker Act in 1887.

Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island:

I offer the following resolution, and move its adoption: Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Commercial Law be and the same is hereby accepted; that all of its recommendations be and they are hereby adopted, and that the uniform act concerning the Transfer of Title to Shares of Stock in Corporations, and the uniform Bills of Lading Act, both drawn and recommended for adoption by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, as well as the three acts for Congressional action concerning the Courts of Admiralty, heretofore endorsed by the Maritime Law Association of the United States, be and the same are hereby approved and recommended for adoption by the respective state legislatures and the Congress of the United States.

A. J. McCrary, of New York:

I second the adoption of that resolution.

The President:

The question is upon the adoption of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island and seconded by the gentleman from New York.

Ernest T. Florance, of Louisiana:

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the document approved by the committee called the Fourth Tentative Draft of the Bill of Lading Act is not the document, as I understand it, adopted by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. That draft, as approved by the committee, made bills of lading negotiable. The draft as adopted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws practically destroys the negotiability of a bill of lading.

Amasa M. Eaton:

You are quite wrong about that, sir.

Ernest T. Florance:

I do not think it fair to the committee that has had no opportunity yet to discuss this vital change in the Uniform Bills of Lading Act, that we should be considered as approving an act which I for one consider hopelessly wrong. I therefore move as

an amendment to the resolution just offered that that portion of the report of the Committee on Commercial Law referring to the Bills of Lading Act be recommitted, so that the committee of this Association, which is an independent body from the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, can consider the amendment suggested at the late Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and then report to this Association whether it recommends the destruction of the element of negotiability in bills of lading. As a member of that committee my name being attached to the report as approving the Fourth Tentative Draft-I say that we should not adopt today, as the sentiment of the Association, a bill that has never been submitted to your committee for consideration. I move the recommittal of that portion of the report to the Committee of which I am a member in order that it may be considered and passed upon by the committee before action by this Association.

The President:

The gentleman from Louisiana moves to amend the resolution offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island by striking out therefrom the approval of the uniform act concerning bills of lading, and asks that that part be referred back to the Committee on Commercial Law of this body. The question before the meeting is upon that motion.

Francis B. James, of Ohio:

The gentleman from Louisiana, who is a member of the Committee on Commercial Law of this Association, is resting under grave misapprehensions in respect to a few verbal amendments that have been made in the Fourth Tentative Draft of the Bills of Lading Act. That act as printed preserves absolutely the negotiability of Bills of Lading. It is true that there are a few verbal changes in the act, and it is also true that one section was added, but that section was added merely for the sake of clearness in interpretation. I hope, therefore, that the motion made by the gentleman from Louisiana to recommit will be defeated.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »