Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

in all the states. It would be similar to the Negotiable Instruments Act and the other laws put forth by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It is believed that if Congress would pass an insurance code applicable to the District of Columbia and to be enforced there-a code of laws which shall be compiled by a commission appointed by the President of the United States-there is some hope that such a code will receive the commendation of Congress and be taken as a model to be introduced throughout the union, like the action of the states relating to the equipment of railroads with a certain kind of equipment, and to the Employers' Liability Act, models of the federal act having been passed in many states.

There is no purpose to imply that insurance is commerce. As a matter of fact, precisely the opposite is implied. In the District of Columbia, as you probably all know, the business of the District is conducted by commissioners who operate under the laws passed by Congress, and they run the business of the District. Those commissioners are very anxious to have the bill which has been reported by this committee passed by Congress. They have recently held a meeting in Washington where they approved the very bill embodied in our report. The Superintendent of Insurance of the District is exceedingly anxious that this Association shall start a movement in favor of an Insurance Code for the District, because he says it is the worst of all, and he is extremely anxious that some reform be initiated.

So your committee upon all the considerations brought before it, and all the arguments considered and passed upon, all the investigation made and all the light they could get, have prepared and present this report. I read the concluding sentences:

"The only method promising results which thus far has been formulated to deal with this situation is stated in House Bill No. 28,407, Sixtieth Congress, second session, introduced by Mr. Flood, of Virginia.”

I may say that this situation refers to the fact that all manner of effort looking to a code which should deal with the whole subject has so far failed. It is within the knowledge of all who are familiar with the history of the so-called Ames bill, which

was prepared after the Armstrong Committee in New York had ceased its labors, that it was the subject of amendments by the hundred. That bill was supposed to be based upon a Massachusetts statute, but at least three hundred amendments were offered to it, so that it is practically impossible that a bill prepared by any one individual and bearing any one name shall have any chance of passage.

"It (the Flood bill) creates a commission to prepare a code of laws for the regulation and control of insurance companies doing business within the District of Columbia. Your committee have conferred with the District Commissioners, and with the Board of Governors of the Bar Association of the District and others interested. They all endorse this plan, though neither the Commissioners nor the Bar Association have formally approved the bill. It also puts in form the desire and recommendation of Superintendent Drake, and should have the approval of all who favor a model insurance law for the District which may later be generally adopted.

[ocr errors]

It is a sensible step in the direction of a reform which will be most effective and far-reaching. It will insure that the interests of all concerned will be properly safeguarded. It will prevent haste and improvidence, the code drafted by such a commission would necessarily be subject to the scrutiny of the able lawyers in both houses of Congress, and only through a commission can the practical difficulties which beset legislative reforms, be met and overcome.

"Your committee therefore recommend:

"That the Congress pass a law which shall create a commission to prepare a code of laws for the regulation and control of insurance companies doing business in the District of Columbia."

And appended to the report is a copy of the act introduced by Mr. Flood and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and which has the approval of that committee.

I therefore move the adoption of the report, and that the committee be authorized to urge upon Congress the passage of the bill appended to the report.

The motion was seconded and adopted.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 549.)

Nathan William MacChesney, of Illinois:

I desire to have the Association return for a moment to the matter of the Committee on Law Reporting and Digesting. Mr. Keasbey, of the committee, is abroad, and he has sent me a communication with reference to the subject matters referred to the committee, requesting that I get the opinion of the members of the committee in reference to them.

It seems to be the general consensus of opinion among the members of the committee that nothing of really vital concern can be done with reference to law reporting and digesting so long as the decisions of the various courts are the basis for law reporting. Although I do not agree entirely with the majority of the committee in that respect, it seems to me that the time has come for the committee to make an earnest effort to ascertain if the number of decisions reported cannot be reduced in some way; and I trust that the committee will, during the coming year, take the matter up in earnest and mark some progress in this direction. The tremendous output of cases in this country is making it impossible for the Bar to be familiar with the decisions anywhere. It seems to me that this has a very vital relation to the general question of uniformity, for it has long ceased to be possible for the Bar of any state to be familiar with the decisions of other states, except in very rare instances.

I trust, therefore, that with this brief report, the committee may be continued, and that it will take up with earnestness this subject during the coming year.

The President:

The committee is a standing committee, and may continue its work without special leave from the Association.

Next in order is the report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws.

Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island:

I will read the report of the committee, which is in manuscript. The reason why we set forth so particularly all the details, is that we wish to preserve as a permanent record the

evidence that we have given every opportunity to every interest concerned to come before the committee and be heard.

The report was then read.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 557.)

The President:

The report will be received and placed on file.

George Whitelock, of Maryland:

I move that the recommendations of the report be adopted, approving the various bills mentioned.

The President:

The Chair is of the opinion that that motion cannot be entertained, because of the provision of By-law XII, which provides for printing and distributing in advance of the meeting committee reports containing recommendations for action.

Amasa M. Eaton:

The gentleman from Maryland is unintentionally in error in his motion. There is no recommendation proposed in this report. All that is asked in the report is that it be received.

The President:

That will be done as a matter of course.

Amasa M. Eaton:

As to the provision of the By-laws that reports shall be printed and distributed at least fifteen days before the meeting of the Association, you will understand that it was impossible for a report of this kind, which takes cognizance of the action of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in session last week and on Monday of this week, to be printed in advance of this meeting.

The President:

The report will be received.

George Whitelock:

I founded my motion upon the fact that the report of the Committee on Commercial Law-and we thought the subject

within our province-did recommend that these bills in such form as might be approved by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws should be ratified by this Association.

Amasa M. Eaton:

That would be the proper subject of another motion, I submit. George Whitelock:

If that is appropriate at this time, I make that motion.

The President:

The Chair is of opinion that a report which does not conform to the By-laws, and does not inform the members of the Association of the proposed action, is not a report upon which action can be taken within the meaning of the By-laws.

Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut:

There is a report of the Bureau of Comparative Law which is in print and is very brief, that I would like to present.

The President:

Very good.

Simeon E. Baldwin:

The report is really the Bulletin which has been distributed, and is in the hands of the members of the Association. That Bulletin, published last month by the Comparative Law Bureau, covers thirty-two nations of the world, and includes all the Great Powers, except Russia and the United States. The United States. did not fall within our province, and the information was not fully at hand at the time the Bulletin was published in regard to Russia.

I will only add that that Bulletin was published and distributed to over 4500 persons, counting the members of this Association, and the members of State Bar Associations entitled under the rules of the Bureau to receive it.

Allow me to call the attention of gentlemen present who are members of State Bar Associations to the fact that by the rules governing the Comparative Law Bureau any State Bar Association is at liberty to become a member of the Bureau at an ex

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »