EVENING SESSION. Tuesday, August 29, 1911, 8 P. M. The President called the meeting to order. George Whitelock, of Maryland: I offer a resolution which will involve no further action than reference to a committee. It is as follows: Resolved, That Francis Rawle, of Pennsylvania; Henry St. George Tucker, of Virginia; Alton B. Parker, of New York; Jacob M. Dickinson, of Tennessee; Frederick W. Lehmann, of Missouri, and Charles F. Libby, of Maine, former Presidents of the American Bar Association, be and they are hereby appointed a committee to formulate and submit to the Association for appropriate action at the morning session on Thursday, August 31, 1911, a suitable minute or resolution upon the proposition to make applicable to judges the principle of recall. Oscar A. Trippett, of California: I second the resolution. Alphonso T. Clearwater, of New York: I think that resolution ought to be laid on the table. Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: Oh, no; we do not want to lay it on the table. I suggest that the mover change the word "principle" to "doctrine." George Whitelock, of Maryland: I will accept Mr. Ketcham's suggestion. The last words of the resolution will accordingly read: "the doctrine of recall." Alphonso T. Clearwater, of New York: I move to lay the resolution on the table. Frederick Taylor, of New York: I second the motion. The motion to lay on the table was lost, and the original resolution of George Whitelock, of Maryland, as modified by him at the suggestion of Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana, was thereupon adopted. The Assistant Secretary then read additional names recommended by the General Council for election to membership in the Association. The persons recommended were duly elected. (See New Members marked (‡) in State List, page 179.) Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia, then submitted the printed report of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, stating the purport and substance thereof in conformity with the By-law. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 379.) The President: What will the Association do with this report? I move that the report be received and adopted. I second the motion. Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York: I should like to ask the committee whether it understood Mr. Boston's second resolution laid before the committee, namely, the resolution relating to scientific formulation of the laws in the United States, to refer to laws enacted by Congress or to refer only to laws of the states. If the committee did understand that resolution to refer to the laws of the several states I would inquire what congressional commission it thought had the matter in charge; and also whether the committee has ascertained the fact that such a commission is at work on the same subject. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: The committee did not suppose it was intended to formulate all the laws of all the states, but that the resolution had reference alone to federal legislation. The committee reports that the formulation of laws making the laws uniform in the respective states, is now being done by a body raised by the several states, namely, the Commission on Uniform State Laws. The answer generally to the whole inquiry of the gentleman is that the committee understood the resolution offered by Mr. Boston to have reference to the laws of the United States. Charles A. Boston, of New York: I beg leave to explain to the Chairman what I had in mind. I meant the laws in the United States and not the laws of the United States. I did not mean a digest or consolidation or revision of the United States laws. I meant that a committee of this body should consider and report to this Association whether in its opinion it was possible to inaugurate under the auspices of the Association, an agency which would, in future, take part in the proper formulation of the statute laws in the various states. The matter was under consideration by the New York State Bar Association in 1908, when Mr. James Bryce, the British Ambassador, discussed the methods of procedure in the formulation of laws before the British Parliament. He there stated, as I remember, that there were only 58 laws of a public nature which passed the British Parliament the year before. Mr. Choate then stated that he had had an examination made into the subject of the formulation of laws in this country, and he was sorry to report that there were 25,000 laws passed in the United States in the preceding period of two years. The President of this Association has told us that there were 9000 laws passed in the United States during the current year, the legislatures of some states being still in session. It was in view of the enormous increase of these laws-all of which we are supposed to know or understand so far as they pertain to our particular work that I thought the time had arrived when a committee. of this Association might at least consider whether we could inaugurate an agency so as to direct the attention of the various legislatures of the country to the methods pursued by the British Parliament. It appearing that the standing committee has misunderstood the scope of my resolution, I ask that the pending motion be amended so as to recommit this particular portion of the report to the standing committee with the request for a further report next year. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: I heartily agree to having this part recommitted. The President: Then the question will have to be divided. The question ought to be, from that point of view, that the report of the committee be received and adopted, excepting that part of it which refers to Mr. Boston's resolution, which shall be recommitted to the committee for a report next year. Aldis B. Browne, of District of Columbia: I want to ask the Chairman of the committee whether or not the new law to which the committee referred on the last page of the report does anything more than increase the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States? Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: That is another matter. It is covered by the Act approved March 3, 1911, going into effect January 1, 1912. Aldis B. Browne, of District of Columbia: All I wanted to be assured of was that the committee did not ignore the fact that no increase has been made in the salaries of any judges excepting the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be unfortunate to adopt a report with that recommendation, and then find it does not take care of the judges of the District Courts and of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York: I was about to make the same inquiry. My recollection of the Judiciary Act is that there is no increase in the salaries of the District or Circuit judges. It would be inappropriate to adopt the resolution referred to the committtee unless the committee can call atttention to a specific provision in the Judiciary Act which does increase the salaries of the judiciary. Aldis B. Browne, of District of Columbia: I move that this part of the resolution be excluded from the motion to approve the report, so that separate action may be taken. The President: Under the circumstances the Association had better take up the recommendations one at a time. The Chairman of the committee will present the first one. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: The first one deals with the subject of the third degree. Jerome L. Cheney, of New York: I move that the recommendations of the committee in regard to the third degree, to airships, and to woman suffrage be adopted. Thomas Mackenzie, of Maryland: I move as an amendment that they be considered separately. I made the original motion in respect to the third degree and would like to hear it discussed. Jerome L. Cheney, of New York: I accept the amendment. The President: Is the motion as it now stands seconded? E. W. Hines, of Kentucky: I will second it. The President: The motion is open for discussion. Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: I take it for granted that it is the right of any member of this Association to call for the division of a question and for a separate vote on each recommendation. If I am correct in that understanding, in order to expedite matters, I call for a division of the question and a separate vote on each recommendation. Therefore I ask for a vote on the first recommendation of the committee, that on the subject of the third degree. The President: Is there any discussion? |