Theodore Sutro, of New York: No, we report progress. Albert W. Biggs, of Tennessee: Progress by other bodies, but not by the committee; and the committee asks that the report be received and filed. The President: The report of the committee as made by the Chairman goes further than that. It asks that there be appropriated to the committee the sum of one thousand dollars. Albert W. Biggs, of Tennessee: Unless there is a resolution asking for that expenditure, such action could not be carried into effect. Of course, if this committee needs any money for expenses to be incurred in future work, the Executive Committee would make an appropriation. Is that correct? The Secretary: The resolution, or request, would have to go to the Executive Committee, and, of course, the Executive Committee would consider it. Albert W. Biggs, of Tennessee: In other words, this committee could not expend the money unless it were authorized by the Executive Committee. Therefore, I do not think we need any action by the Association as to the thousand dollar resolution. The President: Then that resolution should not be included in the report. Albert W. Biggs, of Tennessee: I move that that part of the report made by the Chairman, which asks for the appropriation of one thousand dollars be stricken out and that the report be then approved. Seneca N. Taylor, of Missouri: If that is stricken out, I withdraw my motion to lay the report on the table. Ernest T. Florance, of Louisiana: It seems to me that the report amounts to nothing more than a simple report of progress, and that nothing can be done except to file the report. The substance of the report is pretty well covered by the words of W. S. Gilbert: "The House of Lords throughout the War, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well." I move that the report be received and placed on file. The President: I should say that the suggestion of the gentleman from Louisiana really amounts to a point of order which would be well taken if the report did not call for an appropriation. Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island: But I understand that is stricken out now. The President: Yes; the motion made by Mr. Biggs meets that point. He moves that the report be received and accepted after striking out the request for an appropriation. The motion to approve the report as modified was then carried. Charles Henry Butler, of New York, submitted the printed report of the Special Committee on Compensation for Industrial Accidents and their Prevention and stated the purport and substance thereof. He then moved that the report be accepted, that the committee be continued, and that power be given to the committee to report upon such plan as it may approve in regard to compensation for industrial accidents and their prevention. Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York: I rise to second the motion, especially as to that part of it enlarging the jurisdiction of the committee. I happen to be the Chairman of the Law Committee of the National Civic Federation on this subject, the admirably printed report of which is principally the work of Mr. P. Tecumseh Sherman. It has attracted much attention, and I call attention to the fact that this matter is now receiving the consideration of a Commission of Congress, which will pass upon this question finally and most likely will take as a basis for its action the bill introduced by Mr. Lewis, of Maryland. The Lewis bill is one to which the National Civic Federation is likely to give its support, as it is founded upon a model bill drawn by the federation itself. I trust that the members of the Association generally will take cognizance of what is intended by the bill of Mr. Lewis now before the Commission and which will be taken up probably on the 15th of November. It is likely to be presented to Congress at its next session. Thomas W. Shelton, of Virginia. As a member of both committees, I should like to endorse what Mr. Butler has said, and also the statement just made by Mr. Stetson. The motion made by Charles Henry Butler was carried. George Whitelock, of Maryland, submitted the printed report of the Special Committee to Present to Congress Bills Relating to Courts of Admiralty and stated the purport and substance thereof. The report of the committee was accepted and the committee continued with authority to the committee to make such amendment of phraseology in the bills as may seem appropriate after conferring with the Judiciary Committees of Congress. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 486.) No report was submitted by the Committee on Government Liens on Real Estate. The report of the Comparative Law Bureau was received and placed on file. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 446.) The Association took a recess until 8 P. M. EVENING SESSION. Wednesday, August 30, 1911, 8 P. M. The President called the meeting to order. Hon. William B. Hornblower, of New York, was introduced by President Farrar and delivered the annual address on "AntiTrust Legislation and Litigation." (See the Appendix, page 304.) The President being called out on a personal matter, Mr. Walter George Smith, of Pennsylvania, temporarily occupied the Chair. Everett P. Wheeler, of New York, submitted the printed report of the Committee to Suggest Remedies and Formulate Proposed Laws to Prevent Delay and Unnecessary Cost in Litigation and stated the purport and substance thereof. The Association adopted seriatim the first, second, third, fourth and fifth resolutions recommended by the committee. Everett P. Wheeler of New York: The committee has instructed me to ask leave to amend the sixth resolution, and for the reason which I now state. Since the report was drafted, the committee has been requested by the Supreme Court to co-operate in the pending revision of the Equity Rules, and has also been requested to do the same by committees appointed in the different circuits, and a meeting of those committees in Washington has been called for the 23d day of October, in which meeting your committee is asked to co-operate. I therefore read the amended resolution, which we ask to be passed in view of that invitation: Resolved, That the said committee be instructed to bring the portion of the report relating to equity practice to the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that said committee be authorized to meet and confer with the committees appointed by the several Circuit Courts of Appeals at the request of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the revision of the Equity Rules of Practice. The amended resolution was thereupon adopted and the last resolution appended to the report of the committee was also adopted. Everett P. Wheeler, of New York: I now move—and in doing so permit me to express the thanks of the committee for the cordial support given us by the Association that the report as a whole be accepted and its resolutions as a whole be adopted. Thomas W. Shelton, of Virginia: I second the motion. Clarence C. Hieatt, of Kentucky: It may be necessary to move a reconsideration of the vote on the first resolution to make myself parliamentarily correct. call attention to the language of the second sentence in the bill passed by the lower branch of Congress and shown in Schedule A of the report of the committee. That sentence reads that "the trial judge may," etc. It is my recollection that when the matter was first brought before this Association several years ago the sentence read that "the trial judge must or shall" in every case submit to the jury the issues of fact arising on the pleading. As the Chairman of the committee has stated, the object of this legislation is to secure in the trial of every jury case a verdict upon all of the facts, so that when the case comes before the court on a motion for a new trial or when it comes up on appeal, the court can dispose of the whole question upon the issues of law without the necessity of a retrial of the issues of fact. Now it was my understanding that the object of this legislation was to accomplish that purpose. When this matter was first brought before the Association the language of the Act was so worded as to accomplish that result, making it obligatory upon the court, in every case, to let all of the facts in before the jury and have a finding upon them, so that the whole record would be complete on appeal. Now in some way that language has been changed so as to leave it merely optional with the trial |