The second matter to which I would desire to call your attention on behalf of the committee is the remarkable progress which the subject of codification has made. A few years ago a committee was appointed by the League of Nations to consider subjects which might be ready for codification; that committee has met and held various meetings and agreed upon a list of subjects and transmitted to the different governments a series of projects for the expression of opinion.

Also in the last few years the Pan-American Union representing 21 governments, has seriously undertaken a codification of the international laws which is based upon the American project, and a series of reports have been presented to the governing boards of the Pan-American Union, and by them directed to the 21 governments, with the further direction that they be submitted in the course of the month of April of the coming year to the meeting to be held in Rio de Janeiro. If they be adopted before July, then the subject will be thereby submitted in the fall of the year 1928 to the Sixth Pan-American Conference meeting in Habana.

And lastly, a word of congratulation to all of us who believe in a rule of law governing the relations of nations, as we do in a rule of law governing individuals in national life. Little by little in discussion, in conference, and little by little in codification, the empire of law is being extended to the domain of political matters, which were formerly considered political and are now being known to be subject to judicial discussion and settlement.

And the third observation which I had in mind is the culmination, the submission of projects of this kind to an international conference which may meet at some time agreeable to the nations invited to participate, all the nations of the world as we hope, so that by agreement the law of nations to be applied by them in their international intercourse and in the adjustment of their difficulties, shall be known in advance and the results so far calculated as to enable the governments, or as to persuade the governments without resorting to arms, to submit their disputes to judicial processes, and due process

of law.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the report dealing with these subjects be accepted by The American Bar Association.

The motion was seconded and carried. (See report, infra, p. 420.)

The President:

The next in order is the report of the Committee on Law Enforcement, by Mr. Charles S. Whitman, of New York City. Mr. Whitman:

My report is very brief. The committee is about to commit what our Chinese friends might call "hara-kiri," and I wish to consume but a short space of time.

Our committee was appointed originally as a special committee pursuant to a resolution adopted at the Annual Meeting of the Association in Cincinnati, in 1921. Three problems were presented to us on which we were asked to report:

First: The condition of law enforcement in this country; Second: The reason, or at least some of the reasons, for the failure of law enforcement, if such failure was found; and, Third: Such remedies as might seem available.

It was a large program.

After very careful examination of such statistics as were obtainable in this country and Canada, we reported in 1922 at the San Francisco meeting, and were directed to continue our work and report at the Annual Meeting in 1923. A majority of the committee visited England and France in 1923, making as thorough a study as time and opportunity permitted, of the methods of enforcing criminal law in those countries. The committee made a somewhat exhaustive report of its work at Minneapolis in 1923, and was again continued by resolution instructing the committee, if sufficient funds were obtainable, to undertake the preparation of a model penal code, or to cooperate with other organizations to that end.

We assured ourselves that the work that was committed to us was likely to be carried on successfully through another organization. Since that time the American Law Institute has undertaken this very important work, to our minds the most important task that the lawyers can undertake at the present time in the interest of the enforcement of the criminal law.

We believe that the American Law Institute is very well equipped to accomplish this work. The work thus far, I am somewhat familiar with it,-has been of a very high class.

The general subject of criminal law alone, so far as this Association is concerned, the arrangement for discussions and suggestions as to legislation, properly fall within the scope of the Section on Criminal Law of the Association, as you all know.

Our committee has been desirous of encouraging in every way the Criminal Law Section, and has avoided encroaching upon the field of its activities.

The Chairman has not asked for an appropriation the last year, as he felt and so stated to the committee that there was no necessity for expenditure of substantial funds inasmuch as the contemplated work of the committee was, in his opinion, being very successfully handled by the American Law Institute.

We think our committee has performed, so far as our abilities have permitted, the work which we were originally asked to perform, and it seems inadvisable that this special committee should be longer continued as a committee of The American Bar Association. We respectfully ask that the committee be discontinued at this time.

The President:

A special committee, unless authority is given for its continuance, lapses at the end of the session. So that no action is necessary as the committee has not asked that it be continued.

The next is the report of the Committee on Removal of Government Liens on Real Estate, by its Chairman, John T. Richards, of Chicago, Illinois.

Mr. Richards:

I presume there are few lawyers who are not aware of the fact that when a lien in favor of the United States Government attaches to real estate, from whatever cause, there is no method by which it may be removed or released without the government's consent. That situation brought about the appointment of this committee in 1913. I was named as Chairman of the committee at that time.

I caused to be prepared and introduced in the House of Representatives in 1916 a bill to provide that in certain cases the government might be made a party defendant in a proceeding involving the foreclosure of a superior lien to a lien in favor of the government.

That bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative John A. Sterling, of Illinois; was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the House; very carefully considered, certain amendments were made to the bill, and the committee had practically agreed to report the bill favorably.

Whereupon the law department of the government, the Attorney-General, made some objections which had to be considered, and while they were under consideration unfortunately that distinguished representative from Illinois was killed in an automobile accident, so that the bill received no further attention until after the close of the Great War.

Last December a bill was introduced by Senator Albert B. Cummins, at my suggestion, in the United States Senate. The bill passed the Senate and was later introduced in the House, where it now stands.

Unfortunately some opposition has developed in the House Committee on Judiciary, led, I understand, by the distinguished Chairman of that committee, Mr. Graham, of Pennsylvania.

The importance of the bill, I think, cannot be overestimated. If I may be allowed to take the necessary time I will relate an instance that illustrates the importance of this legislation.

A mortgage amounting to $2500 was placed upon a piece of real estate in one of the outlying districts of the City of Chicago. The mortgage matured, but in the meantime the equity of redemption had been sold by the mortgagor to another party. That other party had given back a second or purchase money mortgage for $3500. While in that condition the property was transferred by quit-claim deed to a man, who for the purpose of this discussion I will name as A."

When preparation was made to foreclose the first mortgage on account of the non-payment of interest, taxes and principal, the abstract of title was brought down and it was discovered that away back five years before "A" had acquired title to this site by quit-claim deed, he had been convicted in the United States District Court of violation of the postal regulations, had been fined $1000, and had been sent to jail for a year. He served his jail sentence but he never paid the fine, and execution was issued on the judgment for the fine and returned nulla bona.

It was therefore necessary, in order to get rid of the equity of redemption, that the United States should be made a party defendant to that suit. Application was made to the District Attorney asking if he would not enter the appearance of the government. He declined, but referred the matter to the AttorneyGeneral. Counsel for the complainant in that case took the matter up with the Attorney-General. They refused to do anything. An offer was made to pay some small amount on account of the judgment for the fine. That was refused, and the result was that the mortgage was foreclosed without getting rid of the government lien on the equity of redemption, and the title stands in that shape today. So you will see the importance of this legislation.

I will not proceed further with discussion, but will now read my report, which is very short. Before I read this, however, the opposition which has developed in the House of Representatives consists of two things:

First: The bill which passed the Senate gives exclusive jurisdiction to the United States District Court in all such cases where there is a government lien.

Second: The bill provides that in the event that a decree of foreclosure shall be entered in any case where the government has a junior lien, that the sale shall not take place under the decree until 90 days after the entry of the decree, and in case Congress shall not be in session that the District Attorney may, by motion, obtain a stay until 90 days after the convening of the next session of Congress.

Objection to that long delay has been made. The purpose of the delay, however, developed in the committee in 1916 when the former bill was before the House Committee, and it was insisted that the government ought to have some time within which to obtain a transfer, or if necessary to take over the property, in order to protect its lien.

I understand it is not in order for me to read my report. Therefore I state in conclusion the conditions which I have already suggested and move that the committee be continued until this legislation shall be secured. (See report, infra, p. 494.)

The motion was seconded and carried and the committee continued.