« PreviousContinue »
be had only from Congress. These things, as a matter of growing expediency apart from the great principles involved, recommend conformity to the suggestions made.
All provisions in the bill which attempt in any way to impose a limitation upon injunctions other than those contained in the Clayton Bill, should of course be omitted.
THE JUDICIAL SECTION. Travel Expense.—It is gratifying to report the success of the annual Conference of Judges, the first since the preliminary organization at Montreal, having been held at Washington, D. C., in October, 1914. The interesting proceedings have been published. The travel expense of the State Commissioners on Uniform Laws is generally defrayed by the respective states. Such action should be taken as to assure similar legislative appropriations for the chief justices. Your committee has undertaken with gratifying success, to induce leading members of the Bar of each state to take concerted action, but it is hoped that every member of the Association will assist in such manner as recommends itself to his good judgment. The governors of the several states are being requested to recommend an annual appropriation of from $100 to $250. This is a small premium for a state to pay for insurance against conflicting judicial opinions. The broadening, liberalizing and uplifting influence of this annual exchange of views means much to the nation.
Uniformity of Interpretation.-One of the principal purposes of this organization is to correct the evil of conflict of decisions and it is being greatly aided by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, through a Reference Bureau, that furnishes ready reference to all conflicting opinions on a given subject but without further comment. Such conduct connotes a greatly needed harmony.
Uniformity of Procedure.—Through rules prepared and promulgated by the federal Supreme Court uniformity of procedure can be secured better than through a statutory system of pleading and procedure. It is of first importance to do away with rigid statutes in this respect entirely, except acts authorizing the respective and highest state appellate courts to adopt a system of rules for pleading and procedure. Through the Conference of Judges such uniformity may be brought about. This is but another link in the American Bar Association's plan leading to uniformity of law, of interpretation and of procedure.
THOMAS W. SHELTON, Chairman.
APRIL 7, 1913.
To AUTHORIZE THE SUPREME COURT TO PRESCRIBE FORMS AND
RULES AND GENERALLY TO REGULATE PLEADING, PROCEDURE,
COURTS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, from time to time and in any manner, the forms and manner of service of writs and all other process; the mode and manner of framing and filing proceedings and pleadings; of giving notice and serving process of all kinds; of taking and obtaining evidence; drawing up, entering, and enrolling orders; and generally to regulate and prescribe by rule the forms for the entire pleading, practice, and procedure to be used in all actions, motions, and proceedings at law of whatever nature by the district courts of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Sec. 2. When and as the rules of court herein authorized shall be promulgated, all laws in conflict therewith shall be and become of no further force and effect.
FEBRUARY 19, 1915. Mr. Culberson submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. February 19 (calendar day, March 1), 1915: Reported by Mr. Shafroth, with an amendment; considered, amended, and agreed to.
RESOLUTION. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to appoint a subcommittee thereof to consider, in the interval between the 63d Congress and the first session of the 64th Congress, or during a session or recess of the 64th Congress, the proposed codification, revision, and amendment of the laws relating to the judiciary contemplated in the bill (H. R. 15578) passed by the House of Representatives in the last preceding session, and that such subcommittee be authorized to employ and compensate such persons as may be found necessary to assist in any work arising in connection with such consideration, the expenses thereby incurred to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the subcommittee and not to exceed in the total $500.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO SUGGEST REMEDIES AND FORMULATE PROPOSED LAWS TO PREVENT DELAY
AND UNNECESSARY COST IN LITIGATION.
To the American Bar Association:
The special committee appointed at the meeting of this Association in 1907, and continued at each annual meeting since then, was charged with the duty of considering carefully alleged evils in judicial administration and remedial procedure, and suggesting remedies and formulating proposed laws.
1. LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS. 1. Law and Equity Bill.-In accordance with the instructions received from the Association at the Washington meeting of 1914, your committee was heard before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. The bill had passed the House of Representatives July 20, 1914. It was reported favorably in the Senate on the first day of March, 1915, with a slight amendment. This was to insert the words “if preserved” after the words “all testimony taken before such amendment” in the first section. This amendment was agreed to in the House and the bill was signed by the President and became a law March 3, 1915. A copy of this bill is appended and marked Schedule A.
2. Bill for Review in Constitutional Cases.—This bill passed the Senate January 21, 1914. Your committee was heard before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, which reported the bill favorably. It passed the House and became a law by the approval of the President on the 23d of December, 1914. A copy is appended and marked Schedule B.
We feel that the country is to be congratulated upon the passage of these two important bills. The first has already been availed of to simplify and expedite procedure. It is of far-reaching importance and removes an obstruction to the orderly course of justice which has hitherto been justly criticized.
3. Reformed Procedure Bill.—This bill was reported favorably in the House of Representatives as originally recommended by this Association, but when your committee was heard before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate objection was taken by Senators to the second paragraph of the bill, which read as follows:
“ The trial judge may in any civil case submit to the jury in connection with the general verdict specific issues of fact arising upon the pleadings and evidence, reserving any question of law arising in the case for subsequent argument and decision, and he and any court to which the case shall thereafter be taken on writ of error shall have the power to direct judgment to be entered either upon the verdict or upon the special findings if conclusive upon the merits.”
One of the objections was on the merits. The Senator making it had found in one of the states where the practice of submitting special questions to the jury prevailed, that so many questions were submitted that the jury were perplexed and confused. He thought the system worked badly. Another Senator had found in his state that the system worked well and favored it strongly, but in his opinion it was a matter that should be left to the regulation of each state. Under the Practice Act, the courts of the United States in each district follow as nearly as may be the local practice in the courts of the state. The Senator thought that in every state where this practice was approved and prevailed, the federal courts would follow it without any act of Congress and he was opposed to creating such a practice in states where the local sentiment was against it. We found that there was no probability of passing the bill if this paragraph were to remain in it. So after consultation with the Senators from New York, Mr. Root and Mr. O'Gorman, who both were much interested in the bill and supported it cordially, we came to the conclusion that it was advisable to make no objection to reporting the bill with the omission of this last paragraph. It was accordingly so reported in the House on the 12th of December, 1914. It went to the Senate and was reported favorably on the 5th of January, 1915. But the legislative time was so closely occupied with other legislation, particularly the shipping bill, that it became impossible to bring the bill to a vote without unanimous consent. Objection was made on the ground that the legislation was too important to go through without full consideration and the bill therefore