LEGAL AID SOCIETIES, THEIR FUNCTION AND

NECESSITY.

BY

CHARLES E. HUGHES,

OF NEW YORK.

The question of Americanization is not merely one of instruction. The teaching of our language, the exposition of the Constitution, the diffusing of information as to institutions, and the preaching of ideals, are not enough. The final factor in determining attitude toward government is experience. How do we interpret America to the poor and the ignorant? The question is not of what we promise, it is not one of generalizations about justice, but of the way in which we administer justice. The chief agencies in the interpretation of American justice to the unassimilated are our Magistrates and Municipal Courts. There, and not from speeches, he finds out the extent to which he enjoys the equal protection of the laws.

But, while patriotic teachings cannot offset defects in administration, exaggerated criticism or lack of proportion in statement can easily create a bad reputation which the best practice finds it difficult if not impossible to redeem. It is, after all, only a small part of our teeming population which comes into actual contact with courts. Justice must deny as well as award, and her temples are always echoing the cries of dissatisfaction. We must avoid making our efforts to remedy defects in the administration of justice a cause of injury to the foundations of government itself. This does not mean that we should gloss the facts; respect for the courts should never halt honest criticism. But we must tell the whole truth and not merely a part of it. It is useless to attempt to build up the administration of justice if you spread the false notion that our judicial establishment is only the mechanism of privilege. A true picture is not a mere matter of separate detail; it must give a true perspective.

With this in mind, I think it important that in the endeavor to create a wider interest in the necessary work of our legal aid organizations we should take account of actual conditions which are sometimes obscured and of the gratifying progress already made.

In the first place, there is not the slightest ground for impugning the impartiality of the judges in our courts. There may be an exception-a black sheep here and there but these are so few as to be negligible in any estimate of the working of our judicial machinery. So far as the spirit of our judges is concerned, the poor are not at a disadvantage. In truth it may be said that the desire that wrong shall not go unredressed by reason of poverty or misfortune is characteristic of both judges and juries in this country.

The question, then, is one of defects in the system of administration. Here, the outstanding fact is the improvement that has been made in recent years. Not only has the substantive law been strengthened in order to protect the poor from being victimized-the "land-shark" laws are a leading illustrationbut procedure in the minor courts, or Poor Man's Courts, has been greatly simplified in the interest of speed, directness and cheapness. Improvement in the agencies of administration is shown by special provision in a number of important communi. ties for the swift and inexpensive disposition of small claims with the simplest sort of proceedings. Domestic troubles are receiving special consideration in Domestic Relations Courts and Children's Courts, while workingmen's compensation acts provide machinery for redress, with a minimum of delay and expense, in a class of cases which formerly presented a travesty of justice.

The problem of justice to the poor is peculiarly an urban one, and hence very largely a local one. It is hazardous to generalize with respect to the entire country, and while I understand there are most regrettable defects in the administration of justice in the minor courts in many places, due credit must be given to those communities in which earnest and successful efforts have been. made to remove obstacles in the path of the poor. Without disparaging what has been accomplished elsewhere, I may call atten tion to achievements in New York City, which has approximately

one-eighteenth of the population of the entire country and about one-fifth of the total population of cities having upwards of 100,000 inhabitants. In the year 1910, after a thorough investigation by a legislative committee, the Magistrate's Courts were reorganized. Under the act of that year and later amendments there has been centralization of authority with appropriate specialization in its exercise; measures have been provided to prevent procedure from being abused for the exploitation of the ignorant and the poor; there is a special court for women, a Domestic Relations Court, a Children's Court, a Probation Court, and Municipal Term Courts dealing with matters relating to the various departments of the city government, e. g., the enforcement of health laws, tenement laws, labor laws, park laws, truancy laws, etc., especially designed to safeguard the interests of the poor. Doubtless there is still room for improvement, but the notable thing is the excellent work done. It was with justification and natural pride that Chief Magistrate McAdoo recently said: "Under present conditions the poor man or woman gets the same justice as the rich man. If there are any exceptions to this rule they are rare and not known to me. I do say that tremendous strides have been made in connection with the administration of laws of these courts and all inuring to the great benefit of the great masses of people who are without wealth or political influence."

When we turn to the civil courts which chiefly concern the poor, the Municipal Courts, we find another advance in recent years due especially to the intelligent interest of lawyers and judges. To the poor, justice delayed is usually justice denied; and it is a vain thing to have courts for their protection if they cannot pay the price of admission. In the New York Municipal Courts delays have been greatly reduced. Speaking broadly, it may be said that there is no delay. As the Committee of Municipal Court Justices report, it is a common occurrence for cases to be tried within two weeks from the commencement of the action. Wage cases are preferred on the day calendar, and a preference is also given to small claims, that is, for an amount not exceeding $50. Disposition is made of such cases ordinarily without adjournment on the day on which they are first placed on the calendar, which is within five days, and not more than eight days after the defendant has appeared, if the case is con

tested; in this way, they are usually determined within an hour or two after the call of the calendar on that day. The total court fees cannot exceed two dollars, or, if there is no defence, one dollar. In an action for wages less than $50, even that fee is not required, and whenever a party is too poor to pay court fees the clerk of the court may take his affidavit and may certify that he has a good cause of action or defence so that he may litigate as a poor person. Machinery for conciliation, and also for judicial arbitration without costs, with pleading in the briefest statement, and in which rules of evidence do not govern, have been set up by rules adopted by the Municipal Court Justices in

1917.

So far as court procedure up to the entry of judgment is concerned, it would be difficult for anyone to maintain that in the Municipal Courts of New York, where small claims are heard, there is discrimination against the poor. The chief defect in the administration of these courts is in the collection of judgments. The City Marshals are appointed by the Mayor, and these appointments have largely been political in character. The Marshal's office is a fee office, and there is difficulty in securing the collection of small claims. The remedy needed is to make the Marshals directly accountable to the court and to confer additional powers upon the court with respect to proceedings supplementary to judgment. It is often overlooked that the swift collection of money found to be due is just as important as speedy judgment. It is the money that the poor litigant wants, not a barren opinion that he is entitled to it.

I refer to the improvements in New York practice not only because what is done in that great center of population bears so largely upon the problem, but also because it furnishes an illustration of what may easily be accomplished in any city where similar results have not yet been reached. And while the Bar has been far from doing its full duty, it is just as well as pleasant to observe that what has been accomplished is due in great part to the active effort of lawyers. There is not the slightest reason why in any part of the land the poor should ever suffer from delay or expense in the enforcement of their rights. It only requires an intelligent perception of the grave injury which results from injustice to the poor, and a determined effort

on the part of influential members of the Bar, in order to secure a simple procedure without delay and without obstacle in court costs.

There remains, however, the more serious difficulty, and its existence shows the necessity for legal aid organizations. The poor man must have legal advice, and except in the simplest matters he needs skilled assistance to present the merits of his case. Simplicity in court procedure and the multiplication of tribunals with special functions are not enough. Speed and cheapness do not suffice. It would be a great mistake if to remove obstacles in the path of the poor we encourage the disposition of controversies according to the caprice of persons licensed to dispense with law. The poor man, as well as the rich man, is entitled to the law of the land. There is no promise for the poor man in a government without law, where the discretion of petty potentates stands in lieu of accepted principles. The remedy in democracy is not to seek justice without law, but to secure justice according to law-to have laws which are definite and just, and then enforce them equally. But in a government of law, the case of the poor man mày involve questions of law and disputes as to facts which leave him helpless if he cannot have expert aidthe advice of one learned in the law, honest and keen. Without opportunity on the part of the poor to secure such aid, it is idle to talk of equality before the law. You may provide the machinery of courts, but to have justice according to law, save in a very limited class of cases where a judge may act as advisor, you must have the aid of lawyers. The legal aid society is the poor man's lawyer and gives him the essential assistance he cannot obtain elsewhere.

The necessity for organization to give this assistance should not be attributed to any general lack of desire on the part of members of the Bar to help the poor, but springs from the conditions which exist in our great cities. We are glad to recognize it as a part of professional duty to assist the helpless and oppressed, and you may find lawyers in every jurisdiction who give a large amount of their time in advising those who cannot pay. But, while in the smaller communities the claims of the poor may receive adequate consideration, their situation in the great cities requires specialized treatment through organiza