Page images


MR. LEE: I move the adoption of the report.
Which motion was seconded and carried.

VICE PRESIDENT Wood: The next in order is the report of the Committee on Reform in the Law Relating to Expert Testimony. The Chair will recognize Mr. Chapman, the Chairman of that committee.

MR. CHAPMAN: In explanation of the report which the committee presents, I might say that you will recollect Mr. Arthur J. Eddy was the Chairman of the committee. Mr. Eddy had not called the committee together, and a few days ago I received a circular from which it appears that I was to present the report of the committee. I wrote the Secretary and Mr. Eddy, asking an explanation; the Secretary informed me that Mr. Eddy had said that he expected to be in Europe and would be unable to be present at this meeting; the Secretary had notified the President of the Association of Mr. Eddy's inability to act in the matter, but he had been ill, and so failed the members of the committee. Mr. Eddy wrote me requesting that I act as Chairman of the committee, and I im. mediately called the committee together, but most of them were so engaged that they were unable to be present, and so this report, which we present this morning, signed by Mr. Gregory, Mr. Raymond and myself, is a minority report of the committee.

Report read as follows:
To the President and Members of the Illinois Bar Association:

The undersigned, a special committee on “Reform in the Law Relating to Expert Testimony," respectfully submit the following:

Your committee realizing the need of raising the standard and quallfications of experts, and doing away with the partisan expert, who goes upon the witness stand as a hired advocate rather than a witness, after giving the matter careful consideration, have been unable to formulate any plan by which these much to be desired ends may be attained by legislation.

While the standard of qualification to fit one to be considered an expert witness should be raised, there is a much greater need of raising the moral standard. We believe the first end may be attained by


the presiding judge through the exercise of his judicial prerogatives to a much greater extent. He passes on the competency of evidence, and why should he permit a witness to testify as an expert who has not first demonstrated to him that he possesses the necessary qualifications? We call upon the judiciary of this State to exercise the powers with which they are clothed, and believe that with a wise use of them an improvement can be made.

In this connection it seems obvious that the widest latitude in crossexamination should be permitted for the purpose of disclosing fully the nature of the relations and arrangements existing between the witness called as an expert and the party calling him as well as the latter's attorney. Any restriction in this regard is well calculated to aggravate existing evils. How to raise the moral standard is the difficult problem. That it is not what it should be our experience demonstrates. Our condemnation of the expert does not, however, cover the whole ground. He is often a direct product of the moral obliquity of the attorney. Sometimes the attorney, in calling a witness is not seeking the truth. He finds an expert, who, for an equivalent, will testify recklessly and perhaps, even falsely in support of any theory suggested. Among a large number of the medical fraternity this matter is beginning to have serious consideration. Ought we to be behind them in this reform? While they are seeking to create a higher standard of morality among themselves should we not supplement their efforts by seeking to raise the standard in our own profession? An attorney who is willing to secure an end through the use of perjured testimony or immoral instruments is unworthy a place among an honorable and learned fraternity. When the bar puts a banon dishonorable conduct and disreputable practices among its own members then, we believe, will the reform desired in this and many other directions be attained.


JAMES H. RAYMOND. VICE PRESIDENT Wood: You have heard the report; what action do you desire to take upon it? If there is no action it will be placed on file with the Secretary and published in the proceedings of the Association. The following special committee, under the motion recently made on honorary members, is appointed:

appointed: Adolph Moses, John C. Black, George D. Chafee.


The report of the Committee on Increase of Federal Judiciary for the Seventh Circuit; is the committee ready to report? The Chair will recognize Gen. John McNulta, the Chairman of that committee.

Your committee upon obtaining an increase of the number of judges in the seventh judicial circuit respectfully report:

That among other bills upon the subject of an increase of United States Judges three were introduced by our Senators-one by Senator ('ullom to provide for an additional Circuit Judge for the seventh circuil--one by Senator Mason to provide for an additional Circuit Judge for the seventh circuit, and also an additional District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois—and a bill by Senator Cullom, to provide for an additional Circuit Judge for each of the sixth, seventh and eighth circuits.

The first two of these bills failed to receive consideration, the third was taken up and acted upon and apparently failed of passage in the form that it was introduced because of the unwillingness of Congress to Create more than three Circuit Court Judges-the number required to sit in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in any one circuit. This bill, or a substitute for it, creating an additional Circuit Court Judge for the sixth judicial circuit did pass and become a law.

Owing to the short session and the press of more important matters growing out of the war with Spain and the restoration of peace, the subject of an increase of judges for this circuit did not receive that consideration to which it was entitled.

The necessity for this increase is quite generally conceded and is fully understood and appreciated by our Senators and Representatives in Congress, who took a lively interest in the matter and would no doubt have secured the required legislation but for the lack of time for its consideration and it is believed will do so at the next session. Yet for the reason given it is not probable that an additional circuit and also an additional District Judge will be obtained for this circuit as asked for, but instead the general opinion seems to be in favor of two additional District Judges for this State.





JUDGE BLODGETT: Before action be taken on this report I wish to make a few suggestions. The act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals provides specifically that no judge who had anything to do with, or tried or took any part in the trial or hearing of a case below shall sit in the Circuit Court of Appeals. The trouble therefore in our system or in the organization of the Circuit Courts is this, that we have in the Circuit Court of Appeals a changing personality all the time. A circuit judge who sits to hear a case at the trial court is disqualified for sitting on the appeal. It may be a district judge who would aid in the hearing of the Circuit Court of Appeals. Now in this circuit three circuit judges can make up the Circuit Court of Appeals without calling in a district judge, but in the other circuits nearly all of them seek to supplement the court by calling in a district judge to aid, and if this man has heard any particular case he is disqualified, and some additional district judge has to be called in. Now, I take it, and the conclusion has been made up largely from discussion with the lawyers who are interested in the Federal Courts, that this changing personality in the courts is an objection, and a serious objection to the court as it is organized, and the only remedy I see for it is to take the circuit judges entirely out of the trial courts; abolish the circuit court as a court of original jurisdiction; let all the cases originate in and be heard in the district court, and furnish us with district judges enough to do the business. Then you would have the Circuit Court of Appeals made up of three circuit judges, all of whom would be qualified to act and sit in review of the cases tried by the district judges, and the business of the trial courts would be as well conducted, the cases as well tried by the district judges as they could be by the circuit judges. The Circuit Court of Appeals will never, as I have already said, meet the expectations of the public or be satisfactory to the bar as long as you change the personality. When a lawyer takes an appeal he does not know what judges are to hear it. This objection,

[merged small][ocr errors]

it may be said, applies equally to the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are also made competent to sit in the Circuit Courts of Appeal, but the Justices of the Supreme Court have not the interest in what may be called “log rolling" or figuring to have themselves affirmed in the Supreme Court, and hence their sitting in the lower court would be unobjectionable. No complaint has ever been made, that I have ever heard, of the Justice of the Supreme Court who may have heard a case on the circuit, sitting in review because there are eight other judges against him and he can hardly carry those men, or enough of them, with him to affirm himself, unless he is right. But when the court is made up of only three men, some strong fellow in that court who has tried a case at bar may be able to get one to go with him, and when he ought to get reversed, be affirmed. Hence, it seems to me that it would simplify the system of the Federal Judiciary more to abolish the Circuit Court as a court of first resort as a trial court and let all cases originate in and be tried in the district court and go from there to the Circuit Court of Appeals and from thence to the Supreme Court if they are appealable in that way. (Applause.)

MR. Moses: I think I can give some information to the Association and to Judge Blodgett upon this subject. At the last session of the American Bar Association which I attended, a bill was framed practically embodying the suggestions of Judge Blodgett, to the effect that all the Circuit Courts of the United States be abolished and that there should be but one Federal Court known as the District Court, with as many branches as necessary in the different localities. In this way the objections mentioned by Judge Blodgett would be obviated and jealousies between circuit and district judges would be done away with. And there should be in every State in the Union but one court. There should be but one court in the State of Illinois and that court should be called the County Court, sitting every day, instead of sitting twice a year in the country. And this bill, Judge Blodgett, has been adopted

« PreviousContinue »