Page images
PDF
EPUB

c. Temporary Acts. The usual method of framing a temporary act is to provide for its expiration at a certain date, so e.g., the provision in the Currency Association Act of Mar. 30, 1908“ that this Act shall expire by limitation on the 30th day of June, 1914."

It is also possible to accomplish the same object by indicating in connection with the provisions creating powers, rights or duties, the time limit beyond which they shall not be exercised or performed. Annual appropriation acts are the most common acts of the latter type. See also Sec. 19 of the Act creating the court of private land claims, Mar. 3, 1891. Probably the second method of limiting the operation of an act is more advantageous, since it is a question of construction whether powers created under a temporary act may not survive its expiration. See Craies' Statute Law, p. 339; 8 M. and W., p. 234. A temporary act should contain savings for penalties to be enforced after its expiration similar to saving provisions in case of repeal.

E. PROVISIONS FOR GOING INTO EFFECT.

a. The Time of Going into Effect. Constitutional provisions as to regular and emergency acts must be consulted; also general legislative provisions, such as New York Legislative Law, Sec. 43, which, however, yield to special provisions in the statute.

Where there is no provision whatever, the act takes effect immediately; i. e., when the last constitutionally required step is complete; see 6 Wallace 499, and New York Legislative Law, Sec. 41. It would be better to have it go into effect on the day following the enactment, as in the U. S. Tariff act of 1913.

There is no common law rule that the taking effect depends upon publication, but such a rule is established by several state constitutions.

A reference in the act itself (e.g., that within so many days something shall be done or that it shall apply or not apply to conditions existing at the time) should discriminate between the terms passage, aproval, and taking effect. See Willard's Legislative Handbook, Sec. 130; 85 S. E. 786.

The day when an act shall take effect cannot be left to be fixed by executive discretion; but it may be left to the exeuctive to ascertain and determine the conditions fixed by the act for its taking effect (Field vs. Clark, 143 U. S. 678).

b. Adoptive Acts. This matter is fully covered by the report of this committee, made in 1914, Appendix B.

For a form of submission for repeal, see Act of Congress, May 23, 1918; 40 St. L. 560.

A submission clause should make it clear whether upon an adverse vote the question may be re-submitted.

There should be provision for record evidence of an adopting vote. See Illinois City Act, XIII, Sec. 6 (Hurd's Revised Statutes, Ch. 24, No. 193, B6); also Sec. 8 of the same act, requiring the courts to take judicial notice of the adoption.

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.

To the American Bar Association:

RECOMMENDATIONS. (1) That every member of the Bar Association will immediately communicate with his Senators and Congressmen requesting a prompt report of H. R. 2377 from the Committee on the Judiciary of the House and the same bill introduced by Senator Ernst in the Senate at the present session of Congress. A majority is assured. It is only necessary for the committees to report.

(?) That such state bar associations as have not already done so, be respectfully requested to create state committees with a central chairman and a member from each congressional district to cooperate with your committee in carrying out the instructions of this Association. A form of the resolution will be found as an appendix hereto.

(3) That these state committees shall function by instituting independent campaigns with reference to their own Senators and Representatives in Congress and otherwise, according to their good judgment.

(4) That this committee be continued.

REPORT. We reported last year that the bill (S. 1214) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank B. Kellogg, was referred to the Committee on the. Judiciary and in turn was referred to a sub-committee of three composed of Senators Colt, (Chairman) Dillingham and Walsh, of Montana. No action whatever was taken by them. Senators Colt and Dillingham kindly expressed themselves as favoring the bill. Senator Walsh expressed himself as being opposed to it. A majority of the Judiciary Committee and a majority of the Senators are in favor of it. The earnest and sustained efforts of your committee, supported by the most influential, industrial and commercial organizations as well as lawyers and judges of national reputation proved unavailing. Many state bar associations in formal resolutions requested the committee to report. A copy of the resolution

adopted by the bar associations of Illinois and Virginia will be found as an appendix to this report. The state bar associations of Georgia, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming also adopted it in substantially the same form. No doubt other state bar associations, whose annual conventions will be held after June 1, will take similar action. The way to bring about the passage of the bill is to respectfully but earnestly impress upon the Senate that the judges and lawyers as well as commerce, expect a report. It is difficult to believe that the request will not be respected.

The bill was favorably reported in 1917 under the leadership of Senator George Sutherland of Utalı, but too late for action at that session. The names of the few Senators who opposed it are

Appendix B.”

given in “

THE PRESENT SESSION.

(A) IN THE SENATE. Having this history in mind, a conference was held in Washington attended by several friends in the Senate of the Bar Association. It was agreed that Senator Richard P. Ernst of Kentucky become the patron of the bill with the time and disposition to push it, aided by Senators Frank B. Kellogg, Selden P. Spencer, Miles Poindexter and other Senators who have warmly supported the measure in the past and would continue their support just as if they were joint patrons. Senator Ernst is a member of the Judiciary Committee and in position to follow it in committee and on the floor. He has promised to do so and his promise can be relied upon. He will not be confronted by the past conditions that permitted successful obstruction measures by one or two Senators.

(B) IN THE HOUSE Chairman Andrew J. Volstead introduced the bill (H. R. 2377). It is expected that during the first days of July the Judiciary Committee of the House will report it. There is assurance that it will meet with little delay on the floor. The bill, therefore, will now be pushed in both Houses. The personnel of the present Senate Judiciary Committee is as follows:

Knute Nelson, of Minnesota, Chairman.
William P. Dillingham, of Vermont.
Frank B. Brandegee, of Connecticut.
William E. Borah, of Idaho.
Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa.

Le Baron B. Colt, of Rhode Island.
Thomas Sterling, of South Dakota.
George W. Norris, of Nebraska.
Richard P. Ernst, of Kentucky.
Samuel M. Shortridge, of California.
Charles A. Culberson, of Texas.
Lee S. Overman, of North Carolina.
James A. Reed, of Missouri.
Henry F. Ashurst, of Arizona.
John K. Shields, of Tennessee.

Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana.
The House Judiciary Committee is as follows:

Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota, Chairman.
George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania.
L. C. Dyer, of Missouri.
Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts.
C. Frank Reavis, of Nebraska.
David G. Classon, of Wisconsin.
W. D. Boies, of Iowa.
Charles A. Christopherson, of South Dakota.
Richard Yates, of Illinois.
Wells Goodykoontz, of West Virginia.
Ira G. Hersey, of Maine.
Walter M. Chandler, of New York.
Israel M. Foster, of Ohio.
Earl C. Michener, of Michigan.
Andrew J. Hickey, of Indiana.
Robert Y. Thomas, Jr., of Kentucky.
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas.
Andrew J. Montague, of Virginia.
James W. Wise, of Georgia.
John Tillman, of Arkansas.

Fred H. Dominick, of South Carolina. Former Attorney-General McReynolds advocated the bill in his official report, and former Attorney-General Gregory wrote to Senator Overman of the Judiciary Committee, the patron of the bill in the last session, commending it and seeking its passage. Former Attorney-General Palmer was one of the original advocates of rules of court. Chairman Nelson of the Senate and Chairman Volstead of the House Judiciary Committee are strong advocates of the bill. Both Senate and House favor it by a large majority. Both Senators Overman and Culberson, the senior minority members, have been patrons of the bill. Senator Culberson's letter to the committee was published in 1919 report of the committee.

ONE REASON FOR DELAY. Legislative conditions in 1921 at Washington have not materially changed. Senators and members of the House who favored the measure and have frankly so expressed themselves to the great encouragement of your committee, have been good enough to promise to give immediate attention at the present session of Congress when a report is made by the Judiciary Committee. They have felt obliged to devote their time to special public matters confided to their individual care to the extent that they have not been able to give this bill the individual attention hoped for. Otherwise it is believed the bill would have been reported out and passed regardless of a certain individual opposition that has always been and always will be opposed to it. The selection of Senator Ernst as patron it was felt would meet this difficulty. He had the time to devote to it and was interested enough to do so.

AID OF STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS. Your committee is deeply gratified to be able to report the assistance and sympathy it is receiving from state bar associations. Many of them have adopted the resolution first passed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association in 1915 (Appendix C) creating a committee of one member from each Congressional district with a central chairman. These state committees co-operate enthusiastically and patriotically and make it possible to present personally to a greater portion of the bar as well as to Congress the merits of the effort to modernize the procedure of the courts and make possible a greater certainty of justice in America. It is believed that far better results can be obtained in this way in inspiring a greater individual participation; in showing the great merit of uniformity of procedure and interpretation as well as of law, and in impressing upon Congress the time-honored truth that “justice is the greatest interest of man on earth” and that its proper administration ought to be a first, instead of a last consideration on the part of the Legislative Department of Government.

As our efforts at Washington must continue another year, your committee again sets down some familiar facts.

THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL. The exact words of the bill will be found in “ Appendix A” to this report. It is the same bill that has been introduced regularly

The purpose and effect of the bill is to give to the Supreme Court of the United States the authority to make rules governing the entire procedure in cases at law to the same extent that it now has power to regulate the procedure in equity and admiralty and the bankruptcy courts. Nothing novel is involved.

for nine years.

« PreviousContinue »