Page images
PDF
EPUB

continuance is a matter within the discretion of the court notwithstanding a contrary state statute. (Texas R. Co. vs. Nelson (C. C. A., 1892), 50 Fed., 814.) That the selections of jurors does not follow the mode prescribed by state statutes. (Brewer vs. Jacobs (1884), 22 Fed., 217.) That a state statute permitting a party to be examined by his adversary in advance of the trial will not be followed. (Union P. Co. vs. Botsford (1891), 141 U. S., 257; 35 L. ed., 735.) That the competency of witnesses depends upon section 858, Revised Statutes, and not upon state statutes. To effect this it was held that Section 921, Revised Statutes, prevailed over Section 914, Revised Statutes; that the production of books and papers was regulated by section 721, Revised Statutes, as amended and not by the state statutes; that the federal courts might instruct a verdict or order a compulsory nonsuit or for the defendant or plaintiff, regardless of state statute. (Vicksburg Co. vs. Putnam (1886), 118 U.S., 553; 30 L. ed., 257.) That instructions need not be in writing. (Lincoln vs. Power Co. (1894, 151 U. S., 442; 38 L. ed., 224.) That a state statute requiring instruction or a special verdict need not be observed. (U. S. Mutual Co. vs. Barry (1889), 131 U.S., 119; 33 Fed., 60.) The granting and refusing of new trials is not controlled by state statutes. (Newcomb vs. Wood (1878), 97 U. S. 583; 24 L. ed., 1085.) That the question of cost is not governed by state statutes but by Section 823, Revised Statutes, which was held to supersede Section 914, Revised Statutes. That everything after a judgment looking to its review in an appellate court is regulated solely by the acts of Congress. (Hudson vs. Parker (1875), 156 U. S., 281; 39 L. ed., 424.) That regulations concerning preserving of exceptions are not governed by state statutes. (Chataugay Co. vs. Petitioner (1882), U. S., 553; 32 L, ed., 511.) That the means of enforcing a judgment are not within state statutes but sections 915 and 916, Revised Statutes. (U. S. vs. Train (1882), 12 Fed., 853.) That a stay of execution is not governed by state statutes; that Section 916 supersedes Section 914. (Lancaster vs. Keller (1887), 123 U. S., 389.) That state garnishment proceedings will not be followed. (Atlantic R. Co. vs. Hopkins (1876), 94 U.S., 13; 24 L. ed., 48.) That mandamus proceedings will not follow state practice. (Batch Co. vs. Amy (1871), 13 Wall., 250; 20 L. ed., 541.) That a proceeding to restore records is not within Section 914, Revised Statutes. (3 Biss (U. S.), 307 (1872).) That the question of jurisdiction was controlled solely by federal statutes. (Mexican Co. vs. Pinckney, supra.) That wherever Congress has legislated on or in reference to a particular subject involving practice or procedure the state statutes are never held to be controlling. (Harkness vs. Hyde, 98 U. S., 476; 25 L. ed.)

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE CHANGE OF DATE OF THE INAUGURA

TION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. To the American Bar Association:

The committee are pleased to be able to report that the press of the country has been calling attention to the need of shortening the time between the election and the inauguration of the President and to the further importance of not having the old Congress assemble for a short session after a new Congress has been elected.

Senator Ashurst, of Arizona, without any previous communication with us, introduced in the Senate on December 23, 1920, a resolution providing for a change in the Constitution calculated to accomplish this purpose. No action was taken on it during the short session, but he introduced the same resolution again on April 12, 1921, and it has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Senator Ashurst has written, expressing himself as very grateful for any assistance or cooperation which the members of the Bar Association can afford him in securing the passage of the resolution. A copy of the resolution is attached to this report.

WILLIAM L. PUTNAM, Chairman,
WILLIAM L. MARBURY,
NATHAN WILLIAM MACCHESNEY,
John B. SANBORN,

WILLIAM C. KINKEAD.
67th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION, S. J. Res. 8.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 12, 1921. Mr. Ashurst introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

JOINT RESOLUTION. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House

concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the states, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several states as provided by the Constitution:

ARTICLE SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice-President of the United States shall commence on the third Monday in January following the election of presidential and vice-presidential electors.

Sec. 2. The presidential and vice-presidential electors, composing the Electoral College, shall assemble in the states by which they are appointed and cast their votes for president and vice-president on the second Monday in December following their appointment, and the vote so cast, duly certified, shall be filed with the President of the Senate before the first Monday in January next thereafter, and the Congress shall meet in joint session on the second Monday in January following, and open and count the same: Provided, That Congress may alter all the dates fixed in this section, in its discretion.

Sec. 3. The terms of senators and representatives shall commence on the first Monday in January following their election.

Sec. 4. There shall be held two regular sessions of Congress, convening on the first Monday of January each year.

Sec. 5. This amendment shall not take effect until after the 4th day of March of the year 1925.

REPORT

OF THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP

FOR THE YEAR 1920-1921.
To the Members of the American Bar Association:

At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Association held in New Orleans in January, 1921, a new plan for increasing the membership of the Association was adopted, under which the states and territories were divided into 11 membership districts, as follows:

I. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut;

II. New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia;

III. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee;

IV. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky;

V. Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska ;

VI. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas;

VII. Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona;
VIII. Territory of Alaska;
IX. Hawaii Territory;

X. Philippine Islands;
XI. Porto Rico.

One member of the Association was appointed from each of the above named membership districts as a “ District Director.” These “ District Directors," together with the former Presidents of the Association who serve as an Advisory Committee, constitute the Membership Committee.

Each of the District Directors appointed in each state in his district a “ State Director” to have charge of the membership work in his state, and each of these State Directors appointed a member of our Association in each of the counties in his state to serve as a “ County Adviser."

The possibilities of the organization thus provided by the Membership Committee may be realized when it is considered that

member bis state, andector” to happe

under this plan the interest of about 3075 of our members is directly enlisted in the work of maintaining and increasing the membership of the Association, so vital a factor in its life, the committee being composed of 17 former Presidents of the Association, 10 District Directors, 48 State Directors, 3 Territorial Directors and about 3000 County Advisers.

The Membership Committee, in conjunction with the organization provided, under the Constitution and By-Laws, by the General Council and the Local Councils, completely structuralizes the Association throughout our land. An important feature of the Membership Committee is the permanent character of its organization, the value of which can scarcely be over-estimated in the development of the Association.

The Chairman of the committee, notwithstanding the fact that the committee has functioned only a few months, is satisfied as to the entire feasibility of the new membership plan and believes that it may be relied upon as the dependable source of a steady and continued growth of the Association.

The Chairman has been very deeply impressed with the splendid spirit of service that has animated the individuals composing the committee. There has been a most enthusiastic co-operation between the various units. There is inspiration to be found in the eagerness with which so many of the members of the committee took up this service to the Association.

In considering the results thus far obtained, the Chairman especially desires to call attention to the fact that there has not been time to effect a complete organization in all of the states. Indeed, the work is not yet fairly under way in several of the larger states.

It is with a feeling of no little satisfaction, therefore, that the Chairman announces that as the result of less than eight months' actual work on the part of the new Membership Committee, there have been secured 3560 applications for membership. All of these applicants have been elected to membership, except a very small number, the applications of whom were received very recently and who will be elected during this annual meeting of the Association. In addition to this, there were elected since the beginning of this fiscal year, before the present committee began its work, 886 new members, giving the total new members elected this year 4446.

No attempt is made here to tabulate, for the purposes of comparison, the results obtained in the various states for the reason that there has been, of necessity, a great inequality in the opportunities offered for securing results owing to the difference in the length of time during which the membership work has been carried on in the various states. It may be said, however, that most notable results were obtained by the State Director of one

« PreviousContinue »