« PreviousContinue »
revolution—or abolishing all test of revenue as a condition for election, including a progressive income tax and also defining the fundamental principles of protection to labor—as is the case with the Peruvian Constitution, notwithstanding the aristocratic type of the country.
Democracy has been the sign of Hispanic-America, though the kind called by a Venezuelan author, Vallenilla Lanz, “ democratic cesarism” has not been scarce; but now social democracy is fast becoming the rule under the form of state socialism, which Germany was the first to wisely apply in modern times and which is still the best European safeguard against the peril of anarchy.
The Judicial Section of the American Bar Association convened at the Hotel Gibson, Cincinnati, Ohio, on Tuesday, August 30, 1921, at 8 P. M., Hon. Charles A. Woods, of South Carolina, in the Chair, Hon. Andrew A. Bruce, acting as Secretary.
I suppose this is the most opportune time to present the report of the Executive Committee. Only one subject has been undertaken by the Chairman of the Executive Committee since the last meeting, which is made the subject of this report:
Bill No. 2377," to authorize the Supreme Court to prescribe forms and rules, and generally to regulate pleading, procedure and practice on the common-law side of the Federal Courts," has been before the Congress since 1912. It was framed and has been advocated by the Committee on Uniform Judicial Procedure; but opposition has been strong enough to prevent its passage. The Executive Committee of the Judicial Section thought that Congress would be enlightened on this important subject by having before it the views of the federal judges. In its original form, the bill limited the power of the Supreme Court to prescribing forms and rules for the Federal District Courts. Your committee thought that powers should extend to Circuit Courts of Appeals, and specifically embrace proceedings in bankruptcy. In accordance with this view, your Chairman sent to every Appellate Judge of the United States, including Federal District Judges, the bill so interlined as to read as follows:
GENERALLY TO REGULATE PLEADING, PROCEDURE, AND PRACTICE ON THE
COMMON-LAW SIDE OF THE FEDERAL 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 of writs and all other process; the mode and manner of framing and filing proceedings and pleadings; of giving notice and serving writs and 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 and the kind and character of the entire pleading, practice, and procedure to be used in all actions, motions, and proceedings at law and in bankruptcy of whatever nature by the Circuit Courts of Appeals and the District Courts of the United States and the Courts of the
District of Columbia. That in prescribing such rules the Supreme Court shall have regard to the simplification of the system of pleading, practice, and procedure in said courts, so as to promote the speedy determination of litigation on the merits.
Sec. 2. That 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.
The following circular letter accompanied the Bill: “To the Judges of Appellate Courts in the United States:
“ By request of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Section of the American Bar Association, your attention is called to the bill now before Congress, directing the Supreme Court to prepare for the Federal Courts uniform rules of procedure. There is unrest at the Bar and among the people on account of the miscarriages of justice and delay due to complexity of procedure and practice and varying statutes and rules in the several states. The argument in favor of the bill is this: If the Supreme Court of the United States, under the authority of Congress, could formu. late rules of procedure and practice in the Federal Courts, applicable alike to courts of law and equity, it would set up a standard of simplicity which will probably be followed by all the states of the union. Complexity of pleading and practice is due chiefly to inelastic and cumbrous legislation on the subject. The actual application of a few simple rules framed by the Supreme Court, and the repeal of all the federal statutes on the subject, there is good reason to hope, would result in similar action in the states."
A separate letter, in substance as follows was sent to all the federal judges:
"I beg to submit for your examination copy of a bill now before Congress relating to Federal Procedure. It seems to me very desirable that the bill should be amended by the words which I have inserted in pencil.
“The method of bringing up cases to the Circuit Courts of Appeals is in greater need of reform than the practice in the District Courts. The two methods of appeal and writ of error, and the two methods of appeal and petition to superintend and revise under bankruptcy practice doubtless you find confusing to the members of the Bar and often perplexing to the judges themselves. If all the statutes on the subject should be repealed, and rules provided by the Supreme Court substituted, the practice would be much more elastic and less confusing. I venture to think that the Supreme Court would make the practice in the Circuit Courts of Appeals conform as nearly as would be expedient to the practice in that court. Thus the members of the Bar would be saved constant effort to discriminate between methods of getting up cases to the Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
" Please have the kindness to drop me a line expressing your view of the subject. My forwardness in writing to you arises out of my official duty as Chairman of the Judicial Section of the American Bar Association."
All of the 33 United States Circuit Judges replied. 27 favor the bill: 4 oppose: 2 seem doubtful or indifferent. Of the 102 United States District Judges, 86 replied. 60 favor the bill: 21 oppose: 5 seem doubtful or indifferent.
It will be evident that the sole purpose of this work of your Executive Committee was to aid the Committee on Uniform Judicial Procedure; and that with the approval of the Section, all the correspondence and the tabulated results will be turned over to that committee to be laid before the proper committees of the Congress.
I may say just this word in concluding that subject: I thought the objection made by the District Judges and the Circuit Judges
who oppose the bill was, that the Bar would find the two methods of procedure, one in the state court and one in the U. S. court, confusing. But the answer, it seems to me, is that the rules proposed by the U.S. Supreme Court would constitute a standard which would be adopted by the states and therefore would permit them uniting
I beg leave to submit the following additional report with the approval of the Executive Committee:
“One other plain statement should be made. The prevalence of lawlessness in all its forms and among all classes is alarming to all who care for the welfare of their country and humanity. The Congress and state legislatures are trying to suppress it by increasing the number of courts and policemen. The Judicial Section of the American Bar Association, venturing to speak for all the judges, wishes to express this warning to the American people: Reverence for law and enforcement of law depend upon the ideals and customs of those who occupy the vantage ground of life in business and society. The people of the United States by solemn constitutional and statutory enactment, have undertaken to suppress the age-long evil of the liquor traffic. When, for the gratification of their appetites, or the promotion of their interests, lawyers, bankers, great merchants and manufacturers, and social leaders both men and women disobey and scoff at this law, or any other law, they are aiding the cause of anarchy and promoting mob violence, robbery and homicide. They are sowing dragon's teeth, and they need not be surprised when they find that no judicial or police authority can save our country or humanity from reaping the harvest.
What will you do with the report, gentlemen ; it is open for discussion.
It was moved and seconded that the report be adopted and the motion was carried.
The Chairman :
The Chair will appoint on the committee to nominate an Executive Committee and a Chairman for the ensuing year, Judges Carter, Dennison and Prentis.
I will announce here that tomorrow afternoon we are to have the pleasure of an address, by the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. The Secretary of the American Bar Association and I, at my instance and with his full concurrence, arranged to have this speech from the Chief Justice in the theatre, but he cancelled that arrangement and would not agree to it at all. He said if he was expected to do anything more than to just make an informal talk to his brethren of the Bench, he wouldn't do anything at all.
I think it appropriate to announce the death of our late Chairman, Hon. William C. Hook, and I move that the Chair appoint a committee of two or three to prepare a memorial and present it at the session, next year.
The motion was seconded and carried.
The Chairman appointed Judge Dennison, Judge Cotterill and Judge Carter, as such committee.
The section then adjourned until Wednesday, August 31, at 3 P. M.
Wednesday, August 31, at 3 P. M. The Chairman :
This is to be a joint meeting of the Judicial Sections of the American Bar Association and of the Ohio State Bar Association. The Chair will call for the report of the Committee on Nominations.
The Committee on Nominations reports recommending the election of the following officers of the section for the ensuing year:
Chairman, Hon. John P. Briscoe, Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Members of the Executive Committee: the Chairman, ex officio; Hon. Charles A. Woods; Hon. M. N. Parker, Chief Justice Supreme Court, Washington; Hon. Fred E. Crane, Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Hon. James I. Aldrich, Judge of the Ohio Court of Appeals.
As the Chairman is one of the nominees I will move the adoption of this report, and if the motion is seconded I will put the question.
The motion was seconded and carried.
Mr. Chief Justice we welcome you. We rejoice in your appointment as Chief Justice of the United States, and we wish