of the time and thought of the Judiciary Committee of the House, so that, Congress adjourned on March 4th, 1913, without even a hearing before that committee. Promptly, upon the convening of the extra session of Congress on April 10, 1913, Judge Clayton again introduced the measure as H. B. No. 133 and Senator Charles H. Culberson, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced the bill in that body. The history of the extra session of Congress and its devotion to two prominent issues being quite fresh in mind, it is hardly necessary to make explanation or apology for lack of success.

As the matter now stands, seeing that the special session would adjourn without consideration of the Bill, arrangements have been perfected for its introduction into both Houses immediately upon the convening of the next regular session, and hearings, by the two Judiciary Committees almost immediately thereafter. It could become a law before adjournment for the Christmas holidays, unless there arises some unexpected and unforeseen lukewarmness or opposition. While President Wilson has not been afforded the opportunity of officially evidencing his sympathy we have reason to believe that he is in favor of this measure. In President Taft's message to Congress in December, 1912, he wholly endorsed the principles embodied in the Bar Association's resolution creating this committee. At all times he has notably, forcibly and freely fought for the cause of reform and uniformity of judicial procedure. It is difficult to measure the extent of the obligation of the Association and its committee to that great statesman, lawyer and judge.

Let it be determined that as many communications as possible be sent to the lawmakers at Washington and that the complaints of the dissatisfied be converted into concrete and persistent demands for immediate action by Congress. Be assured that satisfactory results will follow. There never was a time when reform in judicial procedure was so persistently demanded, nor when society and commerce could so intelligently participate. They have but to follow a fixed program.



The most important development of the Committee's campaign is the "Conference of Judges" arranged for Saturday, August 30, at 8 P. M. The Chief Judge of the highest appellate court of each state, the Senior Circuit Judge of each federal circuit and the Chief Justice of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia have been invited to take part in the meeting of this committee and nearly all have accepted. There will be no fixed program except a few short informal addresses appropriate to the occasion and in keeping with the distinguished company. Each Judge will be expected to offer such suggestions and make such comment as appeals to his good judgment. This is the very first effort to consider in convention interstate judicial relations to promote uniformity of law with uniformity of decision and to foster uniform pleading and procedure. The growth of interstate judicial relations may be as deliberate as that of interstate commercial relations but this conference marks the beginning of a new era of promise as it evidences a feeling of good will and mutual tolerance characteristic of the big, broad minded men who compose the judiciary of this country. Those elements are its salvation and its strength and give promise of rapid progress. The earnestness and unselfish patriotism displayed by the judges in accepting the invitation of the Bar Association to give the committee the benefit of their invaluable aid and advice deserves the highest appreciation. It will add dignity and strength to its campaign. The "Conference" is the result of one of the many and enthusiastic efforts of the officers of your Association to help and encourage this committee in its efforts and the prediction is ventured that it will prove the distinguishing feature of this administration as it ought to prove a permanent feature of each annual meeting of the Association.

THOMAS W. SHELTON, Norfolk, Va., Chairman.
JACOB M. DICKINSON, Nashville, Tenn.

LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, Boston, Mass.

JOSEPH N. TEAL, Portland, Ore.






To the American Bar Association:

The special committee appointed at the meeting of this Association in 1907, and continued at each annual meeting since then, was charged with the duty of considering carefully alleged evils in judicial administration and remedial procedure, and suggesting remedies and formulating proposed laws.


We were authorized at the meeting of the Association in 1910 to present to Congress at its next session the bills theretofore reported by the committee and recommended by this Association, in such form as to obviate as far as possible the objections thereto that had been taken in Congress, but retaining the essential principle of these bills. After full discussion before the Judiciary Committees of both Houses of Congress, these bills were amended and in their amended form were reported to this Association at its meeting in 1912. They were specifically recommended by the President in his annual message, December, 1911.

The Association at its meeting in 1912 approved the bills as thus amended and instructed the committee to take such steps as it should deem expedient to procure their passage.

Three bills were pending in Congress at the date of our report in August, 1912. That is to say, the Technical Error Bill (Schedule A, p. 23), the Law and Equity Bill (Schedule B, p 24), and the bill in reference to Writs of Error in Constitutional Cases (Schedule E of our report of 1912). The last two mentioned bills had passed the Senate.

The Technical Error Bill, as amended in the House and as reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, was afterwards amended on motion of Senator Rayner of Maryland so as to apply only to civil cases. Your committee endeavored in vain to convince Senator Rayner that the reform proposed was needed as much in criminal as in civil procedure. In this, however, we were not successful. The bill as finally reported came up for debate in the Senate on the 24th day of August. The debate extended beyond the time then permitted by the rules of the Senate and the bill was laid over. Your committee endeavored in vain to have it brought up again for consideration at the December session. At that time the Senate was so much occupied on the proceedings on the impeachment of Judge Archbold, and with the necessary business of the session, that it was difficult to obtain consideration for other legislation.

For a similar reason the other two bills which had passed the Senate were not brought up for action in the House. At that time the Judiciary Committee, which had it under consideration, was occupied first with the consideration of the case against Judge Archbold and then in presenting this on the trial before the Court of Impeachment. We regret therefore to be obliged to report that none of the bills recommended by the Association became a law, although each one of them passed one house of Congress.

Your committee has again presented the bills before mentioned for consideration by the Sixty-third Congress at the extra session. It seemed to your committee, after careful consideration, desirable that the bills should be introduced in the Senate in the form in which two of them had previously passed that body and in which the other had been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee of that body. This remark is subject to the qualification that your committee felt that the duty imposed upon it by the Association, as well as its own conviction of the need of reform in criminal procedure, obliged it to urge upon the senators who had become interested in the subject, that the final amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee of that body, should not appear in the newly introduced bill, but that this should apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases. The bills referred to were

therefore all introduced in the Senate by Senator Root. A copy of them as so introduced is appended to the report.

The bill for Review in Constitutional Cases is S. B. 94. The Law and Equity Bill is S. B. 95. And the Technical Error Bill is S. B. 1762, and they are marked respectively Schedules A, B and C (pp. 23, 24).

In the House Mr. Clayton has again introduced the Law and Equity Bill with an additional clause extending the right of amendment to the case of defective allegations of jurisdictional facts. This amendment seemed to your committee wise, and we

ere very glad to have it embodied in the bill introduced by Mr. Clayton. This is H. R. 4545. A copy is annexed and marked Schedule D (p. 26).

The reasons given in previous reports for the adoption of these several bills lead us to recommend that the committee be continued with instructions to urge on Congress at its next session the adoption of all of these bills. There is no likelihood that any of them will be considered at the present extra session.


One of the most important steps taken during the year in the reform of legal procedure is the promulgation by the Supreme Court of the United States, November 4, 1912, of new rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States. These new rules were adopted by the court after conference with committees of the Bar appointed in different circuits, on one of which was the President of this Association, and also with this committee. To frame them was a task of difficulty, and the Bar and the public are under great obligation to the court for undertaking it. Many of the amendments proposed or discussed by this committee in its report of 1911, which it presented to the Supreme Court pursuant to the vote of this Association, have been adopted by the court.

The most important changes in these rules are as follows:

RULE 19. "The Court, at every stage of the proceeding, must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."

« ForrigeFortsett »