compulsory arbitration. No one is compelled to accept its provisions, and when he does he is to be taken as consenting to the arbitrators named in the bill, precisely as if he had selected them himself. It is, therefore, not in violation of the principle of arbitration.

Robert D. Benedict:

If you will allow me to say right there, this bill does not provide for any such thing as has just been suggested. It only provides for the appointment by the court of a list of general arbitrators and for the submission of any controversy to any one of those arbitrators. Then it provides also for the submission to any one of these and three other men selected by the parties. It thus contains everything that is involved in customary submission to arbitration. Arbitration exists all over the country, and it is not going to be changed-I mean by that, arbitration the result of which you can make the decree of a court. Now, gentlemen, is it of any advantage anywhere to make the result of an arbitration the decree of a court of the United States?

Charles S. Bradley, of Rhode Island:

I rise to a point of order. I ask if it is the mode of proceeding in the American Bar Association to ask its members to vote upon a proposition that is not before them on the table. This motion here is that we approve of a certain act in a certain volume at a certain page. The deliberative bodies to which I have been accustomed always require that that act be upon the table. You go a step further. You put that which we are to vote upon in print and circulate it among the members. Now, unfortunately, I, for one, was not here last year, and I want to know what we are voting upon. What is the law to which our vote will give the sanction or disapproval? It is not on the table, and is therefore not before us. Again, I understand the gentleman to arise here representing a body of this Association, many of whom are unfortunately absent. In their behalf he says, considering the gravity of the question and the misunderstanding of the

subject we are voting upon, that he will withdraw his motion. to adopt the report. A single member of the Committee, who is here, rises to protest against the action of the Association. I second the motion to withdraw this report from present discussion.

R. D. Benedict :

I do not understand what is the gentleman's point of order. E. B. Sherman :

I would inform the gentleman that Mr. Bonney was not a member of that Committee, and had no more right to withdraw the report than I had.

Charles S. Bradley :

The point of order, nevertheless, remains that that Committee have not put in legal form the matter before us which they ask us to approve of.

'James O. Broadhead :

I submit that the motion to recommit is in order.

Robert D. Benedict:

Mr. President, have I the floor?

The President:

Mr. Benedict, of New York, has the floor.

Charles S. Bradley:

If Mr. Bonney is not a member of that Committee then I withdraw my second of his motion.

John F. Dillon :

If Brother Benedict will yield the floor to me for a moment, I desire to state this: As the motion has been made to recommit this report, and as the only member of the Committee who is present, and not having myself drafted the report, and in view of the diversity of opinion which seems to exist here concerning the exact nature and effect of the bill the principle of which this report recommends, I am willing to take the responsibility, in behalf of the Committee, to accept the motion to recommit, if that is the pleasure of the Association.


The President:

Mr. Benedict has the floor unless there is some point of order raised.

Robert D. Benedict:

If a motion is to be made to recommit and is to be voted upon without debate, I will say nothing further, because it is obvious to me that the members of this Association had not sufficient information, with reference to this matter, to discuss it properly. They evidently have not read, many of them, the provision of the law which they are asked to vote upon; and in that condition I think the report ought to be recommitted.

E. B. Sherman :

It is quite obvious, Mr. President, from the remarks which some of my brethren have made since I took the floor, that my remarks were misunderstood. I was simply discussing the question whether the principles embodied in this bill were fair and just ones; and although it will, as Judge Dillon has said, only reach a few cases, yet it will be a valuable precedent for State Legislatures to adopt. Of course, ordinary controversies between laborers and their employers are not cognizable in the United States court. But in some very important cases they are so cognizable.

The President:

The question is this: A motion has been made to adopt the report of the Committee. A motion has been made to recommit, with instructions to report a bill on what has been termed the Mandarin principle. The motion to adopt has been withdrawn. There is, therefore, nothing left to be voted upon except the motion to recommit.

George H. Bates:

With the permission of the Association, I will modify that motion, and make it a motion to recommit simply, without any instruction.

C. C. Bonney:
I second that.


The motion was adopted.

The President:

The next business in order is the report of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, who recommend the following resolution :

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Association that all reports should be published by the State Government and should be offered for sale at the cost price."

G. H. Breaux:

I second that motion.

Charles W. Hoffman, of the District of Columbia:

Mr. President, I am very well aware of the evils resulting from the multiplication of the reports, but I don't think that this resolution is going to effect anything at all. I really don't see that it is.

George H. Bates:

We are certainly now passing through a very great change in regard to the publication of law reports in this country, and I do not think that it is an opportune time to act upon this question, and therefore I move that this resolution lay on the table at this session.

This motion was lost.

The President:

The question is now on the adoption of the resolution. All in favor will say aye.

The motion was then adopted.

The President:

The next business is that of the Committee of Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. Is there any

report from that Committee?

Rufus King, of Ohio :

Two subjects were referred to that Committee at the last session, one being the subject of penal colonies, and the other of a proposed law for a uniform code of procedure in the courts of the United States. There are two reports, one of

which Mr. Garnett will present and the other report is to be presented by Mr. Benedict.

Henry Wise Garnett, of the District of Columbia :

The first report, gentlemen, is that on the subject of penal colonies.

(See Appendix.)

Rufus King:

I move the adoption of that report and that the Committee be discharged.

The motion was adopted.

Robert D. Benedict, of New York:

The other report, Mr. President, is as follows:

(See Appendix.)

Henry C. Semple, of Alabama:

I move to postpone the consideration of that report until the next session. It is a subject which involves a change in the mode of procedure.

Rufus King:

I second that motion and would accompany it by an amendment that the report made by the Committee on Jurisprudence take the same course, and that both be printed and made the subject of a special order for the evening of the second day's session of the next meeting.

Henry C. Semple :

I accept the amendment.

The motion was adopted.

. The President:

The next Committee in order is the Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. There is no report from that Committee. The Committee on Commercial Law

is the next.

George A. Mercer :

The Committee would submit the following report.

(See Appendix.)

C. C. Bonney:

With the consent of Mr. Mercer, I would suggest that the

further reading go over until to-morrow.

« ForrigeFortsett »