and counsel know their duty, the case is so conducted that absolutely no question of the law arises in those cases. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to repeat the principles of law which apply. That is so; but the doubt I feel is how you are to deal with the question of appeals. If an appeal lies, the court of appeal must be furnished with the reasons of the court below. Possibly some of you will kindly explain how that matter can be dealt with here. In England, in the county courts, with which I am familiar, we have this rule: The county court judge is not bound to give any reason for his judgments, unless, during the course of the case, he is asked to take a note of the facts raising a point of law on which an appeal may be brought. If counsel raise no point of law, and do not ask him to take the note, he only takes the note for his own satisfaction, and he gives no more reasons for his judgment than is necessary, in his opinion, to satisfy the parties. If, however, the case involves a real question of law, the counsel on either side can ask him to take a note of the facts bearing on that point, and then he is bound to state his reasons in writing for the benefit of the appellate courts. I hope, now, that somebody else will throw some light on the points raised by this very interesting paper. As for me, I will remember Lord Bacon's maxim, "A much-speaking judge is no welltuned cymbal.” The President: If there is no further discussion the next in the order of business is the report of the Committee on Classification of the Law, of which Mr. James D. Andrews, of Illinois, is chair man. James D. Andrews, of Illinois : Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Association: The Committee on Classification of Law is able to report some progress. The committee is able to report itself as unanimous upon one proposition, namely, the importance of legal classifi cation. It has not been found that any of the committee deem it advisable to report a scheme of the classification of American law for adoption or for the consideration of this meeting for the purpose of adoption or rejection. The reasons for this, perhaps, are manifest. This committee has been together but for one year, and it is not to be expected that, on a subject of such vast scope and difficulty, they could arrive at a conclusion, which would be at all unanimous, within that period of time, but the chairman wishes to say that the lack of unanimity would not alone deter the submission of a report or reports, majority and minority, or five different reports, as the case might be, for your consideration, because it is proved now in every proposition that is before this Bar Association, and which will arise, that there cannot be such a thing as unanimity. No one can devise a report or a scheme of legal classification which will be satisfactory in every particular to any one man, even the person who devised it, but it is far more obvious that no one, nor no set of men, although they combine all the learning and skill of all the Trebonians who have lived, can devise a scheme of legal classification which will satisfy everyone. Nor is that at all essential to progress. The point is not whether this or that scheme of classification, or uniform legislation or codification, shall satisfy everyone, but does it offer a distinct and definite improvement over that which has heretofore existed? If it does, then it performs one of the offices or objects which this Association was formed to promote, namely, to advance the science of Jurisprudence, the other being to promote uniformity of legislation. Now, the chairman desires to say enough in this presence to excite your curiosity, but not enough to satisfy it, and it has been our labor to formulate a report, not for the purpose of reading it here, because the report has not been constructed with a view to the consumption of time in reading it, or what might appropriately be taken of your time and ours, but such a report as will suggest the salient features and controlling points of what must ultimately constitute the scheme of legal classification. Not that it can embrace all of them; not that it exhausts the subject; but that it submits enough by the way of a question to every lawyer and jurist and every member of this Association who is interested in the advance of the science of Jurisprudence, that he may aid this Association and the committee in its work by communicating with the committee his views of approval or disapproval or his suggestions of schemes, to the committee, or any member of it, in order that, another year, we may submit in ample time for your consideration individually, a scheme of classification which may be submitted to your judgment collectively either for adoption or for rejection. I will take the time, not to read everything, but to call your attention to an outline of the subjects which have come before us. I will present an outline of the report, reading portions of it. The report was then presented and was read in part. (See the Report in the Appendix.) Edgar M. Cahn, of Louisiana: I move that the committee be granted further time. The President: We will now receive the report of the Committee on Industrial Property and International Negotiation. Francis Forbes, of New York, read the report of the Committee on Industrial Property and International Negotiation. On motion the report was received and filed. (See the Report in the Appendix.) New members were then elected. (See List of New Members.) The President: The next in order is the report of the Committee on Indian Legislation. The Secretary: I believe there is no member of that committee here, and I have a letter from Mr. John B. Sanborn, of St. Paul, Minnesota, Chairman of the committee, written on July 28, 1902. The Secretary then read the letter. (See the Appendix.) The President: The next in order is the report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws, of which Mr. Brewster is the Chairman. Lyman D. Brewster, of Connecticut, then read the report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws. (See the Report in the Appendix.) Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island: I move that the report of the committee be received and placed on file, and that the committee be continued. The motion was seconded. Waldo G. Morse, of New York : I wish to inquire of the Chairman of the committee whether the amendment to the law as passed in the state of New York during the last session of the legislature and the preceding session, being the two sessions following the enactment of the law, have put the law as here in force out of accord with the law in other states; whether the amendment passed by the legislature in New York during the past session and during the preceding session, both of which followed the adoption of the law, as I believe, have put the law in the state of New York out of accord with the law in other states, or whether the law in other states has been similarly amended. Lyman D. Brewster : I was not aware of any change whatever. Mr. Crawford has recently published a new edition of his book. It may be well to say that when the law was first passed, it was the last act signed by the Governor, and was full of clerical errors, and Mr. Crawford had to publish an edition so as to correct those errors. He has recently published another one, and when I saw him the other day, he made no mention of any change in the law. Some gentleman from New York ought to be more familiar with it. I am not aware of any change whatever. The President: It is moved and seconded that the report be received and the committee continued. The motion was adopted. The President: The next in order is the report of the Committee on the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Charles F. Libby, of Maine: The report is very brief. At the last session this committee was continued with the idea that it might co operate in some way with the Commission to revise the Criminal Laws of the United States. Immediately upon the appointment of that Commission I, as chairman of this committee, communicated with the Commission, and turned over to them all the materials that had been collected, expressing the willingness of the committee to co-operate in any way with the Commission. No notice was taken of the letter transmitting the material, nor had the committee, up to the time of the last meeting, in any way heard from the Commission. It was not until I reached the hall here to-day that I learned that the Commission had reported in the form of a bill. Since the last meeting, I have received one letter from the chairman of that Commission complaining of a report I made to this Association last year to the effect that no communication had been received from that Commission acknowledging receipt of my letter above mentioned, and saying that he was not aware that there had been any correspondence, and he thought the Association might, perhaps, have given valuable aid. I answered the letter, giving him copies of the correspondence; to that I have received no reply. I therefore think that there is no useful purpose to be subserved by continuing this committee with the idea that it may co-operate in some way with the Federal Commission, but in order that the relations of this Association to that Commission may be preserved, I have annexed to the report all the correspondence so that it may be upon the files of the Secretary, and the report that I submit on behalf of the committee is as follows: Mr. Libby then read his report. (See the Appendix.) |