ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

directions to pursue the policy heretofore adopted by the Association of endeavoring to get these bills enacted into law. That is the whole report of the committee and I move its adoption.

James O. Crosby, of Iowa:

I second the motion.

The motion was put and carried.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 572.)

The reports of the Committees on Jurisprudence and Law Reform and on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure were called for but were not presented, the Chairmen being absent at the moment.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

The Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar asks permission to file its report without reading. No action is intended upon it at this time. The committee prefers that it lie over for consideration a year from now. That course is necessary because the report has not been printed, and it seems hardly worth while to read it.

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Francis B. James, of Ohio:

The Committee on Commercial Law has reported on two subjects and made two recommendations. Its report has been printed and filed.

The first subject reported upon is bankruptcy. The recommendation is that the bill pending for the repeal of the bankruptcy law should be opposed and defeated; that it is unwise at the present time to suggest any amendment. The second subject is federal legislation regulating bills of lading in interstate and foreign commerce. The committee reports that there were two measures pending before Congress on that subject: one known as the Bankers' Bill, and the other known as the Uniform State Bill. The committee, in its report of July 15, expresses a preference for the Uniform State Bill as a federal bill for the regulation of bills of lading in interstate and for

eign commerce. Since that report was made, on August 21, the Senate by unanimous vote passed the bill reported and known as the Uniform State Bill with a very slight amendment in Section 44. That section is the criminal section, and, as introduced in the Senate, it contained no provision in reference to the forgery of bills of lading. The bill as passed is, therefore, identical with that appended to our report, with the exception of the addition of four or five lines which add the crime of forgery to the other criminal offences contained in the bill. The committee recommends that the Association express a preference for this bill, and, in anticipation of its indorsement by this Association the Senate has already expressed its preference by unanimous vote. For the purpose of completing the record the committee submits a short supplementary report embodying the precise language of the amendment to Section 44 covering forgery.

The report was received and approved.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 437.)

James O. Crosby, of Iowa:

The Chairman of the Committee on International Law is not present. The report of the committee has been filed and distributed. It does not propose action by the Association but simply conveys information with regard to the intercourse by treaty between different nations since our last meeting.

The President:

The report will be received and filed.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 455.)

The report of the Committee on Grievances was called for but not presented, no member of the committee being present. The report of the Committee on Obituaries was read by George Whitelock, of Maryland, Chairman of the committee, the members of the Association standing during the reading.

The report was received and filed.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 465.)

Sigmund Zeisler, of Illinois:

The Committee on Law Reporting and Digesting makes four recommendations or suggestions. It renews and reemphasizes the desirability and importance of uniformity in the arrangement and classification of the statutory law of the several states; that is to say, an arrangement of the statutes of the different states on the same general subject under uniform titles, so that the same subject matter may be found under the same general heading in future compilations or revisions of the statutes. Secondly, the committee suggests the desirability of a digest in which the statutes of the different states on important subjects of general interest would be grouped together, and which would give brief references to the decisions of the courts in interpreting these statutes. The third suggestion is that the key number series of the American Digest would be made much more useful and time-saving if the same divisions of sections and sub-sections as are found in the Decennial Digest were retained. There are now many instances in which a section covers an entire page or more without any sub-division or subsection. Under the plan suggested a person could tell at a glance whether any case on a point searched for is digested in the particular volume of the key number series. Fourthly, we suggest that each section of the Digest which refers to an important topic give a search note with careful references to digests which do not follow the same classification, and also to encyclopedias, annotated reports and valuable articles in the law magazines.

The report was received and its recommendations were concurred in.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 469.)

Ralph W. Breckenridge, of Nebraska :

The Committee on Insurance Law has twice reported that the insurance laws of the District of Columbia are the worst in the United States, and that they furnish no adequate protection to policy-holders against the numerous illegitimate and wild-cat schemes that flourish there, and thrive upon the credulity of the

people who want insurance and want it cheap, and do not know how to tell the difference between a sound company and a fraudulent one.

After mature consideration and conference with the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, the head of the Insurance Department of the District, and others, it has been decided to recommend a plan pursuant to which an insurance code for the District shall be prepared by a commission to be appointed by the President, or under the direction of the appropriate Congressional committee, and then presented to Congress for enactment. Such a code could be safely depended upon to provide adequate insurance laws for the District, and would serve as a model law for adoption in the several states, with a fair prospect of acceptance by the various legislatures, after having passed the scrutiny of those interested in the betterment of the present deplorable insurance conditions. The recommendation of the committee is:

"That they be again instructed to urge upon Congress the enactment of the bill endorsed at the Detroit session of the Association, or its equivalent, and that they be authorized to cooperate with the Senate and House Committees on the District of Columbia, to secure the preparation of an insurance code for the District, with a view to its ultimate adoption in the several states.”

The recommendation of the committee was adopted.

(See the Report in the Appendix, page 487.)

Walter George Smith, of Pennsylvania:

The report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws presents the results of the work of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws for the approval of the Association in accordance with the custom of past years. It recommends the approval of an Act relating to and regulating Marriage and Marriage Licenses; an Act to promote uniformity of Child Labor Laws, and an Act recommending to the various states which have not already done so to adopt a Pure Food Law.

I offer a resolution in relation to the Marriage Act, as follows: "Resolved, That the American Bar Association approve of the act prepared by the Conference of Commissioners on Uni

form State Laws entitled, An Act Relating to and Regulating Marriage and Marriage Licenses, and to promote uniformity between the states in reference thereto."

This act provides that each state shall decide upon the qualifications of those who may perform the marriage ceremony. It provides that while forms of ceremony may differ, there must be two competent witnesses to every lawful marriage. It provides that no marriage shall take place until a license has been issued, and that the license must be taken out five days before the ceremony. It provides that all common law marriages shall be hereafter abolished and not recognized.

As to the most essential feature of the act the Conference is of the opinion that the tendency of the best modern thought is to do away entirely with common law marriages. Some thirteen states have already done so.

I regret to say that the Committee on Uniform State Laws was not unanimous in approving this recommendation of the Conference. Mr. Frederick G. Bromberg, of Alabama, took strenuous ground against it. In his minority report, signed by him alone, he contends that there was no evidence before the Commission to show that the tendency of the best thought is to approve the abolition of common law marriages. You will understand that when we speak of the tendency of the best. thought, we are using general terms. We had in mind certain modern text writers on the subject of marriage and divorce, especially Prof. Howard, of the University of Nebraska, and other authorities; but our own conviction is that it is wise to take this step, and to recommend to all of the states that common law marriages be no longer recognized.

I remind members of what I was called upon to say at the meeting in Boston. We are assembled here with very brief time for consideration, and it really is not possible to take up a long act and consider it section by section. When this Association gives its endorsement, as it has done heretofore to all the acts laid before the Association by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, that action is based upon the confidence of the Association in the conclusions of the members

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »