The President:

You have heard the resolution on which the previous question has been moved and seconded. Therefore, the question is: Shall the main question be now put? All in favor will signify the same by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is unanimously carried.

The question now recurs upon the resolution offered by Mr. Merrill. All in favor of the adoption of that resolution will signify it by saying aye; those opposed no. The resolution is adopted.

If Mr. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia, is in the hall, I will ask him to present the report of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform.

Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

The Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform has not printed its report for this reason: One of the resolutions referred to the committee required it to ascertain and report upon the law on a given subject in every one of the states of the Union, and not until yesterday did the committee receive the last information. Hence, it was impossible to print the report.

Three matters were referred to the committee. The first was substantially dealt with last year. It provided for the consideration of what is known as the "Third Degree." The present resolution referred to the committee the question as to how far we should recommend a law condemning the so-called "Third Degree." The language of the resolution is important in this, that a person charged with crime need not say anything if he desires to keep silent, but whatever he does say shall be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence against him on the trial; that whatever the prisoner shall say, thus taken down, shall be read over to him by the Justice or Magistrate and signed by the Justice or Magistrate, or else the statements therein contained shall not be admitted in evidence. In a word, it is the statement of an accused which on the criminal side of the court is a confession. The question submitted is whether or not these statements if reduced to writing should be admitted

in evidence, and, if not reduced to writing and if not signed, whether the confession should be admissible.

The committee reaches the conclusion, first, that the law regarding the admissibility of confessions is well settled, and that no confession is admissible unless it is freely and voluntarily made without the slightest hope of reward or the remotest fear of punishment, and, therefore, that it is better to leave that wellsettled principle of law alone. Second, that while the evil complained of is to be reprehended, yet it is local in its character, dealing with the peculiar circumstances and surroundings of local police and prosecuting officers. The evil being local the committee is of opinion that it should be remedied by local legislation and not dealt with by this Association.

The second matter submitted to the committee is of very considerable interest. The committee was instructed to consider and report, whether some efficient agency cannot be inaugurated under the auspices of the Association, to promote the scientific and expert supervision of the formulation of laws in the United States, to the end that the number may be decreased and the quality improved; or whether a special committee should be appointed to consider and act on this subject.

The resolution deals with slip-shod legislation, and from the very inception of this Association that question has been constantly coming before us. We all recognize the evil, but the committee is unable to suggest any agency that will be uniform throughout the several states by which the evil can be prevented. All that we can do is to say that under the auspices of the Association a commission is now in existence formed of commissioners from every state, all the territories, the District of Columbia and the Insular possessions of the United States. It may be interesting to know that these commissioners under legislative acts or under gubernatorial appointment, represent all the states of the American Union. For the last five days. that body has been in session. Many of the bills recommended by the Conference have been enacted into law in the past; notably the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been adopted in forty states. The commission is steadily at work, and the

present committee of this Association can suggest no better way of getting intelligent and uniform legislation than to hold up the hands of the commission, which is the child of this Association and is doing your work in that way.

The third matter submitted to the committee is the subject of the detention of innocent witnesses. There has grown up, it seems, an evil by detaining innocent witnesses. The resolution required that the committee should ascertain the law in every state in the Union, and with that end in view letters were addressed to the members of the general council in the respective states. Responses have been received in many cases giving the statutes of the states, and those answers will be turned over to the Secretary. The Committee on Publicity may use them for general information if it sees fit to do so. It is found that in 39 states innocent witnesses may be detained. The committee finds that the origin of the law for the detention of innocent witnesses springs from two statutes in the reign of Philip and Mary, whereby a magistrate was required in the case of felony to bind over a witness to appear on the trial. The committee finds that this common law practice prevails in all of the states in the Union except in so far as it has been modified by statute. Therefore, in substantially every state in the Union an innocent witness may be held to appear to testify on the trial of a case.

The committee is asked to recommend the passage of a law that will prevent the detention of a witness under any circumstances. In other words, that a witness shall not be held either under bond or in other way to appear and testify in a criminal Inasmuch as it may well happen and does happen, that there may be only one witness to a homicide. The witness declares he has no interest in the matter, is going away and is not coming back, the serious question arises: Shall that witness be allowed to depart and not be compelled to enter into a recognizance for his appearance? The committee has been constrained to reach the conclusion that we had better adhere to the principles of the common law as established in the reign of Philip and Mary and supported by the law of practically all of the states, notwithstanding the fact that there may be some

occasional hardship. In nearly all of the states the conditions necessary to be complied with on the part of the prosecution reduce the evil complained of to an infinitesimal quantity. It is in furtherance of justice to detain a witness, due regard being had to his personal comfort and compensation being given to him for his loss of time. It is not wise to permit a witness to depart from the state and defeat the ends of justice.

One other matter. The Secretary has asked me to call attention to this fact: You will find in the report of last session a slight error. There had been referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform the matter of the increase of the salaries of the federal judges. The matter was referred to a special committee. There is a letter from the Chairman of that special committee here, which the Assistant Secretary will read; and I only call attention to it because it is cognate to the work upon which we have been engaged.

I respectfully submit the report of the committee.

The President:

It contains no recommendations?

Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

It contains no recommendations. On the contrary, we have not been free to make the recommendations sought for the reasons stated.

The President:

The report, then, will take the usual course and be received. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 429.)

Thomas Mackenzie, of Maryland:

I should like to move to consider those subjects separately, and, if in order, I move the adoption of the resolution in respect to the "Third Degree," which resolution was introduced two years ago. The report made upon it at that time was that the resolution was too drastic, and I then withdrew

Joseph B. David, of Illinois:

I rise to a point of order, that unless the resolution is approved by the committee it is not open to debate.

The President:

That is true as a matter of parliamentary business, but it has been customary when the report of a committee is brought in to permit discussion upon the report.

Joseph B. David, of Illinois:

For what purpose? We cannot pass a resolution here on the subject as the matter stands.

The President:

I know, but that is the rule. The gentleman from Maryland may continue.

Thomas Mackenzie, of Maryland:

I withdrew the resolution for the purpose of reframing it with the hope of getting from the Association an expression of sentiment upon a question which is of importance in this country, quite as important, I think, as any that the Association can pass upon; a question involving not only the matter of personal liberty but of personal rights as well. It seems to me that it is quite evident this country is losing its characteristic love of liberty and individual freedom and is getting to be a nation of spies. Not only have the authorities undertaken to institute what is known. as the "Third Degree" under which a man before he has been. actually charged with crime is subjected to all sorts of indignities and investigations and is practically made a witness against himself, but today they have put in use a new instrument, the dictaphone. The people of this country have always had the greatest contempt for eavesdroppers and spies, yet so insistent has the demand become for the conviction of wrongdoers that we are losing sight of individual liberty and are subjecting men to the use of dictaphones and all sorts of instruments for the purpose of getting statements they may make as evidence to be used against them

The President:

The Chair would ask the gentleman if it is his purpose to make a motion.