desirable; it also provides that the legislature may provide that a County Judge may also be the Surrogate, which is desirable in small counties where there is not enough litigation to warrant both officers. The new fourteenth section extends the Court of General Sessions throughout greater New York, in the second year following the adoption of the Article; its judges shall be the present General Sessions judges and the County Court judges in the greater City, and provisions are made for their successors and for the election of additional judges, the term being fourteen years. The first subdivision covers that part of the Greater City which was the County of New York and is now the Counties of Bronx and New York, and the other subdivision covers the remainder of greater New York. The judges will act in their respective jurisdictions, although one may sit in another division, if requested. This plan will provide uniformity of the Criminal Courts throughout the Greater City. This Committee entirely concurs in the recommendations of the Convention. In proposed Section fifteen, the City Court, which now functions solely in the Boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx, is to be extended to cover greater New York, the ten Justices of the Court are to be continued, and provision is made for additional ones; nine successors are to be elected in New York County, one in Bronx County, two in Kings, one in Richmondand one in Queens, to hold office for ten years, and the legislature may provide for additional judges in Kings and Bronx Counties. The court will take over all civil litigation pending in the County Courts of the Greater City. The reasons that warrant the creation of a City-wide Criminal Court exist as to the creation of this City-wide Civil Court, and it is to be regretted that this report cannot, in detail, discuss the numerous advantages that will come from a unifying of the courts which lie between the Municipal Court and Supreme Court in the City of New York. The Committee heartily approves the plan, which will undoubtedly recommend itself to the Bar and the public in the Greater City, whose practical experience with the anomalous situation existing in the five counties of the City prepares them for the adoption of a uniform Criminal Court and a uniform Civil Court which will function entirely within the Section 16 will provide that special County Judges and special Surrogates and Judges of the City Court and the Courts of General Sessions vacancies shall be filled as vacancies are filled in the Supreme Court. Section 17 relates to the election or appointment of City Magistrates and other judicial officers, providing the same method now followed, and Section 18 embodies the amendment with regard to the abolition of the inferior courts, effected by the provisions relating to the County Courts and the present City Court. It also provides for legislative authority over the jurisdiction of all inferior or local courts. The Children's Courts Amendment and the Courts of Domestic Relations Amendment recently approved by the people are included in this proposed section. Section 19 will provide that judicial salaries shall be established by law; it limits the practice of law by various judges whose activities in that direction have caused criticism, and it forbids prosecutors or their assistants from acting in criminal cases for any defendant. The desirability of these provisions is quite evident. Section 20 creates the office of State Referee and Local Referee, giving the latter the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the referees formerly served as judge; the Appellate Division may authorize a State Referee to sit as a Supreme Court Justice. Former judges of the Court of Appeals, and Justice of the Supreme Court, now official referees, shall continue as State Referees; all other official referees shall be Local Referees, and neither class of referee may practice law. This is a new and striking change, but the referee system has worked very well, and in view of the congestion in the courts it seems desirable to use the experience of former members of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in the disposition of matters with which the Courts should not be burdened. Section 21 will limit the legislative power to amend the Civil Practice Act, which is quite proper because too many amendments have been hastily and thoughtlessly enacted. It may not be amended unless a majority of the Judges of the Court of Appeals and of the Justices of the Appellate Division shall certify to the necessity of the changes. If it is not done in that way, it must be made the subject of a sort of referendum, approximately in the manner in which constitutional amendments are now put before the people. This change is beneficial not only because it will prevent amateurs trying to improve the Civil Practice Act, but it will insure amendments of genuine merit. Section 23 is to provide for the creation of a State Law Reporting Bureau to cover all the courts of the State, and to insure uniformity of publication and the same quality of headnotes, and seems worthy of adoption. Section 24, relating to the Commissioners of Jurors is probably not of sufficient interest to be discussed, although the Committee approves of the proposed addition; Section 25 authorizes statutes to be passed providing for a system of judicially registering and guaranteeing title to real property, and your Committee thinks the legislature should have such power. The foregoing is, necessarily, a hasty and inadequate treatment of a report that has been prepared by some of the best minds upon the Bench and at the Bar, and your Committee is entirely in accord with every recommendation made. The whole of the report has grown out of the experience of judges and lawyers, and each provision is a change born of actual contact with existing conditions resulting in a conviction that the change is needed. These proposals have been formulated by a Convention which included judges who see them from the standpoint of their effect upon litigation and the administration of justice, and the rights of citizens generally, and by lawyers who see them from the standpoint of their practical operation upon the conduct of law suits. The report is worthy of the highest admiration and praise, not only because it is the fruit of long and laborious labor by men eminently qualified for the task, but because not one superfluous recommendation has been made, and every recommendation has a practical experience behind it. Respectfully submitted, January 20, 1922. MEIER STEINBRINK, Chairman. On motion duly seconded and carried, the report was received and filed. The President: Report of Committee on Legal Biography, which will be presented by Mr. Lewis, the Treasurer of the Association. Loran L. Lewis, Jr., of Buffalo : This is simply a list of the members whose deaths have been reported since the last annual meeting. The members arose and remained standing while Mr. Lewis read the following report: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL BIOGRAPHY LIST OF MEMBERS WHOSE DEATHS HAVE BEEN REPORTED SINCE LAST ANNUAL MEETING George Addington. Arthur Furber....... Albany. New York City. New York City. New York City. New York City. Corning. New York City. New York City. Albany. New York City. New York City. New York City. New York City. Algernon S. Norton... Hon. William Nottingham.... John H. Parsons. Frank H. Platt. W. Crawford Ramsdale..... John H. Regan.. Charles H. Russell.. John J. Ryan... John W. Simpson. Frank Talbot.... Irving G. Vann... Frederic M. Van Nostrand.... George B. Wellington.. Edward D. White.. New York City. Syracuse. New York City. New York City. Albion. New York City. New York City. Gloversville. Syracuse. Flushing. Troy. Howard C. Wiggins. Thomas F. Wilkinson.. Charles F. Williams. Washington, D. C. Rome. Albany. New York City. Rochester. |