the circuit courts of the United States and supreme courts of the Territories to hear and determine all cases at law and in equity that may arise, and to try all offenses that may be committed on Indian reservations situated in any judicial district or Territory, and to administer all estates of the inhabitants thereof in accordance with the laws of the respective States and Territories in which the reservations may be respectively located. Resolved, That the American Bar Association recommend that such jurisdiction extend to all cases arising between any band or tribe of Indians and the United States or between such band or tribe and any officer of the United States, and that the amount of fees to be paid in any case to an attorney for Indians be determined in all cases by the court. Resolved, That the secretary of this Association transmit a copy of this report to the President of the United States, the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, the Hon. Commissioner of Indian Affairs and to each member of Congress, accompanied by a copy of the proposed act of Congress herewith reported. In reference to the other subjects mentioned above, the Committee deem it inexpedient that any action should be taken by the Association. Respectfully submitted, GEO. TUCKER BISPHAM, E. B. SHERMAN, J. W. SYMONDS. ST. PAUL, MINN., July 31st, 1894. HON. GEORGE TUCKER BISPHAM: Dear Sir:-Prof. J. B. Thayer, of Harvard College, has requested me to address you a note respecting the report of our Committee on Indian Legislation made to the American Bar Association, at its meeting last year, and referred to the Committee of which you are Chairman, of Jurisprudence and Law Reform. You, no doubt, appreciate as fully as the members of the Special Committee who made the report the importance of the subject to which it pertains. The existence in our midst of two or three hundred thousand people who have no fixed civil or criminal code, and no probate code, and no courts for the administration of any laws, is an evil of great magnitude to all the citizens of the United States, and a rank injustice to the Indians. The report signed by me as chairman made to the Association last year embodies quite fully the views of the three members of the special committee, Mr. Hornblower, Mr. Thayer and myself, and, we think, deserves the candid and careful consideration of your Committee and final action thereon by the Association at its coming meeting. Mr. Hornblower may have some suggestions in regard to the form of the act of Congress that should be passed vesting jurisdiction in the Federal Courts. He intimated to me that he was not in full accord with my views as embodied in the act attached to the report which we recommended Congress to pass. I have no pride of opinion regarding the report or the act attached to it, and shall be fully satisfied with any reasonable action that your Committee may recommend the Associa tion to take; but we all have an earnest desire that action should be had, and that one of the foulest stains upon our escutcheon as a nation should from henceforth be obliterated, and that those rights secured to our own race by such sacrifice of blood and treasure in the past may be cheerfully accorded by us to the Indian race. With great respect, Your obedient servant, JOHN B. SANBORN, Chairman Special Committee Indian Legislation. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND REMEDIAL PROCEDURE. At the last meeting of the Association, in the confusion of its closing hours, a member," whose name is not given in the report, offered, and the Association adopted, the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure be instructed to inquire what changes, if any, are desirable in the Federal Judiciary subordinate to the Supreme Court and in the District and Circuit Courts of the United States and in the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The mover added, "I offer this resolution of inquiry at the suggestion of one or more of the Federal Judiciary, who think a much better system could be adopted than the one we now have." It is regretted that the name of the gentleman offering this resolution has not come to the knowledge of this Committee, and that it has not been possible to ascertain by correspondence or otherwise the particulars in respect to which he would advise a change. The resolution indicates that he had in mind a somewhat drastic treatment of the subject, yet it will be observed that its terms are quite general and vague-" what changes, if any, are desirable in the Federal Judiciary," etc. Hence, in view of the largeness of the subject, it has not been practicable to prepare a report in the usual way, by correspondence, as may sometimes be done when a distinct proposition is referred and may be submitted by letter to the several members. A mecting of the Committee was called at the present session in accordance with the by-laws, but only the undersigned members have been in attendance. It will be remembered that this Association took an active, and we have cause to believe an influential, part in the agitation which led to the adoption by Congress of the Act creating Circuit Courts of Appeal. The last step taken by the representatives of this Association, in bringing the matter to the attention of Congress, was on February 13th, 1890, at Washington, when the sub-committees of the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, to whom had been referred all bills. on this subject, gave an audience in joint session, Senator Evarts presiding, to the Special Committee of this Association of which David Dudley Field was chairman, the acting Chairman in Mr. Field's absence being Mr. Hitchcock, then President of the Association. At that meeting the Committee laid before the sub-committees of the House and the Senate the draft of a bill which embodied the characteristic feature of the legislation adopted, viz., the provision retaining in the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court constitutional and all Federal questions and diverting to the new appellate court those cases which for the most part involve municipal law and which principally are brought into the courts of the United States by the mere fact of citizenship of the parties. All previously proposed bills had provided that cases of both sorts, irrespective of the ground of Federal jurisdiction, should go from the lower courts in the first instance to the proposed appellate court, whence they might be taken to the Supreme Court; and the only device suggested for relieving the pressure which would thus be made upon the Supreme Court by these second appeals was that of cutting them off by a very high pecuniary limit; whereas, the bill above referred to provided for but a single appeal or writ of error, and gave it in all cases irrespective of amount, and sent one class of cases direct from the lower court to its appropriate reviewing tribunal, and the other class of cases direct from the lower courts to the reviewing tribunals provided for them. This bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Hoar, by request, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee and to the sub-committee of which Mr. Evarts was chairman. Subsequently, a bill embodying identically all the jurisdictional clauses of that bill and embodying the characteristic features above described was reported to the Senate by Mr. Evarts, was adopted in the Senate with a few amendments, was adopted in the House upon the report of a conference committee, and signed by the President. In the main and almost entirely, this measure has accomplished the objects desired. The relief of the Supreme Court from an annual overflow of cases greater than the court could dispose of has been effectually secured. This is apparent from the diminished return of cases to the docket. Although the number of cases actually adjudicated in the Supreme Court annually averages only 295, yet the number returned to the October term, 1887, was 482; the number returned to the October term, 1888, was 550; and the number returned to the October term, 1890, was 623, while the number returned to the October term, 1892, was 290, almost precisely the number which represents the working capacity of the court. It is true that the court has not yet caught up with its docket, but the reason is that it has been engaged in working off the congestion of the docket resulting from an accumulation of cases in years previous to the act of 1891-an accumulation so great as to leave 1079 cases in arrears at the beginning of the October term, 1892. Not a few of these cases are mere shells' -unmeritorious appeals invited by the long delay which an appeal formerly secured, or cases in which the same cause has coerced or will coerce one of the parties into compromise, and which will be dismissed when called. This accumulation can probably be worked off in two years; and the court will be up with its docket-dealing with records that contain the issues of living controversies and not, as heretofore, delving, for the most part, among the remains of dead and buried transactions. The following table, taken from the report of the AttorneyGeneral for 1893, also shows not only how great is the relief |