valued letter received from Mr. Bates, of Delaware. He says: "The vice of the system is that the judges sit upon each other." The tendency of courts so constituted gives a new and sinister meaning to the phrase "judicial comity." We think, too, that Congress should provide for the litigants whose rights. are finally determined in the Circuit Court of Appeals, such a tribunal as will deserve and command the acquiescence of the parties and the respect of the profession and the public. Such a court should not depend for one of its members upon a talesman called in for the occasion. We think there should be at least three, and would prefer to see five, judges composing the appellate court. In this connection, we note that under the statute as it now stands, on account of the proviso in the second clause of the third section of that Act disqualifying a justice or judge before whom a cause or question may have been tried or heard, from sitting on the trial or hearing of such cause or question in the Circuit Court of Appeals, there should be a better provision. In most of the circuits thus far, at least two and usually three judges have been found who have not been disqualified by this proviso; but a broad or popular definition of the word "question" might hereafter disqualify most of the judges, and make it necessary to have a cause stand over indefinitely, unless certified to the Supreme Court or removed thereto by that court. itself. Perhaps it may be said that the word "question" should be taken in a more restricted or limited sense, and yet, as it is used in this proviso, there may be inconvenience unless some remedy be provided. A suggestion that a division or branch of the Circuit Court of Appeals, in which as many as five judges shall preside, be organized with reference to the final determination of patent. and admiralty causes, seems to be worthy of consideration. Such a branch of the court could hear many cases, also, which might otherwise be certified to the Supreme Court. It might serve to avoid conflict in decisions in the various circuits, or conflict which is possible under the present system, for a patent may now be operative or considered valid in one circuit, but under a different construction of law or facts. invalid in another. Some uncertainty in this regard is said to have arisen; and the instances are liable to multiply. The vastness of the litigation in patent and admiralty matters would, perhaps, justify the organization of such a distinct division or branch of the Circuit Court of Appeals. When the Act of 1891 was passed it was believed by some, who had given much consideration to the subject, that amendments would soon be found to be desirable. Accordingly, a number of bills, covering in a more or less general manner some of the foregoing suggestions, have been introduced into Congress. These bills cannot well be brought under examination in this report, which is submitted with the assurance that the matter is receiving a fair degree of consideration. It is also believed that its discussion here, at this meeting or in the future, will elucidate what is valuable in an agitation, if there be such, for change. Among the bills which have been introduced into the Senate, deserving a more special mention or commendation, are those designed to promote and secure the speedy examination and determination of questions of jurisdiction, whether arising in cases removed from state courts or otherwise; to authorize the retirement in contingencies not heretofore provided for of judges, and to regulate the removal of causes by Federal corporations. These matters may not, however, come so strictly within the scope of the resolution referred to the Committee. It is enough to add that they seem likely to receive early attention when legislation on the general subject shall receive much consideration. WALTER B. HILL, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION. The Committee on Legal Education have thought that they would not be justified in presenting a formal printed report at the present meeting. The lamented death of their former chairman, the late William G. Hammond, suspended the labors of the Committee and prevented the preparation of the intended report which he had undertaken to sketch. Moreover this Association at a recent Annual Meeting adopted a new by-law (XIV) under which the Section of Legal Education has been organized; and that by-law contemplates that the discussion of methods of Legal Education in the Section will result in its recommendations to the Association and their reference to this Committee. Your Committee have prepared to go forward with a systematic survey of all the topics included in the field of Legal Education and as the Executive Committee of the newlyformed Section have made full arrangements for papers and discussions at the present session upon a number of such topics, which will occupy considerable of your time, it has seemed to us more judicious to allow them to take the initiative in this way, and to await the results of the present conference before making a formal printed report. AUSTIN ABBOTT, SARATOGA, August 21, 1894. Chairman, GEORGE M. SHARP, HENRY WADE ROGERS. At a meeting of the Section of the American Bar Association on Legal Education, the 22d of August, 1894, the following resolution was passed: Resolved, That we recommend to the American Bar Association that sub-Section 5 of By-Law XIV be amended to read as follows: 5. The Section shall be organized by the appointment of a Chairman and Secretary at its first meeting; and a Chairman and Secretary shall thereafter be elected annually by the Section. GEORGE M. SHARP, Secretary of the Section. August 23, 1894. By the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar it was resolved that we approve the foregoing resolution and submit it to the consideration of the Association. AUSTIN ABBOTT, Chairman. GEORGE M. SHARP, Secretary. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW. To the American Bar Association : On behalf of the Committee on International Law, and at the request of its Chairman, I respectfully report: That the Committee have considered the subject of an International Court of Arbitration referred to them by the Association at its meeting in 1893. That we have grave doubts whether, under the first article of the Constitution, the subject is one on which this Association can take action. In any case, there is another Association which has been expressly formed to promote the establishment of such a Court. Under these circumstances it seems to us undesirable that this Association should act further in the premises. We therefore respectfully ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. All of which is respectfully submitted, EVERETT P. WHEELER, August 24, 1894. کی For the Committee. |