Page images
PDF
EPUB

The

munity whose inactivity or apposition often operates to defeat reform. In this connection I may mention some concrete experiences in relation to reforms proposed by lawyers, particularly in the Federal Congress. American Bar Association has actively concerned itself with efforts to improve the practice in the federal courts. In the report of its Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform for the year 1925 it was stated:

"In our report for 1924 we stated that an obstacle had been encountered in procuring the passage of the bills recommended by the Association, through the indifference of Congress, in spite of the fact that both political parties had in emphatic terms given their adherence to a policy of reform in the administration of justice. We regret to be obliged to say that neither house of Congress has exhibited such an interest in law reform as to surmount the obstacles interposed by a small minority which, under the rules prevailing in both houses of the national legislature, can sometimes be made effective against the will of the majority. Principally through this cause, we find ourselves obliged to report that not one of the reforms inaugurated by this committee and approved by the Association was enacted into law, although some of them had been pressed before Congress by the Chairman and members of this committee for many years, and had not been vigorously opposed by anyone."

Among the measures recommended by the Association was one authorizing declaratory judgments by which parties may have their legal rights determined before they suffer damage, for instance, may summarily procure a binding interpretation of a disputed clause in a contract before one party or the other runs the risk of a suit for damages by mistakenly acting on its supposed meaning. Such judgments have been extensively

resorted to in England and have greatly reduced the volume of litigation there. Statutes authorizing them are in force in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kansas, South Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, California and Hawaii, and a model act has been adopted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. For five years Congress has been urged to pass such an act, but has failed to do so.

Another instance is that of a bill vesting in the Supreme Court the power like that it now has in equity suits, to make rules of procedure in common law actions in the federal courts. It is believed that the Supreme Court will be able greatly to simplify procedure if the bill should be passed. The bill was recommended by President Coolidge in a Congressional message, was reported favorably by the three members of a sub-committee of the Judiciary Committee, was approved by forty-five state bar associations, and in answers to a questionnaire a large majority of the members of the House and the Senate expressed their approval. The bill was recommended by four Attorneys-General and by the Chief Justice of the United States and is urged by many civic and business organizations. In spite of such support, it was impossible, in the last Congress, on account of the opposition of a small minority, to bring the bill to debate or to a vote in either the Senate or the House.

In contrast with the inactivity thus shown by Congress, a highly reactionary measure abridging the power of federal judges, although for years vigorously opposed by the American Bar Association and many other bar associations, was, without notice to the Association or

its appropriate committee, taken up by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate in the last Congress and reported upon without a hearing and was passed without debate by the Senate. It failed to become a law only because of the crowded condition of the calendar in the House.

The legislative attitude toward law reform has recently attracted the attention of the press. In a leading editorial entitled "Delayed Justice," the New York Times refers to a complaint which is often heard that lawyers do not do what they should to effect reforms in court procedure and then adds:

"But this reproach is not wholly justified. Members of the bar individually and also in their various professional associations have worked hard and intelligently to bring about needed betterments. Where do they find the obstacles hardest to overcome? In the State Legislatures and in Congress.

"This may seem strange, since lawyers always compose the larger part of the membership of those bodies. Yet they seem to lose interest in law reform at the very time when they have reached an official position from which they could do most to further it. For years law reformers have reported encountering a terrible inertia on the part of the lawmakers. The latter readily admit the force of the arguments addressed to them, and concede that changes in procedure ought to be enacted into law; yet indifference or absorption in other matters prevents them from pushing bills through Judiciary Committees and on to passage."

Reference is then made in the editorial to the efforts of the American Bar Association by seven proposed measures to accomplish "expedition of trials in the federal courts," and then adds:

"One of these bills has been favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Another has been before Congress for years, has been endorsed by bar associations repeatedly, by the Chief Justice of the United States, by the President, by the Commercial Law League of America, the Academy of Political Science, the United States Chamber of Commerce and many other organizations. Yet, as a prominent member of the American Bar Association recently stated: "Two or three militant Senators (if not one) have been able to defeat the will of the majority and hold the bill in committee for eleven years.'

"The indefensible nature of such a performance needs no proof. It does indicate, however, where a good part of the blame lies for the delayed justice which too often in the United States amounts to a denial of justice. Legislatures and Congress have not the sensitiveness on this subject which the time requires. They are so busy framing new laws that they overlook the importance of taking steps to cause old laws to be better enforced. These things ought not so to be. If Congress does not give prompt heed to this particular appeal from the American Bar Association, it ought never to utter a word in the future about the tardy and uncertain administration of justice in the United States."

This editorial aroused the attention of Senator Walsh of Montana, who has been one of the chief opponents of the reform measure referred to in the Times, and he addressed a letter to that journal in which he says that the editorial "unmistakably points to me as in a large measure responsible for its ill-success thus far." He adds that the reform would in his opinion be "positively harmful." He then states his reasons which may be summarized thus:

1. Lawyers would be obliged to learn two systems (state and federal) of practice instead of one. A "weightier objection is that there would be put into effect an entirely new system, everywhere applicable, that every lawyer must learn, even those who have followed for a lifetime almost another."

2. He denies that simplicity will result, for "the idea is preposterous that a new system of practice and procedure in actions at law could be launched without letting loose an avalanche of controversies."

3. Field's Code of Procedure has caused endless controversies, therefore flexible rules, subject to change as experience dictates, will be attended with the same result.

4. The Supreme Court could not give the time necessary for the preparation of rules as it would be a difficult task.

I cannot here enter into a discussion of the merits of these several objections. I merely comment that Senator Walsh's first "weighty objection" would preclude any reform at all which would inconvenience the lawyers of the old order. Such an objection does not represent the best thought of the bench and bar of this country; but it does give a basis for the impression referred to by Dr. Pritchett that the legal profession has not contributed "to the improvement of justice to that extent which society has the right to expect." Whether rules made by the Supreme Court will result in the complications feared by Senator Walsh cannot with certitude be asserted, but it is certain that it would be difficult to worsen the present situation. The Senator fails to take account of the fact that it is not proposed to enact a legislative code, but to enable the Supreme Court to make rules to govern practice and that such rules will be flex

« PreviousContinue »