Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-08-12
POINTS OF LAW
Discussed by the National Bar Assoeia-
tlOn-ImpOrtant Resolutions and
Recommendations.
The Majority Report on the Relief for
the United States Supreme
Court Adopted.

SARATOGA, n. Y, August 1.-The Ma
tional Bar Association yesterday adopted the
| following resosutions:
ResotUed, That TIM. association recommends
| The passage by the legisl alures of the several
States and Territories of an act relating to
the Acknowledgements of instruments affecting
real estate, as prepared by this association.
ResOtred, That in view of the frequent oc-
currence OF Irregular cases and other fraudu-
lent practices in the conduct OF suits for di-
vorce, involving the abuse of the process OF
| courts, breach OF professional obligations
and couniVaDce at actual crime, the local
councils of the association and the several
| Stale bar associations be respectfully re.
| quested, as far possible, to expose such
irregularities and frauds, and secure the
| punishment of all parties concerned in them
ResoEved, That the several local counsels
and State and local bar associations be re-
quested to advocate the enactment in their
| respective States of statute of which the
following is draft:
ResolUed, That in view of the growing evil
of hssty and ih-discussed legislation, and Of
defective phraseology in the statute law, the
association recommends the adoption by the
several States of a permanent system by
which the important duty OF revising and
maturing acts introduced in legislatures
shall be intrusLed TO competent officers,
either by the creation of special commissions
or committees of revision, or by devolving
that duty upon the encouragement of the
State.
Alexander r. Lawton, OF Georgia, was
elected president. After the majority report
ON the relief of the Supreme Court of the
United States was read, Prof. Hitchcock, Of
st. Louis, and G. c. Boney, president of the
Illinois State Bar Association, supported the
majority report, and Edward j. Phelps, OF
Vermont, and w. II. Russell, of ST. Louis,
who was severe in his denuuciation of Sem
ator Davis's bill recommended by the ma
jority report, and gave statistics showing
the increased cost of the present Supreme
Court favored the minority report.
Isaac NJ. Jordan, of Ohio, read an inter-
esting paper on "Trial by Jury; Its Defects
and Their Remedies" He said the law should
be changed requiring unanimity IN the verdict
of jury. In States where such change had
been made the best results followed. There
is nothing in the Federal constitution which
prohibits States making the change.
A resolution was adopted recommending
that the Executive Counsel call the next
annual meeting of this association at Green
brer Springs, Va.
William NJ. Evarts was received with ap-
plause when he took the floor to advocate
the adoption of the minority report on the
relief of the Supreme Court. He contended
that the provision that there should be one
Supreme Court could only be complied with
under the minority plan. There is no au-
thority in the constitution to create an inter-
mediate Court of Appeal, as proposed by the
majority. 1t may be greater infraction OF
the constitution to constitute District Courts
of Appeal, to be final in certain class Of
cases, than to divide the Supreme Court into
sections. rs the minority propose.
General William Preston, of Kentucky,
spoke for the majority report, calling atten-
tion to lis endorsement by the Senate pass
ing the bill it preferred, and characterizing
the argument of Evarts as an impeachment
OF the Senate for passing the msjority plan.
II the association could not agree with the
msjority plan, he would like 10 have four
members added to the committee and the
matter referred back for another years con-
sideration.
Judge John L. I. Sneed, of Tennessee,
denounced the minority scheme. As to the
constitutionality Of the majority report, he
said ii was well-known that Chief Justice
Marshall and Taney both condemned the
law sending them out on circuits as uncon-
siitutional, but they acquesced in the law as
the voice of the people.
B. Sherman, OF Chicago, spoke in favor of
the majority.
On the vote being taken, thirty-nine were
for the majority plan, twenty-seven for the
minority.
Sherman, of Chicago, moved that, as the
criminal laws of the United States do not
sufficiently distinguish and punish persons
committing crime as business, provision
should: be made for the permanent con-
6nement OF those who follow crime as an
occupation. Referred 10 the Committee on
Jurisprudence and Law Reform.