The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-02

mended the ca ling CT
A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
They alfc presented plans for legal
reform II the matters hereinafter
stated. committee of three was ap,
pointed "a drafs suitable bills and
present me 10 the Legislature at
Nashville This committee were in
tttucted put themselves in com
munication with a committee ap.
pointed by your association at its
meeting at Chattano oga, charged with
the duty Of sscuriog legal reform.
This memorial is so replet, with visa
suggest ons aud cAefdlly presented
methoGs OF much nesced relief in
matters now, as then, confronting the
people of this S ate Inst i would be
glad to have the SINE preserved
among the records of your association.
Its length prevents my emboiyipg IT
in this address but / have taken the
liberty OF submittngi il as an appendix
thereto, with the request that it be
published with your proceedings If
deemed desirable by your Committee
on Publication.
THREE SAFE PROPOSITIONS.
The bills referred to in this memo
rial were three in number, entitled as
follows: "An act to change and fix
the compensation of the judg and
cbancellors Of the State, and to sal
chapters 2 and of the acts of 1879
upon the same subj Ct" Secoud-A
bill entitled "An act to save expenses
and expedite the hearing of causes in
khA Lxv hA
record" Third-A bill entitled Gan
act to regulate the Practice OF taxing
appeals, and appeals in the nature OF
writ Of error, aud in suing cut wits
OF error in civil s, and actions to
the Supreme Cout t, and t. sav9 ex-
peps. s, and to expedite tire hssiing of
causes 10 inst court and tt repeal ser
ton $3.50, 3177 and $3.50 OF The code"
The frat at referred to fixfd the
salary OF the Supreme Judges at $500
per ann UNI, and ~ Circuit judges and
Chsncel ors a. $500. AS you know,
this act failed If passage, but to
the efforts of tbs Memphis
bar in this direction may
largely be attributed the increase Ct
the salsry OF the Supreme judges from
|
from $1,000 10 S250O. The second act,
relating to the printing of the records
for The Supreme Court, wholly failed.
That the printing of such rec re .
would gI ally facilitate the dispatch Of
busiuess in the Supreme Cou t admits
e TO de pate. Its Gdvsn ages are too
pumerols aud too pa ent 10 jus 'ify
enumen ton ber5. 1t is supposed by
many vel qualified to determine,
that the Supreme Court ha Inherently
thepoWert1 order UGH reCol DIS pri ted.
For easons that fre obvio s, | will
not discuss IL is feature of the ques
ton; but / iuvoye from this associa
ton the broldest digcus sion, as also
the most unqualified expression of its
views in relation thereto would
commend that the al ding Commit
tee on
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND RENE
DIAL PROCEDURE,
or some special committee be in
s1ucted TO present 10 the ensuing
Legisll ture the same bill and urge its
pa sage by all honorable means. The
third act provided for an assiPnmen t
of errors of fact or of law, or law and
fact, as the case may be, in all css's
taken to the Supreme Court. 1t all o
limited the record 10 su1h masters as
pertained to such assignment OF errors.
1t prohibited the issuance OF wriis vi
error BY the Clerk Of the Supreme
Court, except upon the order of the
Court, or OF Judge. 1t provided
that the plead ngs should not be cop
led at length III the transcript, unless
some error OF law ia as:ignet touching
the same; but only staten ent Of the
nature ofsthe complaint or action, and
of the defepsis relied on, aud as it's
tie implies. it repeals $3.50 OF the
code, which provides that no
appeal shall be dismiss d for
failure to assign reasons for
the appeal, and sections 3l77 and $3.50
with reference to the power OF the
clerk to issue writs Of error. This act,
az you know, wholly miscaIrled, but
the same or similar act will doubt
less be presented to the next Lag'sia-
iute, when and where, should It meet
the approval Of this association, a
proper committee from your body
ehonli unite with simiar commit
tee from the Memphis bar in uIg ny
its p passage. The iull draft Of this act,
prepared with much elabOratS ness OF
detail, will be found accompanying
the memorial from the Memphis bar,
to which ] have already referred. l
am not advised rs to what report or
recommendation will be presented by
your Committee on
LEGAL EDUCATOR AND ADMISSION TO
THE BAR.
! The duties of this committee, as pre-
scribed by section o! your by-lswa,
ara ito examine and report what
changes il is expedient 10 propose in
the system aud mode OF legal educa-
ton, aud OF admission 10 the practice
of the profession in the State of Ten.
nessee." This is certainly subject
the importance of which it is difficult
to overeEtimate. Much Of the de-
cadence of the power and influence OF
the legal proie 'siou in the State o!
Tennessee may he easily traced to the
imper'e t method, indeed l might say
the entire want Of method, provided
by the laws Of this Sac with refer
snce to this subject This mater has
not been overlooked by your sssocia-
ton. AT our first annual meeting, held
in 1882, a very abe report was pre-.
sented by the Committee on Legal
Education, compoeed at that time of
Abram L. Demos, John w. Burton,
Robert l.. Morris and Andrew Allison.
And at the second annual meeting the
then standing Committee on Legal
Education snd Admission to the Bar
reported a plan for the examination of
applicants for admission TO the bar,
with the draft of an act entitled "An
&c. to amend
"rHR LAW REGULATING ADMISSION TO
THR BAR"
This acs was carefully drawn, snd
embraces twelve eections. Itprovides
for the repeal Of sections 1906, 1867,
3967a ana S96S OF the Thompson and
Steger code, aud for an appoin ment
by the Supreme Cour, every two ears
OF taree persons lesrned in the law,
from each praud diyieiop Cf the State,