The Washington times., 1902-04-03
Proposed Amendments
Drafted by Bar AS
SociatiOn.
DIVORCE CLAUSE OMITTED
MANY Defects in District Laws Need to
Be Corrected at an Early Date-Sub-
committee of the House Hears Many
Witnesses-Wife's Dover Right.

were BtSuu ftoh'i''''! bS'S'N -
the subcommittee Of the House District
Committee upon the Senate bill providing
series of amendments TO the local code
The measure was drafted under the super
vision of the District Bar Association TO
cure the many defects in the code. The
principal change made in the measure in
the Senate was the omission of the provi-
sion relating to divorce. That amendment
as originally drawn re-enacted the old law
as to divorce. but was stricken out in
order that the passage of the other
amendments might not be endangered by
the provision.
Messrs William F. Mattingly. Chaplin
Brown and Corcoran Thorn, representing
the Bar Association. appeared before the
subcommittee yesterday morning and ex-
planned the necessity for the passage OF
the Senate bill. Nj Mattingly said that
1t was expected that the measure EN-
bodying the amendments would he passed
before the code went into effect, but as
that had not been done some other formal
amendments should now be made. He
said that the Bar Association was in favor
of the divorce provision originally in the
Senate amendment which re-enacted the
old divorce law. but the association did
not wish TO endanger the passage of the
other amendments by insisting upon this
one.
Mr.. Brown who followed Mr.. Mattingly,
was of the opirion that il would be just as
we'll to make the light for the old divorce
law upon the pending bill OF amendments
as at any other time.
Mr. Thorn also snake briefly taking the
same view Of the matter as did Mr..
MaItingly. He said all CT the amendments
contained il the till were highly essen
tial.
1t is probable that the divorce law will
not he incorporated in the pending
measure but viii be presented later as a
separate amendment TO the code.
Signatures to Deeds.
Mr. c. C. Lee made a statement before
the committee advocating an amendment
10 abolish the provision for the signature
of a wife to deeds to real estate in the
District. He maintained that the dover
right Of the wife belonged to a former age.
when the wealth Of the country was rep
resented by real estate. Now, he said.
nine-tenths CT this wealth was represent
ed by personal property in which there
was no provision for dover. Such law
as he advocated, Mr. Lee said, had been
passed by fourteen States.
Mr.. Jenkins. the chairman of the sub
committee, requested the representatives
of the Bar Association to prepare a state
ment upon this matter. as it was one of
considerable Importance, and entitled to
deliberate thought. h-.-s"
Judge Kimball urged his amendment to
the provision in the code regarding ac-
.efIr n a1fE irapr De-
lice Court from its provision. He also
said he had drawn another amendment on
which he had obtained the approval OF
City Solicitor Duvan and the United
States district attorney. giving judges dis
cretionary power TO make restitution Of
goods in larceny cases.
Judge Coles Amendment.
Former Justice Cole presented an
amendment to an amendment in the Sen
ate bill giving parties in the District who
have dealings with agents of corporations
Incorporated outside the District the right
to take legal action in the local courts.
The Senate amendment Judge Cole said.
seemed TO limit this action to contracts
Mr.. Louis F. Dent, the Register of
Wills. was next heard.
Much of Mr.. Dents statement was de-
voted to the fee system in the Registers
Office. regarding which, as he said, there
had been much division of opinion be-
ever since he became Register.
Mr.. Dent said he had simply enforced
the law as he found it, there being no
alternative If he fulfilled the duties of his
office. He proposed an amendment to the
pending bill containing a schedule of fees
to be charged by the Register in probate
matters. ...
Levies and Bits.
Mr.. Dent said that the old law enacted
the Maryland statute of one hundred years
ago and fixed the fees in ''levies" and
"bits' so that it took almost the entire
time of a 81 200 clerk to estimate the
fees. Mr.. Dent said that his Office was
Belf-sustaining. and that the surplus went |
into the Treasury. There was, however, |
little surplus, as he expended the receipts
ai the office for the benefit of the public. |
Mr.. Thorn said there had been much |
dispute between members of the bar and |
the Register as TO fees, which were re-
garded as very high.
Fees in the States.
Mr. Dent replied by saying that he had |
endeavored to ascertain the costs of pro-
bate in the various States. Where he had |
been able to learn the conditions he said |
in ten States the fees were higher, in |
four about the same, in four others lit |
tie lower, in ten considerably lower and in |
seven there were no fees, but In those |
States there were legacy and inheritance |
taxes which the District did not have I
In 7j per cent of the States, he said, |
the fees were more in the average than |
in the District. He declared that he was |
opposed to the fee system in general
Mr.. Brown thereupon declared that In |
his opinion the Bar Association would en- |
dorse the proposition to abolish the fee |
system. He personally thought it should |
be a salaried Office with a specific appro-
priation for its maintenance. Judge Jen-
tins, OF the committee, expressed disap- |
proval OF the fee system.
Plea of Undertakers.
Mr. Robert z. Sheeiy made a statement |
in behalf of the undertakers of the city |
who wished to have the Norton bill, |
which makes undertakers' accounts prior |
claims against the estate of decedent
TO the extent of $500. embodied in the
code.
In answer TO questions by Representa-
tive Samuel w Smith he said such law
had been on the statute books but the |
wanted IL to be more definite
and to compel an administrator or ex-
ecutor to turn over TO satisfy undertak-
ers'' bills the first moneys received at
DDee after paying probate fees.
Tax on Insurance Business.