The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-01-31
A GOOD BILL THAT OUGHT TO
PASS.


he was naturally greatly interested in
the conduct of law suits in that country.
He made a study of the difference be-
tween the methods of practise there and
in this country, and in telling some Am
erican lawyers the result Of his investi-
CATION and study, he said that the chief
difference was in the time consumed in
argument by the attorneys. I'm Amer
lea he said, "in an important case,
whole day would be consumed in argu-
ment whereas in England the argument
would occupy much less time He was
SO impressed by the superiority of sys-
tenn where the lawyers boiled down their
argument that ever after it was said he
and concise as the subject in hand would
admit, with the result that his argu-
ments were abler stronger and had more
weight.
Some North Carolina lawyers have not
learned that they cannot win their cases
by much speaking. 1t is not uncommon
to see half a dozen lawyers on each side
of case speak from three to six hours
each, each one covering much of the
same ground, to the WEAKNESS of the
flesh of the jury and the court. To re-
form that evil. Senator Webb. of Bun
combe, has introduced this bill:
"The General Assembly of North Caro-
lima do enact:
Section l. That the judges of the Su
pc rior Court be and they are hereby au-
thorized and empowered to limit the
time of argument of counsel in all hear
ings and trials in the Superior Court
Provided that there shall be no limit to
the time of argument in capital felonies,
and provided further that the time of
argument in msdemeanors shall not be
limited to less than one hour for each
side and that the time of argument in
all other cases and hearings shall not be
limited to less than three hours for each
side.
"Sec. 2. That this act shall be in force
from and after it's ratification"
This bill has been approved by several
Of the most influential papers and by
many lawyers, who know more about the
need of some proper restriction than any
others except the long suffering juries.
One of the first lawyers and first men
lett, has written Senator Webb letter
approving the bill. What Mr.. Tillett
says, and says so we'll, will have great
weight with the lawyers and the laymen.
He writes:
Charlotte, n. c., Jan. q, 1903.
Mr. Chas A. Webb, Senate Chamber,
Raleigh, N. c.
Dear Sir: 1 speak with elaboration
when 1 say that if you will have the
present Legislature to pass the bill,
which the morning papers state you in
PRODUCED yesterday permitting judges of
the Superior court to limit the argument
of counsel, you will have accomplished
more for the administration of justice in
the State of North Carolina than has
been done for a quarter of a century.
There is no doubt in my mind out
that the crowded condition of great
many of our dockets is due to the fact
that the lawyers consume SO much time
in the argument of cases. / would not
have you understand that am blameless
in this respect myself. but on the con-
trary 1 am as guilty as any member or
the profession. 1t was only last week
that argued a case against the railroad
company and made speech nearly two
hours long. My partner made speech
one hour long, making in all three hours,
whereas I would be bound to confess
that one and one-half hours ought to have
been sufficient for our side of the discus
sion, and if the judge had limited us
to one and one half hours we would have
condensed our speeches and yet we would
have made every point necessary for
full discussion of it.
am glad this bill has been introduced
by lawyer 1t has been one of the
glories of our profession that we have
stood for just laws and the proper ad-
ministration of the law, and this coming
from a lawyer will show the people
that we are willing to correct evils, even
though they are in our own ranks. Had
the bill originated with one who was not
demagogic move on the part of some one,
taking advantage of the well known pre-
judice against our profession.
You will perhaps find some opposition
to the bill from lawyers, who will claim
that judges are sometimes arbitrary, bit
the safe guards, which you have put
around the bill, ought TO satisfy any one
on this point Besides this, we now have,
as all must admit, a Superior Court
bench composed of men of fire ability and
utmost fairness, and it is altogether be-
yond reasonable supposition that any
enc OF them would be unjust in a matter
of this kind.
1 also wish to add that have discuss
I'D this matter with the members of the
bar here, and believe that without ex-
ception they are heartily in favor of the
bill.
/ assume of course that your bill APP
plies to civil as we'll as criminal cases,
although the report only made reference
to criminal cases.
With best wishes for your success in