The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-02-03
A GOOD BILL THAT OUGHT TO
PASS.

When Daniel Webster visited England
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 so1ne 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 In Amer
| ica,' he said, in an important case. a
| whole day would be consumed in argu-
mont whereas in England the argument
would occupy much less time" He was
so impressed by the superiority of a sys-
ten where the lawyers boiled down their
argument that ever after it was said he
studied to make his argument as brief
and concise as the subject in hand would
admit, with the result that his argu-
ments were ADLER, stronger, and had more
weight.
Some North Carolina lawyers have not
learned that they cannot win their cases
by much speaking. 1t is not
to see half a dozen lawyers on each side
Of a 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 /. That the judges OF the Su-
perior Court be and they are hereby au-
thorized and empowered to limit the
time of argument of counsel in all hear
inss and trials in the Superior Court:
Provided that there shall be no limit to
the time of argument in capital fclonies,
| and provided further that the time of
| argument in misdemeanors 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 its 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
in North Carolina, Hon. Charles w. Til
lett, has written Senator Webb a 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. 81, 1903.
MIR. Chas. A. Webb, Senate Chamber,
Raleigh, N. c.
Dear Sir: | speak with deliberation
when l say that if you will have the
present Legislature to pass the bill,
which the morning papers state you in
reduced 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 lone for a quarter of a century.
There is no doubt in my mind but
that the crowded condition of a great
many of our dockets is due to the fact
that the lawyers consume so much time
in the argument of cases. / would not
liIN yOu UNDERSTAND Tia L Oil
in this respect myself, but on the con-
trary l am as guilty as any member OF
the profession. 1t was only last week
that 1 argued a case against the railroad
company and made a speech nearly two
hours long. My partner made "a 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. q
full discussion of it.
I am glad this bill has been introduced
by a lawyer. 1t has been one of the
glories of our profession that we have
stood for just laws and the proper adj
ministration of the law, and this coming
from a lawyer will show the people
that we are willing to correct evils, even
though they arc in our own ranks. Had
the bill originated with one who was not
a lawyer, it might appear that it was a
demagogic move on the part of some one,
taking advantage of the we'll known pre-
JUDGE against our profession.
You will perhaps find some opposition
to the bill from lawyers, who will claim
that judges are sometimes arbitrary, bit
the safeguards, 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 fine 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.
| also wish to add that I have discuss
cd this matter with the members of the
bar here, and l believe that without ex-
ception they are heartily in favor Of the
bill.
| assume of course that your bill .ap-
plies to civil as well as criminal cases,
although the report only made reference
to criminal cases.
With best wishes for your success in
this most important measure, [ remain,
Yours truly,
CHAS. w. TILLETT.