The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-03
OPPOSES NEW
 COURT BILL The Local Bar Strongly Against Underwood
 Bill. CALLS MEASURE UNJUST Framed in. the Special Interest of
 Birmingham. At . Meeting Held Yesterday strong ResoIpticns Were Adopted wni Injure the Rest of
 a'. District.
 

Maintaining the necessity of the appointment of an additional judge for the Northern and Middle Federal Dis tricts of Alabama, in accordance with recommendations made by the State Bar Association and by a number of the local bars of the State. the mem- bers of the Montgomery Bar yesterday held session in the City Court build ing. at which they stated themselves as being unalterably opposed to the United States Court bill recently in- troduced into Congress by Represen- tative Oscar Underwood. This bill gives Birmingham six months of court every year.
 At this gathering a resolution was passed. in which the bar not only at- lacked the proposed measure, alleging inadequacy to the demands of the sit-
 uation and unfair discrimination, but in which the Senators and Represen- tatives of Congress are asked to op- pose and vote against the measure.
 House bill No. 16,s02. when it comes
 from the committee before the House.
 The members of the Montgomery bar
 were frankly of the opinion that the Underwood bill would sacrifice the rest of the district in favor of Birmingham. In pursuance with the notice sent
 out Saturday. the members of the local bar met yesterday morning. Hon. William L. Martin was called to the chair, and G. F. Mertins elected Secre- tary. The chairman explained the pur- pose of the meeting. after which Major R. P. Steiner offered the following pre- amble and resolution, which were adopted by a unanimous vote:
 Montgomery. 9la., April 9, 1906 As long as the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, in which courts are required to be held at Montgom- cry, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Annis- ton and Huntsville twice a each year,
 are under one judge. the particular pe- riod in which that judge may be re-
 quired by law to keep open courts in any one of these places. Is necessarily a matter of concern to litigants and lawyers in all the other places in the two districts, when, as is now plainly the case, it Is impossible for one judge to hold all the courts. Realizing this condition of things. the bars in the Middle District composed of the twen- ty-three counties whose business is transacted at Montgomery, earnestly joined with their brethren in other parts of the State, in support of a bill which had the approval of the State Bar Association, and numerous other bars throughout the State, providing | for an additional judge for the Mid dle and Northern Districts. That bill failed, and litigants in both districts
 are still dependent upon the services
 of one regular judge, and such help
 as my be given by other judges who
 may be designated, and be able to come
 to the aid of the presiding judge of | these two districts. The evil of the over -burdened dockets in the two dis | tricts is a grievance common to all. in both districts. The lawyers and 1 litigants of the Middle District, in com | mon with the lawyers and litigants in the Northern District, haze expe- 1 rienced the delay and inconvenience of having the regular judge of the district absent for several months in the year, and when the judge Is in the Middle District, the larger portion | of his time here Is frequently given to the business of the Northern District We assure our brethren of the South ern Division of the Northern District l that we are anxious and willing, so | long as no provision be made for a | regular additional judge, to bear the burdens on the present situation fair | ly and equitably. Our conviction is