Evening star., 1933-05-07
|SSPERK|NS SEES
FLEXIBLE LAW NEED
Application to Social Ques.
tions Discussed by Secre-
tary Before Institute.

Greater neXlbillty In laws anect1ng
social questions was urged last night
by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins
in an address before the American In
stitute of Law. She suggested this
might we'll be one Of the major prob
lens to be solved by students Of law
during the next 10 years.
Pointing out that no legislature could
possibly conceive the problems that
rise to plague" executives under the
rigid laws as they now stand, Miss Per-
kins suggested the desirability of build
ing up within the statutes of the future
"a fiexibility which has been proved so
necessary in the protection Of human
rights"
Flexibility Advantage.
In her brief address the Secretary
said: The technique Of the code that
can be modified as the occasion de-
mands without lengthy legislative de-
bate for the protection of working peo-
pie against low pay, long hours and the
like finds much to commend it.
by bringing about a state of order
in industry, not necessarily by control.
but by Seif-regulation. there Is some as
surance that the system evolved shall be
democratic without the abuses which
we find in some systems abroad which
We feel inhibits.'
Miss Perkins said that in initiating
further cooperation between industry
and government I'VE have a duty to
proceed with a faith In our ow ninsti-
tutions"
More Adequate Law Need.
Chief Judge Cuthbert w. Pound of
the New York Court Of Appeals and
Prof. Edmund NJ Morgan OF Harvard
University Law School, in addresses to
the gathering at the banquet yester-
day joined In roundly condemning the
present state of the law and urging
the institute not to content itself with
restating the law as 1t now stands, but
to endeavor to reshape 1t into something
more adequate to serve the needs Of the
people of the present-day community.
The work of the institute said
Chief Judge Pound. will never be
done. After it has restated the exist
ing law it may busy itself with another
one of its particular purposes and OBJ
Jects which is to promote the better
adaptation of the law to social needs.
We need not be timid about entering
that field Written constitutions should
not paralyze republics, nor prevent de-
mocracy from solving all its problems
Of war and pace. Courts cannot long
ignore the will of the people. 1t Is
futile for judges to think that the at
tempts to supply an urgent need Of
social welfare can be permanently de-
MED by judicial rulings Courts may
check untimely legislation, but they
cannot, any more than King Canute
command the rising tides of change TO
recede"
Remarking that the institute is
founded on "the startling proposition
that there is general dissatisfaction
with the administration of justice, with
the uncertainty and complexity of law"
he said: Law tinkering still remains
In the hands of lawyers and judges, but
the time may come when the people,
wearied OF the rusty and creaking
mechanism Of the courts, may arise
to destroy 1t and install some plan of
administering justice more in keeping
with an age Of mechanical power ana
speed"
Prof. Morgan's attack was more spe-
enc, and was directed to his specially
the rules Of evidence. He pointed par
ticularly to the exclusionary rules. in
which he exhibited a few samples of
glaring Inconsistencies. He showed. for
instance, that where A kills B. the
dying statement of B, inculpatirg A,
may be admitted in evidence at AS
murder trial even if 1t Is hearsay. Yet
the same words would not be admissible
in an action brought by the admins
traitor OF the dead man for wrongful
death.
Errors InescapabIe.
He said that in every hotly contested
trial the judge was bound to make q
number of errors in admitting or re-
jecting testimony, and that these errors
would be seized upon by appellate
courts on the lookout for some reason
for overturning final decision which
they disliked. I'm other words" he
said, "the rules of evidence are always
at hand to furnish the good reasons in
which to conceal the real reasons for a
reversal. I think it is a thoughly per-
nicious practice thus to perpetrate
judicial falsehoods, and cannot believe
that the profession desires the uncer-
tainties of litigation to be increased by
prostituting the rules of evidence to
this purpose"
Admitting that the rules of evidence
have improved slightly since Dean
Wigmore first exposed their inconsist-
encies Is years ago. he said that the
improvement had been so slight that
at the present rate it would require
astronomical figures to calculate the
time needed to attain simplicity and
consistency