"Lord Mansfield: An Example to Those Who Would Undermine the Independence of the Judiciary," by Harrison J. Conant, Green Bag, September, 1914. The Evolution of the Independence of the Judiciary." Presidential address by Hampton L. Carson, before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, June 30, 1914. "Judicial Power to Declare Legislative Acts Void," by Oscar Hallam, Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reprint from the American Law Review, 1914. During the year the Chairman of this committee has made the following addresses: "The Lawlessness of the Judicial Recall," address before South Dakota State Bar Association, at Pierre, S. D., January 14, 1915. "The Lawyer as Amicus Curiæ," address before graduating class of John Marshall Law School at Chicago, Illinois, June 22, 1915. RECOMMENDATIONS. We recommend that the American Bar Association maintain its organized opposition to judicial recall; and that the work of its committee be continued. Respectfully submitted, ROME G. BROWN, Minneapolis, Minn., Chairman, EVERETT E. ELLINWOOD, Bisbee, Ariz., GEORGE B. ROSE, Little Rock, Ark., CURTIS H. LINDLEY, San Francisco, Cal., FRANK E. GOVE, Denver, Col., WILLIAM BROSMITH, Hartford, Conn., SAMUEL O. PICKENS, Indianapolis, Ind., CHARLES BLOOD SMITH, Topeka, Kans., EDMUND F. TRABUE, Louisville, Ky., EDWIN T. MERRICK, New Orleans, La., WILFORD G. CHAPMAN, Portland, Me., WILLIAM L. MARBURY, Baltimore, Md., JEREMIAH SMITH, JR., Boston, Mass., CYRENIUS P. BLACK, Lansing, Mich., JAMES S. SEXTON, Hazlehurst, Miss., CHARLES NAGEL, St. Louis, Mo., D. GAY STIVERS, Butte, Mont., WILLIAM D. MCHUGH, Omaha, Neb., HUGH H. BROWN, Tonopah, Nev., JAMES SCHOULER, Intervale, N. H., RICHARD V. LINDABURY, Newark, N. J., WILLIAM C. REID, Roswell, N. M., A. T. CLEARWATER, Kingston, N. Y., HARRY SKINNER, Greenville, N. C., HARRISON A. BRONSON, Grand Forks, N. D., CHARLES B. WILBY, Cincinnati, Ohio, JAMES R. KEATON, Oklahoma City, Okla., FREDERICK V. HOLMAN, Portland, Ore., RODNEY A. MERCUR, Towanda, Pa., MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-SERRA, San Juan, P. R., THOMAS A. JENCKES, Providence, R. I., P. ALSTON WILLCOX, Florence, S. C., U. S. G. CHERRY, Sioux Falls, S. D., JOHN B. KEEBLE, Nashville, Tenn., ROBERT G. STREET, Galveston, Tex., EDWARD B. CRITCHLOW, Salt Lake City, Utah, GEORGE B. YOUNG, Newport, Vt., EPPA HUNTON, JR., Richmond, Va., CHARLES E. SHEPARD, Seattle, Wash., D. J. F. STROTHER, Welch, W. Va., BURR W. JONES, Madison, Wis., JOHN W. LACY, Cheyenne, Wyo. REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO PRESENT BILLS TO CONGRESS RELATING TO COURTS OF ADMIRALTY. To the American Bar Association: The special committee to present to Congress three bills relating to courts of the United States sitting in admiralty, respectfully reports as follows: The Lien Bill, having been heretofore approved by the President, as already reported, needs no further notice; the bill to authorize suits against the United States for damages caused by government vessels has made no progress since the last annual meeting of the Association. The bill to provide a remedy for death by negligence upon the high seas and other navigable waters has received much attention from the special committee of the Association. Having been introduced by Representative Peters of Massachusetts in the Sixty-third Congress (H. R. No. 6143), it was on December 22, 1913, reported with unanimous recommendation from the Committee on the Judiciary of the House, certain unimportant amendments having first been made in committee. On December 16, 1914, Chairman Webb called up the Peters Bill practically in the form last submitted to the Association, only a few minor changes having been afterwards made by the Judiciary Committee. Congressman Bryan of Washington, laboring perhaps under a misconception as to the scope of the measure, vigorously contested it. He seemed to think that the committee proposed a workmen's compensation law for the high seas, and not to realize that the sole purpose is to provide a right of action for death in the admiralty where a remedy exists for injuries not resulting in death; or in other words, to amend the maritime law of the United States by statute as the common law of the states has been amended by state legislation. In consequence of Mr. Bryan's opposition, adjournment was taken without action. COMMITTEE ON BILLS RELATING TO COURTS OF ADMIRALTY. 529 Thereafter, your committee, at the request of Mr. Webb, endeavored to answer the criticisms of Mr. Bryan, and in consequence much correspondence and many personal interviews ensued, members of the special committee and of the committee of the Maritime Law Association appearing in advocacy of the bill before the House committee. Further amendments having been made by the Judiciary Committee, the bill came up for final passage in the House on January 6, 1915, when it was strongly supported by Chairman Webb, by Representative Montague of Virginia, and others; and despite the unabated opposition of Mr. Bryan passed the House by the encouraging vote of 284 to 14. Unfortunately, however, the bill was, prior to passage, amended from the floor by the addition of a section, which sought to establish a new standard of limitation of liability, extending even to pending cases. The obvious purpose of this amendment was to govern the special case of the "Titanic" in the Southern District of New York, in which case the Supreme Court of the United States had already held (May 25, 1914) the measure of liability fixed by the American law in limitation proceedings to be controlling, although the claimants had vigorously contended in favor of applying the more liberal British law to the case. The effect of the amendment would have been to increase the fund for distribution from $91,805.54 to $2,500,000 (approximately). Moreover, the entire amendment, thus interpolated into the bill immediately prior to passage by the House, was foreign to the subject matter of the measure, which bears no relation to limitation of liability by shipowners, but is solely "An Act Relating to the Maintenance of Actions for Death on the High Seas and other Navigable Waters." In addition, the bill was so amended at the last moment, as to be capable of the construction that two recoveries might be had one under the state act and one under the federal act. These changes rendered the bill hopelessly objectionable to the special committee of the Association as well as to the committee of the Maritime Law Association, and no report from the Senate Judiciary Committee with adequate changes having been possible in view of the divergent views of those advocating the adoption of the law, the reform long advocated by the Association must lie over until the next session of Congress. Since the adjournment on March 4, 1915, the Maritime Law Association, in which the movement for the reform originated, has adopted a resolution directing its committee on the death statute to re-draft the bill and to report at a meeting of that Association to be held on November 22, 1915, in New York City. The special committee of the Association proposes, if continued, to take up with the committee of the Maritime Law Association the matter of reframing the bill so as to obviate some of the difficulties which have developed, and thereafter to bring about its re-introduction at the next session of Congress, which opens December 6, 1915. Therefore, the special committee now recommends that it be further continued, with directions to endeavor by all proper measures to procure the passage of the proposed death statute, and also of the proposed statute to authorize suits against the United States for damages by government vessels, in conformity with the policy heretofore declared by the Association, and with power to make, in the discretion of the special committee, such amendments of phraseology in either of the bills as it may deem appropriate or expedient. All of which is respectfully submitted. June 15, 1915. GEORGE WHITELOCK, Chairman, ROBERT M. HUGHES, BENJAMIN THOMPSON, Committee. |