We believe that the by-laws should be amended so as to specifically define the duties of the committee, and to limit them, except in special cases, to reporting upon such proposed changes in the law as shall have been referred to them in advance by the association, or at least presented at its meetings, and that, as a rule, the best results would be obtained by limiting their investigation to one or two, certainly not more than five, subjects, or one for each member of the committee. We believe that by thus concentrating the efforts of the committee on the more important subjects in which the association is interested, and of such limited number that not only can the labors of the committee be concentrated, but that definite and active effort can be made to carry out such recommendations of the committee as may be approved by the association, will greatly increase the efficiency of its labors.

Furthermore, if the subjects which the committee is to investigate are known in advance, and the attention of the members of the association is directed to these subjects in the intervening year before the coming in of the report, it is probable that the discussion of the report will be much more thorough and beneficial to all concerned.

If we may be permitted to suggest one of the subjects for reference to the committee for report next year, we would recommend that there be referred to them the question as to what changes, if any, are desirable in our system of registration of land titles; and as auxiliary thereto, what are the merits and defects of the Torrens system of land titles, and to what extent might the same be profitably adopted, in whole or in part, in Tennessee.

The subject of the revision of the laws in reference to municipal corporations, to taxation, and of private corporations are of the highest importance, but the ultimate treatment of these subjects will depend so largely upon the contingency of a constitutional convention and such action as it may take, if held, that at present we do not think it would be advisable to refer these matters to the committee.

It is proper to say that this report is fully concurred in by the two members from Knox county, and that the member from Hamblen has authorized his signature thereto, but owing to its late preparation, it has not been submitted to the members from Shelby and Hamilton.

The report was ordered to be received and filed and printed in the proceedings.

The report was discussed by Messrs. Gaut, Pitts, Fort, Camp, Ingersoll, Sanford, Pilcher, Richardson, and Hays.

The following resolutions were then, upon motion, adopted:

By Mr. Camp.

"Resolved, That the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform be required to investigate and report to our next session what reform, if any, can and should be had by legislation concerning the present county court proceedings, and the jurisdiction properly, if any, to be given the justices. What, if any, changes in our present laws should be had, to properly protect both laborer and employer in the carrying on of large mining, manufacturing, and other enterprises, to carry on which involves both capital and labor. What changes, if any, should be made in the recent act known as the Jarvis law."

By Mr. Camp.

"Resolved, That our by-laws be so amended and construed as that the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform shall in the future report on such matters of important legislation as may be referred to them by this association, and such as the committee may deem important, not exceeding, however, five different subjects at any one session."

By Mr. Pitts.

"Resolved, That the by-law defining the duties of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform be further amended so as to require that committee in reporting in favor of any reform. in legislation to furnish a bill embodying the reform recommended."

By Mr. Sanford.

"Resolved, That there be referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform for report at our next meeting, the question as to what changes, if any, are desirable in our system of registration of land titles, and, auxiliary thereto, as to the merits and defects of the Torrens system of land titles, and the extent to which it might profitably be adopted, either in whole or in part, in Tennessee."

By Mr. Champion.

"Resolved, That this association hereby assures the Hon. Walter Clark of its cordial appreciation, and tenders thanks for his interesting and instructive address upon the important subject of constitutional reform in the federal government." The association then adjourned until 3 P.M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Friday, July 30, 1897.

The association met at 3 P.M., President Swaney in the chair. The first order of business was the report of the Committee on Criminal Costs, submitted by Lewis M. Coleman, of Chattanooga, chairman of the committee.

In the absence of Mr. Coleman, the report was read by the Secretary.

The report is as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL COST

REFORM.

Since the last meeting of your body, three acts have been passed by the legislature which have gone far toward reducing the expense of the prosecution of crime in Tennessee. The first and second relate to the compensation of district attorneysgeneral and their assistants. Each district atorney-general is paid by the state $2,500 per annum in lieu of all other compensation, save that in Shelby and Davidson the county court may allow additional compensation to a limited amount. In districts where there is a county of 50,000 population, the attorneygeneral is allowed an assistant at $1,200 per annum.

The evidence before the judiciary committee of the senate showed that all save two or three of the district attorneys-general had received more than the amount allowed by the act, while in the four larger counties the compensation had ranged from two to six times such compensation.

The beneficial effects of these acts are not so much to be expected from the direct saving in the amount paid the attorneysgeneral, as from the incidental costs; for instance, where $2.50, $5, or $10 were allowed as fees to the attorney-general in certain cases, to secure these fees, from $15 to $50 in officers' and witness fees were charged up against the state or county in each of such cases. Under the new law, the attorney-general is relieved from all temptation to prosecute a case for the fee in it; he is free from the embarrassment of a charge of personal interest in the conviction or acquittal of a defendant, and stands, as he should, the protector of the law and the defendant alike.

But the greatest step forward in the reform of criminal costs was the passage of the criminal cost bill, known as the "Jarvis bill;" a bill introduced in the house by Representative E. Jarvis, of Sparta, and in the senate by Hon. Seid Waddell, of Obion county. The provisions of this bill are so well known to you that it is unnecessary to quote in detail. The bill met

with much opposition from certain officials whose compensation was seriously affected; but so thoroughly had the rottenness of the old system been exploited, and so fully and clearly had the members been informed of its burdensome nature, as well as the flagrant abuses perpetrated under its provisions, that nothing could divert the members of both houses from their fixed determination to relieve a suffering people.

After its passage, its enemies employed able counsel to test its constitutionality; and soon it was declared unconstitutional by two of our eminent circuit judges. The district attorneysgeneral did not deem it their duty to support the act with that earnestness and assiduity which its friends might have desired, and no opportunity was given the supporters of the act of presenting briefs; consequently, the hearing before the circuit courts was practically ex parte. There were certainly some serious constitutional points most adroitly raised and most earnestly pressed; hence it is not surprising that the lower courts should have fallen into error. The State v. Henley (reported

in 41 S. W. Rep., 352) was immediately appealed from the criminal court of Shelby county to the supreme court at Jackson. There the opponents of the bill met foemen worthy of their steel. Attorney-general Pickle had long been aware of the necessity for some such remedial legislation; had greatly encouraged the friends of the measure in their work before the legislature, and, after the passage of the bill, had given it careful consideration and approval. Thus, he went into the fight convinced that it was a good bill, and as a public officer and champion of the people's rights, it was his duty to give the bill his most ardent support. His masterly brief and argument show that both his heart and brain were on the side of the oppressed taxpayer; and little wonder was it that, with the able assistance of Judge J. M. Greer, of Memphis, and a brief from Representative Jarvis, he should have won for the taxpayers the first decisive victory.

The bill was atacked, “because, (1) it demands the particular services of individual citizens as officers and witnesses, and takes