« السابقةمتابعة »
proposition. I know the statute requires it set at a definite time, and so what is the necessity of embodying the account in the summons unless you make it imperative to set the case within 24 or 48 hours, as has always been the practice in this city, and I suppose in every other big city.
So I move, in lieu of the suggestion of the committee about the combining of the statement and the cause of action, the committee be instructed to draft a bill to require the plaintiff to file his declaration as the beginning of his suit, and the filing of his declaration in the office of the Clerk will be the beginning of the suit.
Mr. Fisher:—On the question of abolishing the appearance term, there is an act now before this present General Assembly, which has been introduced, both in the Senate and in the House. One, drafted by the Chairman of the Committee of the Tennessee Bar Association, has been introduced both in the Senate and in the House. And one drafted by Mr. Lee Bartels, of this city; who, in conjunction with other lawyers of this city, thought there was need for this change, and that act has passed two readings both in the Senate and in the House, prior to the runaway. Now, I take it, that at sometime, for the good of Tennessee, there will be a quorum restored to our General Assembly, and it is to be hoped that the members of the Assembly, who really love Tennessee, and have the welfare of Tennessee at heart, will create a quorum, and that at an early date. Now, that bill is there, and when the quorum is restored, the Bar Association, through its influence, and with the influence of the lawyers throughout the state, can see that the bill is enacted and made into a law at once, without waiting for the next session of the legislature
Judge Barton :-I suggest that we do not consider this question now; that we let the matter go over until we get the report of another Committee, which covers the whole subject, I mean the report of the Committee on Judicial Administration, and I now move that this matter go over until we hear the report from this other committee.
Judge Higgins:—I just desire to state this, Mr. Chairman. This report should have been delivered tomorrow, and probably
action should be delayed on it until we hear the report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure.
The President :-Without opposition then, the Chairman requesting it, the consideration of that report will go over until the report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. Is there any objection! The Chair hearing none, rules there is not, and it will go over.
The President:—I desire to make another announcement at this point, and that is in regard to our meeting tomorrow at the Country Club.
The Governing Board of the Memphis Country Club has kindly tendered the use of the Club House and grounds to the members of the Bar Association, their guests and visitors tomorrow. The Central Council has accepted the tender, and we will hold our meeting there tomorrow. The Memphis Street Railway will provide special cars, leaving the Custom House at 9:15 to convey the members and friends and others who desire to go, to the club grounds. The members, visitors and so forth, will be entertained at a luncheon tomorrow at the Country Club by members of the Memphis Bar. The impression seems to prevail that residents of Shelby County, not members of the Country Club, can not attend this meeting. I desire to state for the purpose of attending the meeting tomorrow, the public has as much liberty to attend the meeting at the Country Club as at the Goodwyn Institute.
The Club and its grounds tomorrow belong to the Tennessee Bar Association and lawyers—whether members of the Tennessee Bar Association or not—or any of the public who may desire to attend. I hope you will all correct the impression to the contrary, and that you will make provision to go out and attend this meeting—whether a member of the Association or not. I trust all of you will take occasion to go out there tomorrow. We have large, commodious rooms. It is a cool and pleasant retreat, and I think you will enjoy the change from this hot room to the broad verandas of the Country Club.
Judge Higgins, the Vice-President of this Association for the Middle District of Tennessee, is present, and I will ask him to take the chair during the consideration of the next report.
Judge Higgins :-I am very much obliged to you. (Takes Chair as presiding officer). Gentlemen of the Convention, the first matter on the program is the report of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, by Judge James H. Malone, Chairman.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS. By Hon. JAMES H. MALONE, CHAIRMAN. Twenty years ago, at the meeting of this Association at Chattanooga in the summer of 1893, I read a paper before the Association advocating a new Constitution for Tennessee. I was surprised when the Association took immediate action thereon, and appointed a Committee to further the purposes of the paper, and which had several thousand of the article read, circulated throughout the State.
This movement culminated in an act passed by the legislature in 1897, under which the people voted in August of 1897, but rejecting the plan for a convention.
There was a combination of many powerful influences and political forces arrayed against any change in the organic law; and probably never were the purposes and motives of those interested in a movement of that character, more grossly misrepresented in the press, on the stump and especially by means of pamphlets, and the like, which were circulated in every nook and corner of the State. Having devoted to this purely pro bono publico work, much time and far more money than my means justified, I mentally resolved to leave the further fate of the movement to others, who had more time and money. However, fortune ruled otherwise, for over my very earnest protest I was appointed Chairman of a Committee of 200, appointed by the City of Memphis, the purpose of the Committee being to secure a revision of the Constitution.
Shortly prior to this, on November 26, 1911, at the request of the City Club (of which I was not a member), I had by special request read a paper before it, styled “Why Tennessee Needs a New Constitution.” The Committee of 200 went actively to work and sent out all over the State a large amount of literature to forward the movement, including some twenty thousand (20,000) copies of the article “Why Tennessee Needs a New Constitution,” which is made a part of this report as Appendix “A” hereto.
WORK OF COMMITTEE OF 200.
In the meantime I was appointed Chairman of the State Bar Association Committee on revision of the Constitution, and endeavored to secure a meeting of the other members of the Committee, so as to work in conjunction with the Committee of 200, but was unsuccessful, the members of the Committee living in different parts of the State.
I had appointed Mr. C. C. Hanson, Chairman of a subcommittee of seven, and he did a vast amount of work, as also did Judge R. M. Barton. Mr. R. O. Johnston was Secretary, and H. D. Hughey assistant secretary of the same committee, while Henry Loeb was Chairman of the finance committee.
The work of the Committee has borne good fruit, culminating in the passage of the present legislation (1913) of the two bills, formulated by the Committee of 200, with only some very slight modifications. Those bills were printed by the Committee in pamphlet form and several thousand copies thereof circulated.
In order to lay these bills (now acts of 1913) before the lawyers of Tennessee, they are made a part of this report as Appendix “B”, as they appeared in pamphlet form, preceded by a prefatory report by the sub-committee, which prepared the same.
To State Senator Hubert F. Fisher is due very great credit for the passage of these bills, but unfortunately the bills were not passed before the hegira of a part of the legislature of Tennessee to the State of Kentucky, which leaves the validity of the acts in great doubt, and as Governor Hooper holds that the bills were not legally passed, he will not issue his proclamation, in all probability, calling for the election in August, 1913, as required by the first act.
BILLS DRAWN ON THE OHIO PLAN. These bills were drawn up upon, what for a better term, I will call the Ohio plan, a very conservative State like Tennessee, and I think an explanation of that plan and how it originated, would be of interest.
Ohio came into the Union with her first constitution in 1902, and adopted a new constitution in 1851, containing a provision that every twenty years the people could, under an act for that purpose, vote for a convention to propose a new constitution. Nevertheless it took many years of labor in Ohio to change the constitution of 1851.
In 1874, a convention presided over by Morrison R. Wait, afterwards Chief Justice of the United States, convened, having a very able membership, and a Constitution was formulated, but when submitted to the people to be voted on as a whole, it was rejected on account, it is said, of some unsatisfactory provisions with respect to taxation.
For many years the people of Ohio were unable to get any relief for admitted defects in the organic law, but finally a convention was called, not to write an entirely new constitution, but to formulate amendments to the constitution, all of the amendments to be submitted to a popular vote at one and the same time, but each amendment to be voted on separately by each elector. The convention sat for several month in 1912, and was addressed by President Taft, former President Roosevelt, and the most notable men of the Union; and as a result of their labors they formulated 32 amendments, which were submitted to and voted on by the people, in September, 1912, with the result that of the 32 proposed amendments, eight (8) were rejected and 24 adopted and now constitute a part of the Ohio constitution.
One feature of the Act calling for the convention for which Mr. Judson Harmon was largely responsible, was a provision forbidding nominations of members to the convention by any political party. On the other hand it was provided that any Eligible Citizen, who was called upon by a given percentage of the legal voters of his County, should be recognized as a candidate. The idea was to make this convention as near non-partisan as possible, and in this they were highly successful.