The bill creating a Board of Jury Commissioners was approved.

The bill creating the office of court stenographer was next considered and, upon motion, action on same was postponed.

It was moved by Thomas H. Cooke, and seconded by S. A. Champion, that the association non-concur in that portion of the report of the committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure proposing a bill allowing stenographers to take depositions without requiring the same to be signed by the witness, and that this subject be referred to the incoming committee, with a request to present a bill allowing stenographers to take depositions, provided that the depositions be signed by the witness after the same had been reduced to writing or typewritten by the stenographer. This motion was carried. Robert Lusk, of Nashville, then introduced the following resolution:

Whereas, it has come to the knowledge of this association that a practice is growing up in Tennessee among certain members of the legal profession, of soliciting business through various agents-particularly damage suits and criminal cases, sought for and worked up by the detectives, drummers or spotters; and,

Whereas, this association is of the opinion that such pra tices do not comport with the dignity and ethics of the profession; and,

Whereas, further, such practices do not further the administration of justice nor any public interest; therefore be it

Resolved (1). That we, the Bar Association of Tennessee, unqualifiedly condemu such practices, and that it is the sense of this association that no person engaging in such practices is eligible to membership in this association.

(2). That the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure be directed to investigate the extent and character of said practices and report the result of their investigation at the next meeting, and also what means should be adopted for the suppression of the same.

Upon motion this resolution was referred to the Committee on Grievances.

The next order of business was a paper read by William L. Frierson, of Chattanooga entitled "Some Needed Reforms in Jury Trials." (Sec Appendix.)

S. A. Champion, of Nashville, moved that no funds of the association should be devoted to defraying the expenses of the banquets of the association. This motion was considered in connection with the following report of the Central Council: Additional report of the Central Council of the Bar Associa tion of Tennessee.

The Central Council having considered the various propositions for change of the constitution and by-laws, beg leave to submit the following report:

We recommend that the following amendments be made by proper substitution of words as proposed.

1. Reduce the admission fee and annual dues from five to three dollars, and charge no dues for the first year.

2. Reduce the salary of the secretary and treasurer from two hundred ($200) to one hundred ($100) per annum.

3. Allow the interim election of members by the Central Council on the recommendation of a Local Council.

4. Forbid the use of association funds for banquets or other entertainments of members.

5. The proposition to allow the Central Council to fix the annual meetings at any time in the year is not approved by the Council.

6. Strike out Section 6 of Article VII. of the By-Laws.

7. Admit all chancellors and judges of the superior courts in the State as honorary members of the association without fees or dues.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY H. INGERSOLL, Chairman.

The recommendations were considered seriatim. Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were concurred in. Item 2 was non-concurred in.

The association then adjourned.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

July 19, 1900.

The first feature of the programme was a paper read by Walter S. Faulkner, of Lebanon, entitled "The Police Power." (See Appendix.

A "Biographical Sketch of Gen. William Cullom," was then read by James Walter Young, of Clinton. (See appendix.) Upon motion, Hon. John H. Savage was elected an honorary member of the association for life.

The chairman of the committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, not being present, and no report being sent, a general discussion followed on the topic. At the conclusion, a committee composed of S. A. Champion, A. W. Chambliss, William L. Frierson, D. K. Young and E. T. Seay was appointed to report on the character and standing of the Nashville College of Law. The association then adjourned.

THIRD DAY.

Friday, July 20, 1900.

The association met at 11 a.m., President Welcker in the chair.

The president announced the presence of Gov. Benton McMillin and requested the Governor to occupy a seat on the platform.

The first order of business was a paper read by E. T. Seay, of Gallatin, entitled "Should Public Policy Be Developed by Judicial Construction?" (See appendix.)

Next followed the report of the committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, read by the chairman of the Committee, James S. Pilcher, of Nashville. The report is as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JURISPRUDENCE AND

LAW REFORM.

To the Bar Association of Tennessee:

Upon examination of the annual reports to this association by the committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, so much valuable work appears to have been done, and so many valuable suggestions made, that anything like a general or exhaustive report at this time, appears inappropriate.

Without any reference to what has heretofore been said by the predecessors of this committee, it is believed to be best to single out one matter which most needs reform.

In the practical administration of the law in Tennessee that which seems to your committee to be most unscientific and most in need of correction is the manner of charging juries in civil cases.

In Tennessee, it is the rule to charge the jury after the attorneys have made their arguments to the jury. In many of the States, as in Virginia, which touches our eastern border, Kentucky, which touches our northern border, Arkansas, on the west, and Mississippi, on the south, it is the rule to fix the charge to the jury and place the same in the hands of the attorneys before their arguments of the case before the juries.

At the last meeting of this association, the chairman of your present committee had the honor to read a paper on this subject, which is printed in the minutes of 1899. For the reasons set forth in that paper, which is made a part of this report, your committee recommends the practice in this respect be changed, either with or without legislative act.

In the article referred to. the statutes of several of the States on the subject are copied, and your committee is of the opinion that any of those statutes are substantially satisfactory. It is not deemed necessary to accompany this report with copies of those statutes, as they are already printed in the minutes of our last meeting.

Great interest was taken in the discussion of this question

at our last meeting. One member who took part in the discussion had practiced a number of years in Tennessee under the old rule, thereby having all of his original bent in favor of the old rule, and afterward moved West, where the new rule prevailed; another member practiced first in Mississippi, under the new rule, and then came to Tennessee; a third member, who lived in Bristol, had all the while practiced under both rules, under the old in Tennessee and under the new in Virginia. All three concurred in the belief that to those who have practiced under both rules the question is not debatable, and that the only scientific practice is to fix the charge of the Court before the argument of the attorneys.

Therefore, this committee most earnestly recommends that this association take such steps as will secure legislation on this subject at the next session of the General Assembly.

JAMES S. PILCHER, Chairman.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JURISPRUDENCE AND LAW REFORM.

Charging the Jury Before or After the Argument of Counsel.

JAMES S. PILCHER.

In jury trials of civil cases, should the argument of attorneys to the jury upon the facts precede the charge of the court to the jury, or should the law of the case, in whole or in part, be fixed by the court before the argument, and placed in possession of attorneys, with the right to use the same during the argument?

The old practice is for attorneys to close their argument of law to the court, and of fact and the application of the law to the facts to the jury, before the charge of the court. This practice still prevails in more than half the States of the United States, but in a large number the rule has been adopted of charging the jury before the argument. This is an evidence of the value of the modern rule. While there has been a strong tendency to change in the direction of the new rule, perhaps