« AnteriorContinuar »
Wednesday Evening, 8 o'clock. Luke P. Poland, Chairman of the General Council, reported that the Council recommended for admission certain persons as members of the Association, who were duly elected.
(See List of Members Elected, at the end of the Minutes of Proceedings.)
The next business in order is a paper by Andrew Allison, of Nashville, Tennessee, on “The Rise and Probable Decline of Private Corporations in America.”
Mr. Allison then read his paper. (See Appendix.)
The second paper of the evening will now be read by Alexander Porter Morse, of Washington, on “The Citizen in Relation to the State."
Mr. Morse then read his paper.
The next business in order, according to the programmepermissible at least—is a discussion upon the subjects of the papers read. The meeting is open, under this, for any discussion that may arise.
James O. Broadhead, of Missouri, said:
I think it rather too late and rather too warm to discuss any questions arising from the very interesting papers that we have heard, and I move, therefore, that we adjourn. I suppose the discussion can be taken up at any other time.
Simon Sterne, of New York, seconded the motion.
o'clock. I am compelled to state to the Association that I am summoned, on a matter from which I cannot get away, to the City of New York to-morrow, and that the duties of the Presidency to-morrow will be performed by one of the Vice Presidents, who will be called to take my place. I hope to return, however, and to be with the Association again on Friday morning.
The Association then adjourned.
Thursday morning, August 21. Luke P. Poland, of Vermont, called the meeting to order at 10.30 o'clock, and said:
Rufus King, Vice President for the State of Ohio, will preside to-day in the absence of the President, Mr. Parker.
Mr. King took the chair, and said:
Before proceeding with our regular programme, there is some routine business which the Executive Committee desire to lay before the Association.
Luke P. Poland :
Mr. Chairman, the General Council recommend certain gentlemen for admission to membership in the Association.
The names having been read they were all duly elected. (See List of Members Elected, at the end of the Minutes.) The Chairman said:
The regular procedure in the order of our business this morning is the Annual Address, to be delivered by the Honorable John F. Dillon, of New York. It is quite unnecessary, gentlemen, that I should offer any preface for Judge Dillon. I have the honor of presenting him.
Mr. Dillon then delivered the Annual Address. (See Appendix.)
Ignatius C. Grubb, of Delaware:
I would move, sir, that the heartiest thanks of this Association be tendered to Judge Dillon for his valuable and most eloquent address this day delivered.
S. O. Griswold, of Ohio:
That motion is not in order. There is a provision in the Constitution against any such vote.
Luke P. Poland:
The motion that is made is one that we should all be most happy to vote for. It has never happened, but it might happen to us that we should be asked to pass such a resolution as that, which might be distasteful to some of us, and so we have a provision in our Constitution against it.
B. A. Willis, of New York :
I desire to submit a motion which I think is in order, and it is this: That the valuable suggestions contained in the address of Judge Dillon receive the commendation of this body.
S. O. Griswold, of Ohio:
B. A. Willis, of New York:
I press my motion, and I ask that it be carried by unanimous consent.
The motion of Mr. Willis was adopted.
It is usual at this time to announce the names of visiting delegates from different state organizations.
From Georgia—Henry Jackson, Thomas J. Simmons, R. F. Lyon.
From Tennessee-J. M. Dickinson, J. C. Bradford, M. M. From Missouri–Henry Hitchcock, Charles L. Davison, Edward R. Turner.
From the District of Columbia-Henry Wise Garnett, Alexander Porter Morse, F. P. Cuppy.
From Texas—Richard J. Walker.
The Chairman :
The report of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform is now in order.
Wm. Allen Butler, of New York, Chairman of that committee, said:
During the past year we have continued our efforts in regard to the passage of the two acts which were approved by the Association, relating to the acknowledgment of deeds, and to divorce. The acts as recommended by the Association have been, through the medium of the Local Councils, communicated to the legislatures of every state represented in the Association ; and, as reported last year, Missouri passed the act in relation to divorce, precisely as recommended by the Association. Minnesota passed the act in relation to the acknowledgment of deeds. Various statutes have been passed in the states in reference to acknowledgments of deeds, simplifying the methods, some of which, I think, have been aided by the action of the Association. Owing to the fact mentioned by the President yesterday, that in so many of the states the legislatures have not been in session this year, we are not able to make a full report, but shall hope to do so at the next Annual Meeting. Meantime we have put ourselves in communication with the legislatures of every state represented in the Association to accomplish the end proposed.
At the last meeting a paper was read by Judge Thompson, on the abuse of the writ of liabeas corpus. That will be found at page 243 of the Report of last year. That paper was referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform. The committee have considered the subject, and, for the convenience of the Association, their report has been printed, and is on the table for distribution. I do not propose, as the report is in print, to trouble the Association with reading it entirely, but it may be convenient that I should call the attention of the Association to the leading points. Judge Thompson pointed out four classes of the abuses of the writ of habeas corpus, as follows:
1. The federal courts have sought to control the exercise of certain important functions of the federal executive.
2. State courts have attempted to subject the executive department of their own state to judicial control.
3. State courts have attempted to interfere with functions of the federal executive.
4. Federal courts and state courts have “attacked each other's processes and opened each other's prisons.
As these abuses consist in the improper exercise of judicial powers, it is obvious that there are but two remedies which can be applied.
I. That the Courts themselves should be brought to recognize the existence of the abuses, and should voluntarily recede from the positions which have led to them; and
II. Legislation—both federal and state.
We submit that the most important class of cases in which the interference of the federal courts has arisen, embraces those arising under the extradition treaties.
The scheme of extradition, as expressed in the provisions of the act of Congress of August 12, 1848, contemplates (briefly) four stages in the process, viz., the issuing of the warrant by the judge or commissioner, the hearing before such judge or commissioner, the return of the testimony to the state department, and the order for the surrender of the prisoner by the secretary of state.