APPENDIX M. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE LAW Mr. President: The present chairman of the Committee on Interstate Law had the honor to occupy the same position eleven years ago. when, at the annual meeting of this Association at Warm Springs, Georgia, he submitted a report in July, 1897. To save repetition, reference must now be made to that report, because it contained the information necessary then and necessary now to a correct understanding and appreciation of the functions of this committee and the interest it is charged to promote. These are expressed in the by-law defining the Committee, as follows: "A Committee on Interstate Law, who shall be charged with the duty of bringing to the attention of the Association such action as shall be proposed by the American Bar Association, looking to the promotion of greater uniformity in the laws of the several States on subjects of common interest; and of suggesting propositions looking to the same end, and, where such action is favored by the Association, to bring the same to the attention of the General Assembly, and to endeavor to secure the adoption of the legislation so recommended." Colonel Peter W. Meldrim, of the Savannah bar, is a member of the American Bar Association and also the Georgia representative in the allied organization known as the "Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws." These connections of his render of special interest his reports to this Association, as chairman of this same Committee, which position he has occupied several terms. Indeed there has been commendable diligence in the matter of committee reports on this subject from year to year. It seems however that but little progress has been made in procuring coöperative legislation on the part of Georgia. At last year's session of this Association Mr. Alston of the Atlanta bar reported that a special committee on the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Bill had arranged for its introduction at the ensuing June session, 1907, of our Legislature. We cannot report further in regard thereto except that it has not become a law. The Seventeenth Annual Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws was held at Portland, Maine, in August, 1907. This commission has already perfected uniform bills on the subjects of Negotiable Instruments, Sales and Warehouse Receipts, which have been adopted and enacted into law in many States, the Negotiable Instruments Bill in a great majority of the States. The Commission is now engaged in perfecting bills on the subjects of Partnerships, Bills of Lading, Certificates of Stock, and Divorce. Uniformity of law on the subject of marriage and divorce was taken up by President Roosevelt in his message of January 30, 1905. As a result, a national congress on the subject convened at Washington, D. C., February 19, 1906. Georgia was represented under gubernatorial appointment by Messrs. Denny of Rome, Goetchius of Columbus, and Williams of Dublin. An adjourned meeting was held in Philadelphia, December, 1906. The result was a proposed uniform statute on the subject of annulment of marriage and divorce. It is very noticeable and was a matter of comment at the time that the recommended statute more nearly approximated the law of Georgia than of any other State. From a cursory, but by no means critical consideration of other proposed uniform statutes, it seems that they do not greatly differ from the law as administered in Georgia. This can only be due to the well recognized common sense and conservatism that have always characterized the legislative and judicial departments of our State government in the exercise of their respective functions. Georgia has not been very active in coöperation with this uniformity movement. While, by legislative resolution in 1891 commissioners have been appointed, yet no money whatever has ever been authorized or appropriated for the cause, nor have any of the proposed uniform bills ever been enacted in Georgia, although they have become the law in many of the other States of the Union. We are not prepared to criticize this State on this account. The conditions here may be owing to a commendable indisposition to make sweeping or radical changes, if any changes at all, in well settled commercial law especially. It is also possible that the laws of Georgia, as constructed by its courts, do not need the remedial legislation proposed by the "Uniform bills." This is a work, however, which should commend itself to the State as well as to the Bar Association. By liberal contributions by other States as well as by commercial organizations interested in the subject matter, the National Conference of Commissioners seems to be supplied with funds which are wisely expended in the preparation as well as propagation of the work. This Committee acknowledges its obligations to Professor Samuel Williston of Harvard University, who has drafted several of the proposed uniform bills for the Conference, and to Charles Thaddeus Terry, Esq., 100 Broadway, New York, Secretary of the Conference, for information connected with the work. The printed records sent to us by Mr. Terry will be delivered by us to the Secretary of this Association. Respectfully submitted, THOS. J. CHAPPELL, Chmn. WRIGHT WILLINGHAM. APPENDIX N. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCA TION AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR. Mr. President: The last report made by this Committee was at the session of 1906. The subject that this Committee deals with is of high importance to the bar and to the general public. It may be stated that the lawyers, more than the members of any other profession or class, think for the public, mould public opinion, direct the making of the laws upon which all must depend for the blessings of good government, and act as the chief instruments of the law in protecting and preserving the rights of the people. The people expect the lawyers to be learned and wise. They are inclined, naturally, to believe that the members of the bar are much above the average citizen in knowledge. The lawyer is supposed to be a student. The public's idea is that he is or ought to be able to give good advice on most all questions that involve the rights of individuals or the general welfare. Even if it is true that a certain prejudice may be aroused against the lawyers in times of political agitation, still it is the fact that the people are inclined to look up to lawyers, as a rule as safe and proper leaders. Whatever may be thought of the custom in Georgia of calling a lawyer "Colonel," it is an illustration of the disposition on the part of the public to exalt the members of our profession. The lawyers therefore should measure up to the standard placed for them. This will be found impossible unless they are well educated men. There need be no fear that the general public will look with disfavor on a system that will insure actual learning on the part of the members of the bar. The laws regulating admission to the bar were so loose, until a few years ago, that it was easy for an applicant to gain a license to practice law, when he might have little of the really necessary qualifications to become a lawyer. Much of whatever discredit that has been visited on the profession may be traced to this fact. Great improvement has been made in this regard within the past few years. The credit for this improvement must be given to the efforts of this Association. The Association will have to cause further improvement, if improveThe present system inaugurated by the General Assembly at the instance of this Association is worthy of high commendation. The Association should keep the subject constantly before its members and insist on further improvements. The requirements for admission to the bar should be made to advance rapidly in strictness, both as to the mental equipment and moral character of the applicants, until the system is equal, at least, to the requirements fixed by the laws of such States as New York and Ohio. ment occurs. We believe that a thorough academic education is a necessary foundation for admission to the bar, if the applicant is to become a worthy member of the profession. There are very few exceptions to the rule that no man can become a good lawyer who has not had ample training in a literary school. Every applicant should be possessed of a good English education, and should be a graduate certainly from some reputable high school, even if he has not a college diploma, or, if he has not been able to take one or the other of the suggested courses, he should be able to show himself as well versed as the graduate of such a high school. Such a showing may be easily made to the Board of Examiners, if the applicant has acquired the necessary knowledge in another way. More than ever, to-day, the successful lawyer wins most of his cases in his office. The gift of oratory is of but little value in the trial of a complicated civil case. We believe that this Association should go on record as strongly recommending to young men who aspire to the bar, that they should not only first prepare themselves with a thorough academic education, but should also, when possible. |