Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

patient. He must not be discouraged because he cannot accomplish what he desires. He may be in advance of his day, and it may be that he will not be spared to see finally the superstructure for which he has partially laid the foundation.

An apt illustration in our own State of the truth of what I have said is Andrew J. Miller's work for law reform in regard to married women's rights. He became impressed with the injustice of the common-law rule in regard to married women's property. He was a State Senator from a county when each county had its own senator, and he introduced what was known as the married women's law in the form of a bill, as I understand, thirty times into the General Assembly. He met with great opposition at first. He encountered the opposition of the conservatism of the bar, which I am glad does exist, because some of us are inclined to be a little too radical and it is well to have conservative men to restrain us when the appropriate time arrives. He encountered the traditions of the past, but, as the years progressed, he made an impression upon the opinions of people, and with every recurring General Assembly the vote in favor of the law increased. During one session of the legislature, the bill had passed the House, and upon a poll of the Senate Mr. Miller ascertained that it lacked only one vote necessary to pass it in the Senate. It all depended upon the vote of one senator from a rural district, and Mr. Miller, with that earnestness which he had shown in regard to this matter, leaving no stone unturned, requested an interview with this senator at the hotel in Milledgeville to discuss the question with him before the vote next day, which privilege the senator gave him. Mr. Miller went over the bill with the senator with all his resourcefulness of argument, and after an interview of an hour and a half to two hours, the senator, having listened apparently with intense interest and having up to that time not uttered a word, Mr. Miller said, "Senator, what do you think about it?" "Well, squire," replied the senator, in a laconic way, "I'm agin' yer bill." He met defeat at that time when he had accomplished his reform within one vote. Mr. Miller never

lived to see the married woman's law become the law of the State, but his works did follow him, and the time came when the people of Georgia were so impressed with the justice of that which he had so long contended for, that the married woman's law became a part of the Constitution of the State, so that it could be free from the tampering hands of the General Assembly.

I am preaching to myself as well as to you. I sometimes get impatient when I get interested in things I want to see pushed through; but in these great matters involving government we must not get impatient. We must not be disappointed if our eyes close before we see the results of whatever work we are doing, and we must not be mean, and selfish, and want the glory to ourselves of a great reform. It is immaterial whose name goes into history connected with a reform, provided the reform is made. In our littleness sometimes we feel that, if we cannot accomplish these things, we do not desire them to go through under the name of other people; but we must restrain that weakness in our nature. We should do what we can in our day and generation to bring about for those of us who live the best results; but do not think only of your own day. Work in order to bring about the best results for your children and your children's children. I have no doubt there are some men within the sound of my voice, among the younger men that I am now addressing, who have never heard of James G. Burney. Who was the great emancipator? Who has gone into the world's history as the great emancipator? We all know it is Abraham Lincoln; but, if James G. Burney had not made three races for the Presidency of the United States as the anti-slavery candidate of a comparatively insignificant political party, Abraham Lincoln never would have gone into history as the great emancipator of slaves. James G. Burney is lost in obscurity, and he was a true reformer, although our forefathers looked upon him with distrust upon this subject which divided our country. But he was a true and honest reformer. He did his work in his day, and if he could speak out to-day from the grave where he is buried

(and we do not know where he is buried), he would say that he is glad the slaves were freed, and that he has no complaint to make that the credit is given to Abraham Lincoln. I could go on, my friends, indefinitely with illustrations in regard to this thing, but I have said enough. I want to detain you a minute longer, however.

The Secretary has placed in my hands since I prepared the report of the Commission two pamphlets. One of them is the second draft of a State-wide Judicature Act by the American Judicature Society. I do not want to delay you to read from that pamphlet, but there is a great deal of interesting matter in it. The other is a report of a Committee of the Mississippi State Bar Association on the subject of the progress of the perfecting of the judicial system of that State. It is possible that for future thought some portions of this pamphlet might be incorporated into our minutes for this year, but that is a matter which can be left to the discretion of the Secretary. There is a very complete judicial system outlined in this work, based, to some extent, upon the English system of one high court of judicature of different divisions, embracing an appellate division, but the English system is not followed exclusively, and in some respects it has to be adapted to our conditions. In its general outline it seems to be a perfect system, but whether at any time in the near future the radical changes which are suggested in it will be perfected I do not know.

I do not believe that the Constitution of a State ought to deal with many details. Now, if I were going to draft the Article of the Constitution on the judicial department, which I am not going to be allowed to do, I know, here is what I would put in the Constitution:

Section 1. The judicial power of the State of Georgia shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the General Assembly may, from time to time, establish.

Sec. 2. The judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall be appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall hold their offices for such terms as may be fixed by law and shall receive for

their services compensation to be fixed by law which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Sec. 3. The judicial power of the State of Georgia shall extend to all cases in law and equity except where exclusive jurisdiction is vested under the Constitution of the United States in the courts of the United States.

Sec. 4. The Supreme Court shall have such original and appellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law.

Sec. 5. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the county where the crime was committed, but the General Assembly may provide for a change of venue in any case where the interests of justice demand.

Sec. 6. The trial of civil cases shall be held in the county where the defendant resides, provided in cases where there are one or more defendants the trial may be held in the county of the residence of any one or more of the defendants against whom substantial relief is prayed.

Sec. 7. The General Assembly may by law vest the appointment of inferior judges in the judges of the Supreme Court, or in such agencies of the Government as they may determine.

That's all I would put in the Constitution. Now of course you recognized, as I read, that I have taken a great deal from the Constitution of the United States. Now why are the people of Georgia not willing to make a Constitution. broad like that, and why was it that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was willing to make the Constitution regarding this department as broad as it was? In one case it was a case of confidence and trust, and in the other case it is a case of want of confidence and distrust. I do not want to indulge in any extravagant remarks, but the older I grow the more I am impressed with the fact that the wisest body of men that ever assembled in this country, possibly in any country, was that convention which contained the framers of the Constitution of the United States. They did not encumber the Constitution with details either, and they used language that was elastic. And the absence of details from the Constitution of the United States, and the elasticity of the language

used by that Convention, are the reasons why our institutions have lived for over a hundred years, and are the reasons why it has been unnecessary to adopt many amendments to that Constitution.

I believe we ought to build up a condition of affairs where we can have confidence in our public men. The framers of the Constitution of the United States had confidence in the men who were to be the public men of the State, and left to them the working out of the details of Government with simply a general plan outlined in the fundamental law. I believe that if you impress a public officer sufficiently with a sense of responsibility, he will generally measure up to the responsibility imposed upon him; but if you continually say of a public officer that he is not to be trusted, and that you will tie his hands by having a Constitution so that he cannot do anything except in a narrow and contracted path, he will not measure up to the responsibility. I know that the cynic and the wag may say, "Are you willing to trust the Georgia Legislature with these great matters ?" Sometimes legislative bodies will fail you; sometimes we fail ourselves, and we can not pass harsh judgment upon people's failures, because a man who is honest with himself cannot preserve even in his own reflections to himself a perfect record. I believe we have got just as great men in this day and generation as ever lived, if they had the opportunity and if responsibility were cast upon them. We all know that we had great men in the past. I have often been asked the question since I have been a man of mature years, "Do you believe there are in Georgia as great men as in the past?" and I have always answered, "Yes, I do." Those of us living have the same blood and traditions and aspirations as those who have preceded us, and I believe the only thing necessary for the men of Georgia to show that there are as great men in Georgia as ever lived in Georgia is to pile responsibility upon their shoulders, and let it be known that they will be held responsible for the great trusts placed in their hands. Give them the opportunity to do so, and you will see develop in Georgia as great men as

« ZurückWeiter »