Abbildungen der Seite

other cases will be heard by the court of appeals, and in this manner the labor of the two courts will be divided, and thethousand cases, or more, that are to be disposed of will be dis-posed of, it is believed, with an equal number of cases in each court. In this event, it will be largely to the interest of the public to have two separate courts disposing of separate business at the same time,

The court of appeals is intended to be inexpensive in its arrangements, as far as possible, and it is hoped and believed. that it will be speedy in the disposition of cases.

So far as the cost of the court is concerned, that will be saved many times over to the people in having the law definitely ascertained and settled as a precedent and guide for the future, as well as in the proper determination of the particular case under consideration.

Of course, it must be known that the General Assembly cannot dispose of this matter finally, but it will come before the people, and it will be for them ultimately to declare by their direct votes whether they will adopt this measure or reject it.

This proposed amendment can only reach the people through the intervention of the General Assembly, and the people who feel an interest in this matter, and it is believed that every good citizen does feel an interest in it, should urge their representatives to vote for this measure, so it can be submitted to the people, by whose suffrages alone the proposed remedy can be ingrafted as an amendment upon the Constitution.

To a people numbering now largely more than two millions, active in every commercial enterprise, advancing rapidly along all the best lines of civilization, spreading an influence all over the Union, and determined to hold the State's place as the Empire State of the South, this measure is commended as a


step forward and upward, for the honor and glory of the Comanonwealth of Georgia.

S. B. Adams, First Congressional District.
ARTHUR GRAY POWELL, Second Cong'l District.
E. A. HAWKINS, Third Congressional District.
T. J. CHAPPELL, Fourth Congressional District.
HOKE SMITH, Fifth Congressional District.
MARCUS W. BECK, Sixth Congressional District.
A. L. BARTLETT, Seventh Congressional District.
J. B. Park, Eighth Congressional District.
W. A. CHARTERS, Ninth Congressional District.
W. K. MILLER, Tenth Congressional District.
John W. BENNETT, Eleventh Cong’l District.
Jos. HANSELL MERRELL, State-at-Large.
ORVILLE A. PARK, Secretary.

Committee from the Georgia Bar Association. Very shortly after the convening of the session of the General Assembly in October, 1902, a copy of the bill as finally adopted by the committee, and likewise a copy of the address to the people of Georgia, were laid upon the desk of every member of the General Assembly, both of the House and of the Senate.

The President of the Association had been selected by the committee to take charge of the proposed legislation before the General Assembly, but owing to a sad accident which occurred to him about this time, he was providentially prevented from engaging upon this task, and it fell to the lot of another member of the committee.

Mr. Slaton, of Fulton, was selected to present the measure to the General Assembly, but owing to the crowded condition of business before that body the bill was not reached, and no action

was taken thereon further than a reference to the General Judiciary Committee of the House.

Your committee feels confident that it has presented a bill for the relief of the Supreme Court and of the people of Georgia, which embodies the best thought of the bar of the


This bill was the result of great and earnest labor; it is carefully drawn, it has been maturely considered, and it is believed and hoped that if the plan it offers shall be adopted, great and permanent good will result.

In presenting this report the writer desires to say that all the members of the committee have devoted their time and thought liberally and cheerfully to the accomplishment of the proposed measure for relief. There has been no laggard amongst them. Respectfully submitted.

WASHINGTON DESSAU, for the Committee.






When the Cavalier and the Puritan landed, the one on the banks of the James, and the other at Plymouth Rock, they each brought the common law of England as the great basis upon which to found their institutions. And as in the course of time the scattered settlements along the eastern shore united and spread westward, over the mountains, into the great basin of the Mississippi, across the plains, beyond the back-bone of the continent, and down the slope to the Golden Gate, the common law, first developed in the far away island beyond the seas, was the foundation upon which was builded the jurisprudence of the mighty western giant, whose marvelous growth is the wonder and the admiration of the world. While the common law has thus become the foundation of American jurisprudence, each one of our forty-five States has erected thereon its own particular system, adapted to its own conditions and necessities. The development of these different systems has been in very large measure the work of lawyers. As members of constitutional conventions and general assemblies the making of the laws has been largely in their hands, as governors they have executed them, while as judges and practitioners the interpretation and application both of the common and statute law has been entirely their own. To an American lawyer few subjects can be of more interest or profit than a comparative study of the jurisprudence of the several American commonwealths, the work wrought by the lawyers of America. From this standpoint it becomes an interesting subject of inquiry to know what the lawyers of the several States are doing to develop and perfect the systems which they have established, what defects they find therein, and what measures they are proposing to meet them, what the lawyers, "the trustees of public opinion,” are thinking of. I doubt whether this inquiry can be answered so successfully from any source as from the reports of the thirty-seven State Bar Associations in successful and active operation in the Union.

When we recall the different conditions under which the jurisprudence of the several States has been developed—the comparatively old civilization of the "effete East,” the young, vigorous, though somewhạt erratic, West, the manufacturing and commercial States of the Atlantic seaboard, the agricultural communities of the Gulf Coast and the mining camps of the Rocky mountains, the alien race suddenly made citizens in the South, and the large admixture of foreign blood in the Northwest, the differences of climate, of soil, of pursuits, of political and religious ideas, of history and cherished memories—we might naturally suppose that the problems that confront the lawyers of the respective States and the subjects which engage their attention when they meet for deliberation in the Bar Associations, would be vastly different. On the contrary an examination of the reports discloses a striking similarity of conditions, of thought, of ideal, and does much to increase our faith in the homogeneity of the American people, the solidarity of American institutions, the oneness of the American bar.

Let us look at a few instances. The last session of the

« ZurückWeiter »