EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT has been City Attorney of Chicago. The others have acted chiefly for plaintiffs or for liability insurance companies. We en deavored to obtain the assistance of practi tioners in all the leading industrial centers of the country including in our list both defendants' lawyers and plaintiffs' lawyers. Unfortunately pressure of other business has prevented many who promised to write from giving us the benefit of their experience, but we are fortunate in being able to publish eight contributions from practical men who are brought in constant contact with the problem they discuss. While most of these are chiefly from the defendant's standpoint, owing to the fact that most of the plaintiff's lawyers whose names were recommended to us declined to discuss the subject, the plain tiff's side is well presented in several of the contributions. Of the suggestions made the following seem most important. Restriction of the liber ties now freely indulged in by unscrupulous attorneys are recommended by Messrs. Taylor, Bryant, and Duane. Mr. Werner even suggests the appointment of attorneys by the court to try cases for poor plaintiffs. Better juries are recommended by Messrs. West, Taylor, Bryant, and Quackenbush. Bolder judges are called for by Mr. Werner and by Mr. Quackenbush. Limitat:on of the amount of damages is recommended by Mr. Taylor. Restriction of appeals is recom mended by Mr. Werner. Mr. West believes in a codification of the law of negligence while Mr. Lightner approves of a workman's com pensation act. It is to be noted that most of these con tributors hesitate to express themselves
229
about a workman's compensation act, and confine themselves to questions of practice. Mr. Bryant, however, calls attention to the failure of the Maryland act and to the pos sible unconstitutionality of such legislation. It is believed, however, that the decision in regard to the Maryland act was due to pecu liarly inapt provisions, and that an effective statute can be prepared within the limits of legislative power which will accomplish all that has been claimed regarding the English act. We"*especially commend to your atten tion the subject of voluntary agreements described by Mr. Werner. Trial lawyers concerned with personal in jury litigation will be especially interested in the numerous practical suggestions con tained in the contributions by Messrs. Quackenbush and Duane. Messrs. Bryant and Quackenbush advocate trying more cases, but Mr. Duane advises trying only cases that can be surely won. With reference to our foreign contributions we need only say that Mr. Crane who has been a frequent contributor to the GREEN BAG in the past, is an American lawyer now practicing in London. M. De Leval is counsel to the United States Consulate General of Brussels. Mr. Conner is associated in prac tice with Sir Thomas Barclay, Paris, and Mr. Boone of Charlottesville, Virginia, has been a resident of Italy for several years. Both of the latter have previously contributed to our pages. We regret that a discussion of the German system of industrial insurance by Justice Muller, which was promised for this issue, did not arrive in time to be included. We hope to be able to publish this in a later number.
