The Editor’s Ba
PROCEDURAL
REFORM _ THE
as
one
might
desire.
Much
Of
the
energy bestowed on the discussion of NEED OF CO-ORDINATION HE subject of the reform of procedure, civil and criminal alike,
has occupied an especially conspicuous place in the discussions of legal bodies and in the pages of legal publications during the past two or three years, if not for longer.
At the present time it is
safe to say that no legal question is more
procedural questions is spent largely in vain, because it is not systematized and co-ordinated. The ablest legal minds in
the country are formulating projects of procedural reform, and somewhere in the limbo of legal thought there exists a
model system of pleading and practice which will some day assume tangible
frequently or more earnestly discussed.
shape. It is by no means certain, how ever, that its materialization will not be
While the press of the country have long been hammering at the legal pro fession to take steps to improve the intolerable conditions from which liti
due more to chance than to concerted effort. The Engineering News is of the opinion that
gation in this country as a whole suffers, certainly the bench and bar
cannot be accused of any failure to realize to the full the need of this great reform. If the administration of justice in this country is “a reproach to civili zation," no one is more aware of that
fact
than the lawyer himself.
Mr. Brandeis ought not to stop his reform proposals with the railways. He has succeeded in focussing the attention of the nation on efi ciency in industrial operation. Now let him grasp a magnificent opportunity and appal to the court of public opinion for the application of efficiency methods in the business of his own profession - the Law.
His
caution in seeking the proper remedies
—remedies which will prove truly effec tive because thought out with due de liberation- must not be mistaken for indifference. The legal profession, as any one may see for himself, is alive to the fact that upon it solely rests the duty of taking the initiative in the re
That the machinery of the law, its rules of procedure, calls for the appli cation of "efiiciency engineering" is a proposition which should find ready en dorsement. We are disposed to think, however, that there is now a more im
While the fact that we are making
portant problem confronting the legal efficiency engineer than that of improve ment of our legal machinery. It is the problem of co-ordinating the agencies which are working to bring about this reform. The machinery by which this
progress is not to be denied, this progress is not as rapid or as definite in r65ults
discussion is carried on needs to be per fected. spasmodic, desultory efforts need
form.
Indeed, it is already acting, and
we are slowly moving toward better things.
