Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/450

This page needs to be proofread.


American Bar Association observation that no charge of triteness could be brought against it. It con tained a moderate, impartial estimate of the relative merits of an appointive and an elective judiciary, which must have elicited hearty approval from law yers not only in states where the appoin tive system prevails, but from perhaps a majority of the others who heard it. It was none the less valuable for some of its minor suggestions as to how the char acter of appointive judges may be im proved, and as to what particular short comings the federal judges especially need to be on their guard against. Judge Taft's views were fortified by the adverse recommendations of the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform [on the subjects of short judi cial tenure and popular election of judges. That popular indifference toward the fundamental principles enunciated by Judge Taft and the dangers of the Judi cial Recall are easily underestimated was made clear by the Committee to Oppose the Judicial Recall, which has distributed a great deal of literature on the subject during the past year and has waged as active a crusade against the panaceas as it could with facilities at its command. Besides being adopted in Oregon and California by constitu tional amendment, the recall of judges has been made a constitutional provision by Arizona and Nevada. Kansas and Minnesota have voted to submit it as a constitutional amendment for adoption by the people. Colorado has adopted constitutional amendments for both the recall of judges and the recall of judicial decisions. But "it is a mistake to assume that the agitation has not become a serious one east of the Mississippi. It has already grown up strong, although without as yet sufficient strength for adoption, in the legislatures of

Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, states."

423 and other

Procedural Reform The Association, which is doubtless the most active agency in the country at work for the improvement of judicial procedure, shows that notwithstanding legislative apathy it is pressing steadily onward toward the goal. The most im portant project now being promoted by the Association is the needed reform of procedure on the law side of the federal courts. This matter first came up at last year's meeting, when the Com mittee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure reported favorably on Thomas W. Shelton's resolution look ing to the passage by Congress of legis lation empowering the Supreme Court to formulate and promulgate a uniform model system in the same way as has been done for the equity side of the federal courts. The Association then created a new committee, known as the Committee on Uniform Judicial Proce dure, to work for the passage of this legislation. This committee, of which Mr. Shelton is chairman, now reports that the proposed legislation has been introduced in Congress. But the committee has not been satis fied to look solely to Congress for im provement in this direction; it has chosen this year to bring the subject directly before the state courts, by inviting the presiding justices of all the highest state tribunals to meet with it at Montreal with the object of bringing about "uniformity in judicial procedure among the states through fixed inter state judicial relations just as there are now fixed interstate commercial rela tions." The result was the convening of one of the most impressive and unique assemblies ever brought together. This conference of presiding justices, the first