Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/298

 286 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

their judgments and decisions the German courts do not give the names of the parties.

It is difficult for an English or American lawyer to appreciate the simplicity of the rules of evidence in Germany, or rather the absence of those rules which are famil- iar to us, though we may not always know them, and which cause so many mistrials and appeals. Hearsay evidence is received. A witness may state his conclusions and may give his reasons for such conclusions. Documents of all kinds are admitted without proof. In certain cases where a witness may not be sworn, his unsworn testi- mony may be taken and considered. A useful provision seems to me to be that which requires the court, before administering an oath to the witness, to point out to him in a proper manner the importance of such oath. Each witness must be examined sepa- rately and in the absence of other witnesses thereafter to be examined. The theory of evidence is that the court is to ascertain the truth without regard to technical rules. The German parties may not call expert witnesses. The court determines whether the testimony or the opinion of experts is required and then appoints such experts. If a man has committed crimes other than the crime with which he is charged, that is deemed material. With us evidence of the other crimes is excluded.

Civil causes are not tried by juries. The jury, on the trial of a criminal case, con- sists of twelve members. Assistant jurymen may take the place of jurymen-in-chief who, after becoming members of the jury, are prevented from further service. If the verdict of the jury is unfavorable to the accused, it must state that if was found by more than seven votes ; if the jury find there are no extenuating circumstances, the jury must state that this was found by more than six votes. In other respects, it must not be stated how the vote stood.

The law of inheritance makes no distinction between real property and personal property. The transfer of real property in Germany is as easy as that of personal property.

The courts and authorities in Germany provide greater legal aid than our courts. No citizen of Germany will hesitate to apply for legal aid. He does so as a matter of right. If he has a legal claim in any foreign land, he will apply to th* foreign office, expecting to receive, and receiving, aid and advice. The German consulates through- out the world are largely engaged in giving such aid to their countrymen. The idea of legal aid as a charity is of German origin. We all know what a noble charity the Legal Aid Society in New York has become. It was formerly a German society designed to aid German poor only. Its example is being followed in other cities in the United States.

German law impresses the student as being more popular than the law of Eng- land or of the United States, because it is less technical and theoretical. The Ameri- can lawyer may learn many lessons from a study of German law. To those of us who favor a codification of substantive law and believe it to be feasible and desirable for this country, what a great example it is ! The German empire, comprising twenty-six states, with a population of fifty-six millions, has, within twenty-nine years from its birth, achieved a popular and scientific codification of its entire private law for all its citizens. Its administration of justice is speedy and successful, owing to the compara- tively small bulk of its law, the numerous trained judges whom it employs, the absence of jury trials in civil causes, and the comparative simplicity of its law of procedure. Condensed from a paper read before the last convention of the New York State Bar Association by RUDOLF DULON, ESQ., of New York city, and published in the Ameri- can Law Re-view for July-August, 1902.

R. M.

The Maryland Workmen's Compensation Act. The General Assembly of Maryland during its recent session passed an act for the co-operative insurance of employees engaged in certain dangerous occupations against injuries resulting in death. While the law is confessedly tentative and narrowly restricted in its scope, it is noteworthy because it introduces a new principle into American labor legislation. In the United States attention has been given heretofore to modifying the common law rules as to negligence. The Maryland act goes further, and, following the lines marked out by foreign legislation, provides for the indemnification of all injuries resulting in death, irrespective of cause. It is recognized that the burden of the trade