Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/677

 526

THE GREEN BAG

"Such writ of error in criminal cases shall only be allowed by a judge of the Circuit Court and shall not issue until he has certified that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant was unjustly convicted."— 29 Stat. 492; i U. S. Comp. Stat. 549. "No writ of error returnable to the Supreme Court shall be issued in any criminal case, unless a justice of the Supreme Court shall certify that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant was unjustly convicted." — 26 Stat. 827; 29 Stat. 492; i U. S. Comp. Stat. 549. All of these amendments tend to restrict the right to appeal for trivial reasons, and accord with the prevailing opinion of the profession. The remaining amendment recommended by the committee seemed somewhat more radical, and aroused much discussion, based apparently on a misapprehension as to the effect of the clause as now phrased. The proposed amend ment reads as follows: "The trial judge shall, in all cases, submit to the jury the issues of fact arising upon the pleadings, reserving any questions of law aris ing in the case for subsequent argument and decision, and he, and any court to which the case shall thereafter be taken on writ of error, shall have power to direct judgment to be entered for either party non obstante veredicto."—i U. S. Comp. Stat. 525. It was, therefore, re-committed for further consideration. It is said, however, that Penn sylvania has recently adopted a statute simi larly worded, which has proved entirely sat isfactory in its operation. Although it is really a reversion to old common law practice, it differs so much from the modern practice to which we are accustomed that it may be well that it should be given further consideration, and that the meaning of the clause should be made unmistakeable. The work of this important

committee commences auspiciously, and it is to be hoped that a busy Congress may be stimulated by it to commence a sensible simpli fication of our antiquated and expensive federal judicial machinery. The annual dinner was held on Friday evening, at the New Washington Hotel where the meetings had been conducted and owing to the excessive length of some of the afterdinner speeches, the purpose of which the authors had evidently mistaken, was prolonged to a late hour. The speeches of Congress man Cushman of Tacoma, and of Mr. Woods of Portland, Oregon, with the admirably brief address of the incoming president, Mr. Lehmann, and the charming speech of Mr. Bedwell, the representative of the British Columbia Bar, were of a high order. A pleasant feature of the dinner was the presentation to the energetic treasurer, Mr. Wadhams, of a loving cup by Judge Crosby of Iowa, on behalf of the members of the association and their guests, who enjoyed the delightful journey by special train through the Canadian Mountains on their way to the meetings, for the comforts and conveniences of which they were indebted to Mr. Wadhams and his faithful assistants. At the close of the meetings, many members enjoyed a two-days excursion by steamer on Puget Sound, to Victoria, B. C. Here the party were guests of the lawyers of British Columbia. They were met by carriages and taken for a drive through the capital of the Province. In the evening an informal reception enlivened by singing and speechmaking closed the festivities. On the following Monday, those who were returning through Portland, Oregon, were most hospitably enter tained by the members of the Bar in that city at the Commercial Club.