Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/114

 The Green Bag

102

Hon. Charles F. Libby, the President for 1909-10 of the

American

Bar

Association,‘

former President of the Senate of the State of ﬂ/Iaine:— At ﬁrst I was appalled at the stupendous nature of the task, but on further considera tion am inclined to think it is feasible, pro

vided it is free from the taint of commercialism, and is undertaken by the best minds in our profession, who are ﬁtted for the work. . . . Such a work, if properly done, would be of priceless value, and as Mr. Carter says, "could proudly dispense with any legislative sanction." It would be its own raison d'etre. . . . My experience since 1895 in the work of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws leads me to express an emphatic concurrence in the statement of Judge Staake‘ that the proposed work “will tend to over come the unfortunate conflicts between the states in matters of commercial law and remedial justice, and hasten that uniformity in both law and procedure so essential to our progress as a nation." The success of the plan demands, of course,

ample ﬁnancial resources; so large that you can only hope of success through appeal to some public-spirited and patriotic member of the "philanthropic phalanx," who can be made to see the great and permanent public value of such a work carried out on the plan you outline. Of the value and importance of the work I have no question, and would most earnestly join in the appeal for an adequate foundation for this practical step in the advancement of the Science of Jurisprudence.

Eon. James Hagermnn, of the Missouri Bar, President of the American Bar Association 1903—4:— I cannot state too strongly that I approve the plan and method of your proposed work, and hope that you will be able to accomplish it. It is much needed, and no doubt will be the basis for future works that will develop, simplify and bring within the reach of all who study jurisprudence and enforce its pre cepts the entire body of American Law. It will be better than a mere legislative code, and will rank among the great practical codes of civilized countries. "' See p. 83, supra.

Hon. U. M. Rose of Arkansas, former Presi dent American Bar Association, and Repre

sentati'ue of the United States at the last Hagua Conference:— I am in hearty sympathy with your plan; and I approve it in all its details. The gentlemen relied on to carry it into execu tion enjoy in the highest degree the respect and conﬁdence of the profession; and I am of the opinion that the selection could not be improved on. The work ought to have been done long ago. The state of the law at present is a disgrace to our profession. Hon. Frederick W. Lohmann, President for 1908-9 of the American Bar Association :— The desirability of such a work and its necessity to a proper administration of the law are obvious, You and Messrs. Kirchwey and Andrews can judge better than I whether the work can be done on a commercial basis. However this may be, it should nevertheless

be undertaken, and I know of nothing which will better justify ﬁnancial aid on the part of some public-spirited citizens. Francis Rawle, Esq., of the Philadelphia Bar, President American Bar Association 1902-03; editor Bou'vier's Law Dictionary:—— The subject is so vast that it is diﬂicult to grasp it. That such a work, well done, would be of inestimable value to the profession and to the community, is clear.

I confess that

my experience has sometimes led me to doubt whether it can be done in an authorita tive way. Whatever Justinian put into his compilation became law; and whatever he omitted ceased to be law. This simple and effective method would be lacking here. We can, however, assume that something must be done, and I have no doubt that the work, if done along the lines you indicate,

would be immensely better than anything that has heretofore been done, and would be not only of great use to the profession and the country, but would surely tend to bring about an increased uniformity of law throughout the country.

The Supreme Court of the United States is now deciding a large number of the most im portant constitutional and general questions that affect the whole country. On most of these questions their rulings are controlling. This creates uniformity on those questions, but we may hope for more than that; it probably tends to impress upon the Bar and the Bench the vital importance of uniformity